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 07-09-2013, 09:00 PM   #376
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,616

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
What is it you imagine I am saying that you think that video is at all relevant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
I'll tell you I have 20+ years worth of martial arts, including tournament fighting and all the other silly associated things like board/block breaking, under my belt.
Yes you missed the point. You and your 20 years of board breaking would be totally worthless in a dangerous situation..........
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 09:05 PM   #377
NUB
Just Crafted
 
NUB's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,529

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

(Can also skip to 5mins in to see what the defense has to say.)



Basically, the defense got information of Martin having texts that indicate him having a proclivity for fighting. There are also images of his physique. But this information was relayed to the defense until June 4th, not giving them enough time to seek out who these texts went to. The state basically kept this information from them for way too long.

Even though Martin had two levels of security on the phone, the judge is arguing that someone else could have sent those messages. Given the giant, undeniable relevance to the self-defense issue, I'm shocked that the judge is thinking about keeping this information away from the jury. If that does indeed happen, and Zimmerman is found guilty, the man will have a huge case for an appeal.
NUB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 09:27 PM   #378
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 46,832

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NUB View Post
(Can also skip to 5mins in to see what the defense has to say.)



Basically, the defense got information of Martin having texts that indicate him having a proclivity for fighting. There are also images of his physique. But this information was relayed to the defense until June 4th, not giving them enough time to seek out who these texts went to. The state basically kept this information from them for way too long.

Even though Martin had two levels of security on the phone, the judge is arguing that someone else could have sent those messages. Given the giant, undeniable relevance to the self-defense issue, I'm shocked that the judge is thinking about keeping this information away from the jury. If that does indeed happen, and Zimmerman is found guilty, the man will have a huge case for an appeal.
Did the defense bring this up? Thousands of them? All by someone else? This judge is giving them hell.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 09:36 PM   #379
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,932

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I'm just pointing out that what you think is so important means nothing.
Actually, it's critical to Zimmerman's defense (not necessarily to murder 2, but against any wrongdoing whatsoever). Zimmerman is claiming self defense as a justification for the use of deadly force which he admits to. This means, according to FL law, that he has to convince the jury not just that he thought his life was in danger (his state of mind), but that he had a reasonable expectation that his life was in danger.

State of mind only matter inasmuch as how that state of mind relates to a reasonable expectation of death or grave bodily injury. For example, if you're on drugs that cause paranoia, then your paranoid state of mind that results from that might lead you to believe someone just walking down the street is about to kill you. In that instance, your state of mind alone does not justify the use of deadly force.

The key word, of course, is reasonable. Now what can be considered a reasonable expectation is composed of several factors (see the link below), but one of them is proportionality. A person does not have the right to meet non deadly force with deadly force. According to FL law, the only justifiable use of deadly force is (straight from FL statute): "...if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." Again, note the word "reasonably".

For example, if you're in a bar fight and take a punch, you do not have the right to pull your concealed weapon and waste the other guy (even if you are a giant p***Y or on drugs/etc. and just think your life is in danger from being punched). If I just flash a concealed firearm at you, and you think I'm going to shoot you, you don't have the right to use deadly force against me. You do have the right to shoot me if I make a move for my gun though. Force used in self defense has to be proportional to the force being used against the defender. And, force can only be used to meet force, not non-force (e.g. threats). See FL statute quoted below.

As to the discussion of knuckle woulds, etc. Zimmerman's argument of proportionality rests purely on his testimony and that of witnesses claiming that Martin was delivering a beating to him. IF that was the case, the requirement of proportionality would seem to be met (in my opinion). However, the physical evidence puts his claim to proportionality in serious doubt. Wounds consistent with a single punch to the face do not support the claim that Martin was in the process of using deadly force against Zimmerman. So, the witness testimony (and Zimmerman's testimony) that claims that happening can be reasonably doubted. And, by extension, the credibility of Zimmerman and his witnesses.

But don't take my word for it: read what an actual lawyer (rather than a lawyer's lackey) who specializes in self defense law has to say about self defense and how it relates to this case:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06...-self-defense/

And here's the relevant Florida statutes:

Quote:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
All emphasis added.

Quote:
The only thing that matters is Zimmermans state of mind.
Nope, what matters is did Zimmerman have a state of mind that resulted in a reasonable expectation of being killed or gravely harmed. In order for the self defense plea to hold up, Zimmerman has to convince the jury that he had a reasonable expectation of being killed or receiving gross bodily harm, which includes convincing the jury that Martin was using deadly force.

