The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-22-2013, 10:02 AM   #1
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,650
Default Zimmerman murder trial news and updates

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/us...call.html?_r=0


While jurors in Mr. Zimmerman’s second-degree-murder trial, which will open here Monday, may get to hear the recording in court, they will not hear the opinions of two audio experts for the prosecution about who the screamer is, or is not. One concluded that the voice was not Mr. Zimmerman’s; the other said it was very likely Mr. Martin’s.

In an order released on Saturday, the judge in the case, Debra S. Nelson, excluded their testimony. She said the science supporting the experts’ analyses “is not as widely accepted at this time” as the more established methods relied on by defense witnesses who said it was impossible to conclude whose voice it was.



I wonder how big this for th prosecution.

Last edited by cutthemdown; 07-05-2013 at 01:20 PM.. Reason: thread title now old
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 06-22-2013, 05:49 PM   #2
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

I'm shocked the prosecution didn't demand at least 1 black juror. Now, Zimmerman actually has a chance to be acquitted.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 05:51 PM   #3
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
In an order released on Saturday, the judge in the case, Debra S. Nelson, excluded their testimony. She said the science supporting the experts’ analyses “is not as widely accepted at this time” as the more established methods relied on by defense witnesses who said it was impossible to conclude whose voice it was.



I wonder how big this for th prosecution.
Suffice it to say, the one being injured was the one crying for help. Martin had no injuries aside from the gunshot wound, and the screams preceded the gunshot. Zimmerman had a broken nose and multiple lacerations to the back of his head.

There's your answer.

That was hard, wasn't it?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 06:17 PM   #4
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,995

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I'm shocked the prosecution didn't demand at least 1 black juror. Now, Zimmerman actually has a chance to be acquitted.
Maybe one was picked but the defense turned her/him away.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 06:35 PM   #5
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Maybe one was picked but the defense turned her/him away.
The defense isn't in control of jury selection. They work together on it. If he's acquitted, the race card will be pulled and riots will ensue.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 06:52 PM   #6
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,995

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
The defense isn't in control of jury selection. They work together on it. If he's acquitted, the race card will be pulled and riots will ensue.
Damn you are an idiot.
Quote:
Peremptory challenge usually refers to a right in jury selection for the defense and prosecution to reject a certain number of potential jurors who appear to have an unfavorable bias without having to give any reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause: i.e. by giving a reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied.

The idea behind peremptory challenges is that if both parties have contributed in the configuration of the jury, they will find its verdict more acceptable. The existence of peremptory challenges is argued to be an important safeguard in the judicial process, allowing both the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of potentially biased jurors. Their use allows attorneys to use their training and experience to dismiss jurors who might say the correct thing, but might otherwise harbor prejudices that could infringe the rights of the defendant to a fair trial.
The defense has the same amt of control over jury selection as the prosecutor.
No need to thank me for the education on jury selection.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 07:02 PM   #7
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Damn you are an idiot.


The defense has the same amt of control over jury selection as the prosecutor.
No need to thank me for the education on jury selection.
You forgot this:

houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 07:46 PM   #8
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,650
Default

Um Peace the person said THEY WORK TOGETHER ON IT, which is true. Both sides get a certain number of exclusions or challenges. No way the defense is the only reason no blacks on the jury. Maybe it was just too tough to find blacks in the area without an opinion on the trial that showed an obvious bias. The media screws up our justice system in cases like this.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 08:32 PM   #9
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,995

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Um Peace the person said THEY WORK TOGETHER ON IT, which is true. Both sides get a certain number of exclusions or challenges. No way the defense is the only reason no blacks on the jury. Maybe it was just too tough to find blacks in the area without an opinion on the trial that showed an obvious bias. The media screws up our justice system in cases like this.
I never said the defense was the only reason there are no blacks in the jury. Duym Duym stated the defense has no control over jury selection when in fact they do.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 09:08 PM   #10
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
You forgot this:

Isn't there some trampled popcorn somewhere you should be sweeping up?

They could have used you at Century Aurora theater 8 yesterday. 200 people at Monsters University made quite a mess.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 09:09 PM   #11
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
I never said the defense was the only reason there are no blacks in the jury. Duym Duym stated the defense has no control over jury selection when in fact they do.
They share control, isn't this obvious and clear? They don't dictate anything to anyone.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 09:10 PM   #12
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Um Peace the person said THEY WORK TOGETHER ON IT, which is true. Both sides get a certain number of exclusions or challenges. No way the defense is the only reason no blacks on the jury. Maybe it was just too tough to find blacks in the area without an opinion on the trial that showed an obvious bias. The media screws up our justice system in cases like this.
They don't get it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2013, 10:33 PM   #13
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2013, 02:48 AM   #14
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,650
Default

Obviously its not a true statement the defense has no part of the voir dire process. But you can't just exclude every black person. Problem most likely was judge, prosecution, and defense saw the black jurors as not being able to overcome their bias so they were excluded.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2013, 10:46 AM   #15
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Obviously its not a true statement the defense has no part of the voir dire process. But you can't just exclude every black person. Problem most likely was judge, prosecution, and defense saw the black jurors as not being able to overcome their bias so they were excluded.
It's entirely possible, but the point is that if the case doesn't come out how a certain political sector of society wants it to, you're going to see a **** load of race card pulling.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2013, 11:47 AM   #16
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/us...call.html?_r=0


While jurors in Mr. Zimmerman’s second-degree-murder trial, which will open here Monday, may get to hear the recording in court, they will not hear the opinions of two audio experts for the prosecution about who the screamer is, or is not. One concluded that the voice was not Mr. Zimmerman’s; the other said it was very likely Mr. Martin’s.