From the link above: "For Zimmerman to be successful in arguing self defense as a legal justification for the shooting he will need to present the court with a compelling narrative of his own recounting his reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. The success of Zimmerman’s narrative will surely be a function of the unremitting nature of Martin’s attack—straddling the prone Zimmerman and punching him “MMA-style” even after Zimmerman was clearly no longer any apparent threat and was, by eye-witness account, screaming for help—and the extensiveness of Zimmerman’s injuries as evidenced by medical reports and contemporaneous photos."

And again, the only "evidence" that corroborates Zimmerman's story is that of eyewitness accounts about the nature of the final confrontation (a supposed "MMA style beat down" by Martin proceeding the fatal shot). Eyewitness accounts that are not consistent with the physical evidence.

Now, whether or not the jury believes one narrative or the other I have no idea. I ain't the Jury, and jury's are quite fickle.

Quote:
If someone mounts you and starts punching you in the face you don't have to wait until your injuries are life threatening to defend yourself. You can use force if you believe your life is in danger. I've seen people knocked out have less damage to face then Zimmerman had.
Possibly, but if they aren't actually punching you, just sitting on you for some other reason, then there is no clear and reasonable expectation of death or great bodily harm. The only fact that seems to be consistent with the physical evidence is that at some point, for some reason, Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman. Claims about Martin applying deadly force (MMA style punching) are not substantiated (in my opinion, according to the physical evidence).

Given that the only thing we can be reasonably sure of is that Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman, there are many possibilities about what actually occurred. As pure conjecture consistent with the physical evidence, it's possible Martin punched Zimmerman, who then went for his gun prompting Martin to tackle him and fight over possession of the gun (which would also fit the witness' description as a scuffle over a weapon could easily be mistaken for a punching match in the dark).

To be clear, I am not claiming the above is what happened -- only that it's a possibility given the physical evidence.

Quote:
Your opinion that clearly the witnesses are lying because his face not bashed up enough is also a total joke. Do you even believe what you say?
When the physical evidence doesn't match what the witnesses say, it's eminently logical to conclude that the witnesses are likely to be lying and/or honestly mistaken.

The only joke is someone who claims to work in the legal field not understanding the basic concepts of self defense law. Of course, that's why you just fill out the paperwork and aren't trusted to do the actual thinking.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 09:38 PM   #380
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,932

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
Yes you missed the point. You and your 20 years of board breaking would be totally worthless in a dangerous situation..........
I don't disagree, but it's not at all relevant to the discussion. Good job.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 10:16 PM   #381
NUB
Just Crafted
 
NUB's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,529

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

While you're Monday quarterbacking this thing with probably zero medical experience, the world's leading forensic pathologist stated to the courtroom that the wounds on Zimmerman indicate a fractured nose, abrasions to the side of the head, and lacerations to the back of the head congruent with being slammed into a hard surface (like concrete) multiple times from different angles. He also went on to some length about the dangers of head injuries and how they can be subtly life-threatening. He believed that the police should have sent Zimmerman to the hospital ASAP, and had Zimmerman suddenly died of some brain injury, Zimmerman's family could have sued the police and won. He stated that while it's possible the injuries could have meshed with another version of the story they did, at the very least, corroborate Zimmerman's version of the story (the same version corroborated by the witness who walked out his door and saw the fighting). That very same witness, by the way, told police he walked outside, saw Martin on top, and believes it was Zimmerman yelling for help; he told Zimmerman he was going back inside to make a call. Meanwhile, Zimmerman relayed to the police that a man had come outside while he was yelling, but then he returned indoors. These two men who were total strangers to one another had matching stories.

What planet are you living on to suggest the evidence does not add up?

And by the way, injuries are not the measure with which one can state they are allowed to use deadly force. I don't know how many times that has to be told, but you morons have somehow latched onto this idea that Zimmerman could only use lethal force if the severity of his injuries -- literally as he received them -- reached a point of being deadly. Not only is that a borderline retarded thought process, to believe someone will weigh the justifications of responding with force vis a vis how much damage they're receiving, but it's also legally wrong. As you literally just showed, it's up to the defender to believe he is under reasonable duress. They used "reasonable" to avoid the exact kind of backward ass, idiotic thinking you are engaging in. Again, if someone swung a baseball at you and missed, what would your injuries be? Nonexistent. Are you telling me you have to sit there until the inside of your skull wraps around Slugger pine before you can respond with lethal force? I can only hope the answer to that question is self-evident.
NUB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 10:29 PM   #382
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

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

Fed you can paste statutes but that doesn't make you smart. Obviously if the jury feels Zimmerman was never in fear for his life then obviously that would mean he acted out of hatred or malice. The problem is the prosecution has not painted him at all in that light. You can poo poo the injuries all you want but the fact is he was getting his ass beat and it is reasonable to assume he could have been in fear for his life. The evidence shows Martin was on top striking him in the face with his fists.

He was screaming for help and asked a witness to go call police. All the evidence points to it being reasonable that he was in fear for his life. Zimmermans actions leading up to the confrontation, which is very important, also don't indicate he was out for evil intent, malice, or ill will towards man. He thought the kid was up to no good. Its a tragic event but not murder 2.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 10:31 PM   #383
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

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

Hell one of the cops said Zimmerman was telling the truth and seemed really concerned for what had happened. Its like the cops helped the defense. This case is so over with i don't even think Zimmerman has to testify to win it. Most likely the prosecution has things to impeach him with and they won't get a chance. Zimmerman will say his story through the statements already made.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 10:36 PM   #384
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by NUB View Post
While you're Monday quarterbacking this thing with probably zero medical experience, the world's leading forensic pathologist stated to the courtroom that the wounds on Zimmerman indicate a fractured nose, abrasions to the side of the head, and lacerations to the back of the head congruent with being slammed into a hard surface (like concrete) multiple times from different angles. He also went on to some length about the dangers of head injuries and how they can be subtly life-threatening. He believed that the police should have sent Zimmerman to the hospital ASAP, and had Zimmerman suddenly died of some brain injury, Zimmerman's family could have sued the police and won. He stated that while it's possible the injuries could have meshed with another version of the story they did, at the very least, corroborate Zimmerman's version of the story (the same version corroborated by the witness who walked out his door and saw the fighting). That very same witness, by the way, told police he walked outside, saw Martin on top, and believes it was Zimmerman yelling for help; he told Zimmerman he was going back inside to make a call. Meanwhile, Zimmerman relayed to the police that a man had come outside while he was yelling, but then he returned indoors. These two men who were total strangers to one another had matching stories.

What planet are you living on to suggest the evidence does not add up?

And by the way, injuries are not the measure with which one can state they are allowed to use deadly force. I don't know how many times that has to be told, but you morons have somehow latched onto this idea that Zimmerman could only use lethal force if the severity of his injuries -- literally as he received them -- reached a point of being deadly. Not only is that a borderline retarded thought process, to believe someone will weigh the justifications of responding with force vis a vis how much damage they're receiving, but it's also legally wrong. As you literally just showed, it's up to the defender to believe he is under reasonable duress. They used "reasonable" to avoid the exact kind of backward ass, idiotic thinking you are engaging in. Again, if someone swung a baseball at you and missed, what would your injuries be? Nonexistent. Are you telling me you have to sit there until the inside of your skull wraps around Slugger pine before you can respond with lethal force? I can only hope the answer to that question is self-evident.
Yep! You can be in fear for your life before someone actually starts to inflict serious injury on you. Someone gets you in a chokehold and wants to kill you it can be over really fast. It only takes a few punches to the face in a row, or head slammed onto concrete, before you lose the ability to defend yourself. Thats why in MMA etc they step in before the person gets seriously injured. You can't take blows to the head for very long.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 10:40 PM   #385
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,932

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NUB View Post
While you're Monday quarterbacking this thing with probably zero medical experience, the world's leading forensic pathologist stated to the courtroom that the wounds on Zimmerman indicate a fractured nose, abrasions to the side of the head, and lacerations to the back of the head congruent with being slammed into a hard surface (like concrete) multiple times from different angles. He also went on to some length about the dangers of head injuries and how they can be subtly life-threatening.
And the other ME said exactly the opposite. And again. It's the lack of typical wounds to Martin that don't jive with the eyewitness account of "MMA style punching" that so many are so keen to talk about.

Quote:
He believed that the police should have sent Zimmerman to the hospital ASAP, and had Zimmerman suddenly died of some brain injury, Zimmerman's family could have sued the police and won.
My understanding is that Zimmerman declined medical attention.

Quote:
What planet are you living on to suggest the evidence does not add up?

And by the way, injuries are not the measure with which one can state they are allowed to use deadly force. I don't know how many times that has to be told, but you morons have somehow latched onto this idea that Zimmerman could only use lethal force if the severity of his injuries -- literally as he received them -- reached a point of being deadly. Not only is that a borderline retarded thought process, to believe someone will weigh the justifications of responding with force vis a vis how much damage they're receiving, but it's also legally wrong. As you literally just showed, it's up to the defender to believe he is under reasonable duress. They used "reasonable" to avoid the exact kind of backward ass, idiotic thinking you are engaging in.
That's not at all what I said. You and cutlet should find some reading comprehension classes to attend. You need a lot of work.