In an order released on Saturday, the judge in the case, Debra S. Nelson, excluded their testimony. She said the science supporting the experts’ analyses “is not as widely accepted at this time” as the more established methods relied on by defense witnesses who said it was impossible to conclude whose voice it was.



I wonder how big this for th prosecution.
It is probably a big win for the prosecution. Somebody on the tape was yelling repeatedly for help. I think they would have had a hard time convincing a jury it was Zimmerman.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2013, 11:48 AM   #17
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacchus View Post
It is probably a big win for the prosecution. Somebody on the tape was yelling repeatedly for help. I think they would have had a hard time convincing a jury it was Zimmerman.
How? He's the one with the beating injuries.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2013, 11:52 AM   #18
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
How? He's the one with the beating injuries.
Because he had the gun and he killed the kid. I am not saying he WASN'T the one yelling I am saying they would have a hard time proving he was the guy yelling.

All along I said that I wanted Zimmerman arrested and to stand trial. If a jury finds him innocent I have no problem at all with that.

I think there is a 90% chance he walks. Florida's stand your ground law and the make-up of the jury will almost assuredly find him innocent, and I am fine with that. It's Florida their laws.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2013, 12:32 PM   #19
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacchus View Post
Because he had the gun and he killed the kid. I am not saying he WASN'T the one yelling I am saying they would have a hard time proving he was the guy yelling.

All along I said that I wanted Zimmerman arrested and to stand trial. If a jury finds him innocent I have no problem at all with that.

I think there is a 90% chance he walks. Florida's stand your ground law and the make-up of the jury will almost assuredly find him innocent, and I am fine with that. It's Florida their laws.
It seems very obvious Zimmerman was the one calling for help. If you were beating someone who pulled out a gun, you wouldn't back off when you saw the gun and would instead yell "Help help!" and keep straddling the guy until you take a slug into the upper lobe of a lung? I think you'd immediately let go of the guy, get the hell off him, and bail the hell out of there. Martin was shot at close range straight into the chest. He wasn't shot at an angle or at a distance as if he was trying to move away.

Yes. It was Zimmerman.

If the trial is just - he does walk. He shouldn't be on trial to begin with. The state caved into media-driven mobs threatening riots.

Last edited by nyuk nyuk; 06-23-2013 at 12:36 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 07:50 PM   #20
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,995

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...Killed-Trayvon
Quote:
t is important to underscore and emphasize that the EMS wrote that, regarding Zimmerman's nose the "mucous membrane is normal" because it highlights the fact that there was no blood and no swelling of the mucous membrane that line the sinus cavities which is one more piece of evidence that shows Zimmerman was not punched in the nose hard enough to fall "to the ground when he punched [Zimmerman] the first time" and certainly dispels Zimmerman "claim" that he was punched a subsequent 25 to 30 times in the nose while being pinned to the ground on his back.

Because Zimmerman lied to his family physician assistant, when he falsely told her that he was "told" by EMS he had a broken nose, the Physician Assistant wrote "We discussed it was likely broken." And in the insurance code she wrote he had a "closed fracture" but no xrays were done to confirm that. The Physician Assistant also wrote Zimmerman "refuses to be seen an ENT (Ear Nose and Throat doctor)" and they discussed the "risks" of him not being seen by an ENT. Gosh, after all that alleged pummeling to his nose and head, why would Zimmerman refuse to go see an ENT? Who knows.

Note also, on page 3 of Zimmerman's Family Physician Report, the Physician Assistant states that his nostrils were not bleeding and did not note any dried blood in the nostrils (nares) and wrote "does not appear to have septal deviation" which, when put all together along with the EMS report, it tells me Zimmerman was not punched in the nose 25 to 30 times 16 hours earlier.

To date, George Zimmerman has not released any xrays showing he had a broken nose nor has any licensed medical doctor ever diagnosed Zimmerman with a broken nose. And Zimmerman has never released a medical report from an Ear Nose and Throat Doctor.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 07:52 PM   #21
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,995

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
It seems very obvious Zimmerman was the one calling for help. If you were beating someone who pulled out a gun, you wouldn't back off when you saw the gun and would instead yell "Help help!" and keep straddling the guy until you take a slug into the upper lobe of a lung? I think you'd immediately let go of the guy, get the hell off him, and bail the hell out of there. Martin was shot at close range straight into the chest. He wasn't shot at an angle or at a distance as if he was trying to move away.

Yes. It was Zimmerman.

If the trial is just - he does walk. He shouldn't be on trial to begin with. The state caved into media-driven mobs threatening riots.
The trial will be just, even if found guilty.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 04:47 AM   #22
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,932

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Stand You Own Ground -- it's your right and you can't be blamed for it, unless you don't have a firearm. Then you deserve what you get when you defend yourself from someone following you with, at best, unknown intent.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 07:17 AM   #23
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,615

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

I'm pretty tired of this already, any news channel you turn on has the same quotes from the Zimmerman trial so I keep my radio on the NFL network but now all they talk about is Hernandez.........
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 07:37 AM   #24
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,320

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacchus View Post
Because he had the gun and he killed the kid. I am not saying he WASN'T the one yelling I am saying they would have a hard time proving he was the guy yelling.

All along I said that I wanted Zimmerman arrested and to stand trial. If a jury finds him innocent I have no problem at all with that.

I think there is a 90% chance he walks. Florida's stand your ground law and the make-up of the jury will almost assuredly find him innocent, and I am fine with that. It's Florida their laws.
Which is why, if I'm his lawyer and he was the one screaming for help, I have him take the stand and tell that to the jury. First hand, undisputed testimony carries a lot of weight.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 07:48 AM   #25
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,932

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Armed man initiates a confrontation with and kills another person.

Trial? Pfht? Who needs a trial? The guy had some boo-boos!
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:03 AM.


Denver Broncos