Quote:
Again, if someone swung a baseball at you and missed, what would your injuries be? Nonexistent. Are you telling me you have to sit there until the inside of your skull wraps around Slugger pine before you can respond with lethal force? I can only hope the answer to that question is self-evident.
Swinging a bat at someone is an act of force (under the legal definition); and deadly force at that. Now, just holding a bat is not an an act of force.

What's so difficult about that distinction?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 10:42 PM   #386
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 46,832

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

This video they've created is going to get played one way or another IMO.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 10:42 PM   #387
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,932

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Yep! You can be in fear for your life before someone actually starts to inflict serious injury on you. Someone gets you in a chokehold and wants to kill you it can be over really fast. It only takes a few punches to the face in a row, or head slammed onto concrete, before you lose the ability to defend yourself. Thats why in MMA etc they step in before the person gets seriously injured. You can't take blows to the head for very long.
And you can't deliver multiple blows to the head/face, bare fisted, without also inuring your knuckles. The physical evidence does not corroborate the claim that Martin was punching Zimmerman "MMA style".
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 10:47 PM   #388
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 46,832

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
And you can't deliver multiple blows to the head/face, bare fisted, without also inuring your knuckles. The physical evidence does not corroborate the claim that Martin was punching Zimmerman "MMA style".
Sure you can. Its not impossible.
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 11:01 PM   #389
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,932

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
Sure you can. Its not impossible.
True I was sloppy with my wording in that post, but as I said before it's incredibly unlikely. If you hit someone in the face with enough force to cause them damage to the delicate skin of their face, you're equally likely to cause damage to the thin, relatively delicate skin on your knuckles. Skin vs. Skin -- pretty much an even match. And it's also often skin vs teeth.

Doesn't mean you will get hurt with every punch, but it would be extremely unlikely to avoid it with multiple punches. The only injury to Martin's hand was not to a knuckle.

The other guy's face would also take a lot more damage than what Zimmerman had. Unless you punch like a 5 year old girl. Stop watching Hollywood action flicks as a reference to the type of damage a person can withstand...

Based on my experience in 20 years of watching people punch each other in the face, Zimmerman only took one half decent punch to the nose and upper lip. I've seen a whole lot worse, on many occasions, from one punch with a well padded hand.

Last edited by Fedaykin; 07-09-2013 at 11:04 PM..
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2013, 11:24 PM   #390
Bacchus
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

They way this trial is going I think 2nd degree murder is out of the question. My prediction is a manslaughter charge and Zimmerman will get 5-8 years.

I think that is fair. The prosecution really hasn't made their case.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 06:14 AM   #391
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,209
Default

Fed's exactly right. It really doesn't matter if Zimmerman thought his life was in danger. The question for the jury is whether or not the evidence suggests that it was reasonable for him to believe so.
BroncoInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 08:26 AM   #392
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,324

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

I think a reasonable person would conclude that having your head bashed into a sidewalk constitutes great bodily harm.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 08:34 AM   #393
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
I think a reasonable person would conclude that having your head bashed into a sidewalk constitutes great bodily harm.
It's questionable that that's what happened. The prosecution's medical examiner had a different opinion than the defense's ME regarding Zimmerman's injuries (as you would expect).

Last edited by BroncoInferno; 07-10-2013 at 08:37 AM..
BroncoInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 08:40 AM   #394
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,324

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoInferno View Post
It's questionable that that's what happened. The prosecution's medical examiner had a different opinion than the defense's ME (as you would expect).
Yeah. That's the whole point; It's questionable. Everything about this case is questionable, down to who instigated what, who was on top and who was screaming. That's why I don't see any possibility of a conviction here. I think the police and DA called this case right from the get-go, it's unprosecutable. It's like a he/said, she/said kind of case. The only reason it's being prosecuted is to satisfy media hysteria.

Reminds me of that great movie, Absence of Malice. The media don't care what they do. Come into a town, inflame the whole place, set everybody against each other and then leave in search of the next story, completely disregarding the wreckage they leave behind.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 08:48 AM   #395
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Yeah. That's the whole point; It's questionable. Everything about this case is questionable, down to who instigated what, who was on top and who was screaming. That's why I don't see any possibility of a conviction here. I think the police and DA called this case right from the get-go, it's unprosecutable. It's like a he/said, she/said kind of case. The only reason it's being prosecuted is to satisfy media hysteria.

Reminds me of that great movie, Absence of Malice. The media don't care what they do. Come into a town, inflame the whole place, set everybody against each other and then leave in search of the next story, completely disregarding the wreckage they leave behind.
Yeah, but it seems to me in a case like this that the doubt would work against Zimmerman, not help him. After all, he admits he shot and killed Martin, which is normally a crime. The burden of proof is therefore shifted. The onus is on Zimmerman's defense to give evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he was justified in shooting Martin. The murkiness, then, is (or ought to be) a benefit for the prosecution.
BroncoInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 08:58 AM   #396
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 54,324

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoInferno View Post
Yeah, but it seems to me in a case like this that the doubt would work against Zimmerman, not help him. After all, he admits he shot and killed Martin, which is normally a crime. The burden of proof is therefore shifted. The onus is on Zimmerman's defense to give evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he was justified in shooting Martin. The murkiness, then, is (or ought to be) a benefit for the prosecution.
I just don't think the average jury will convict a person for murder unless they are absolutely sure of guilt. It's just too serious a charge. There are sure to be a few members of this jury who will sit back and say, "I''m just not sure what happened here." I'll be shocked if there is a conviction on a murder charge. Maybe manslaughter, but even that's a big if.

If I'm Zimmerman's lawyer, I get him off without breaking a sweat: It's the media's fault. Look, folks. The DA didn't even want to prosecute this case. They weren't going to file charges. The police weren't going to prosecute. So who's driving this prosecution? So why are we here? The big, bad evil media. And they want you to do their dirty work for them. They want you to be their tools. Their servants. They want you to ignore the truth, the truth that the police already knew, the truth that the DA already knew, and bypass the law in order to satisfy the lust of the ravenous media which came down here and tore this community apart, etc... See? No sweat.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 09:24 AM   #397
BroncoInferno
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 13,209
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
I just don't think the average jury will convict a person for murder unless they are absolutely sure of guilt. It's just too serious a charge. There are sure to be a few members of this jury who will sit back and say, "I''m just not sure what happened here." I'll be shocked if there is a conviction on a murder charge. Maybe manslaughter, but even that's a big if.

If I'm Zimmerman's lawyer, I get him off without breaking a sweat: It's the media's fault. Look, folks. The DA didn't even want to prosecute this case. They weren't going to file charges. The police weren't going to prosecute. So who's driving this prosecution? So why are we here? The big, bad evil media. And they want you to do their dirty work for them. They want you to be their tools. Their servants. They want you to ignore the truth, the truth that the police already knew, the truth that the DA already knew, and bypass the law in order to satisfy the lust of the ravenous media which came down here and tore this community apart, etc... See? No sweat.
I guess I look at it a little differently. When someone's dead, that's it. Existence is over. So, if you are going to commit an act that takes someone's life, you better be able to convince me that you had absolutely no other alternative. I don't believe that's the case here. I don't see any reason to believe that Zimmerman had justification to think he was going to be beaten to death by Martin. In my opinion, had Zimmerman left the gun in the holster he'd have gotten a schoolyard butt-cutting and that would have been the end of it. Furthermore, it seems clear to me Zimmerman instigated the situation by following Martin, and that Martin may well have gotten physical with Zimmerman in self-defense himself (defense hasn't convinced me of their "double-back" theory). You can't instigate an altercation, then - when the tables get turned on you - kill someone and claim self-defense. Sorry. That's murder. Whether or not the jury will agree, I don't know.
BroncoInferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 09:31 AM   #398
Bronco Yoda
.
 
Bronco Yoda's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
And you can't deliver multiple blows to the head/face, bare fisted, without also inuring your knuckles. The physical evidence does not corroborate the claim that Martin was punching Zimmerman "MMA style".
But the worlds leading pathologist testified to the contrary when this exact question was brought up to him.
Bronco Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 09:33 AM   #399
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronco Yoda View Post
But the worlds leading pathologist testified to the contrary when this exact question was brought up to him.
The world's leading pathologist...who was paid to testify in the Arlen Specter trial and the jury didn't believe him.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2013, 09:34 AM   #400
Bronco Yoda
.
 
Bronco Yoda's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoInferno View Post
It's questionable that that's what happened. The prosecution's medical examiner had a different opinion than the defense's ME regarding Zimmerman's injuries (as you would expect).
You mean the guy who said over, and over, and over that he couldn't recall anything? The guy who changed his mind on the weed and opened the door for Trayvons THC levels to be brought up now? That guy?
Bronco Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:44 AM.


Denver Broncos