Zimmerman Trial About To Commence

[Bocefish]

I thought this was all done and dusted as far as you were concerned? Isn't this a slam dunk? lol.

Murder 2 is a slam dunk walk, the state should never have charged that. I'd say there is about an 85% chance he walks on the manslaughter charge. The jury is always a wild card variable.

 

[JickyJuly]

Zimmerman's a dead man either way, and that's fine by me.

You are disgusting, and so is everyone who liked your post. Don't think the people of this forum are not paying attention. You have shown your true colors.

Bwahahahaha. Bawksy called me disgusting. Oh man.
Surely, if you can find space in your heart for ol' George Zimmerman after he killed a man, you can forgive me for being flippant about one human life, eh?

 

[Nordling]

Zimmerman's a dead man either way, and that's fine by me.

You are disgusting, and so is everyone who liked your post. Don't think the people of this forum are not paying attention. You have shown your true colors.

Bwahahahaha. Bawksy called me disgusting. Oh man.
Surely, if you can find space in your heart for ol' George Zimmerman after he killed a man, you can forgive me for being flippant about one human life, eh?

lol It's almost like a badge of honor.

 

[Bocefish]

More bizarreness... During the prosecution's closing aguments, the prosecuting attorney kept saying couldn't this have happened, couldn't that have happened... absolutely NO evidence to support his assumptions. He was trying to concoct stories about what the evidence might mean. Isn't it the State's job to PROVE their charges, not ask the jury if this or that could have happened? The state is literally grasping at straws, but I guess that's what they do when they can't prove their case.

Live streaming here: http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florid ... trial-live

 

[AliciaLeigh]

Nah, that was a part of the 3rd degree felony charge because Trayvon was 17. I seriously doubt the judge will allow that, but who knows.

If the prosecution is allowed to present all the charges they're discussing, 2nd degree murder, felony 3rd degree/child abuse, aggravated assault, and manslaughter, the jury might feel the State is railroading GZ.

It's as if the state is admitting they have no F'ing clue what exactly Z did wrong, if anything, so we are letting you, the jury, decide. :snooty:

ETA: The judge just nixed the possible 3rd degree felony/child abuse charges as being unsupported by the evidence.

Heh the prosecution aren't the only one to have pulled bizarre tricks out, the fact the idiotic joke-telling attorney is objecting to this as a 'stunt' is hilarious. Obviously quite rightly threw out the child abuse stuff, though I would hardly be surprised to learn it was described out of any context, the prosecution may have simply been trying to prove a point.

As for the possible manslaughter, good - there are degrees of culpability, the jury should be able to make a judgement with a range of possible decisions and sentences. Anyway what are you bitching for? I thought this was all done and dusted as far as you were concerned? Isn't this a slam dunk? lol.

I'm not sure he was saying it was a slam dunk and that Zimmerman wouldn't be charged. The likelihood of Zimmerman walking is nil considering how politicized this trial is. Hell, the DA was sitting next to and comforting Trayvon's mother in the courtroom 2 days ago. That tells you all you need to know about where this is headed. My understanding is that he was giving the reasons for which Zimmerman shouldn't be charged for 2nd degree murder and that the defense was arguing he acted in self-defense. He stated the facts and I tend to agree with him since I've watched probably 90% of the trial (one of the benefits of being a cam model and working nights ) and not just the post-trial coverage.

 

[Nordling]

Uh, the DA/prosecution is SUPPOSED to be on the "alleged" victim's side. That's how the court system works.

 

[Anonymous]

When Kitty said "Hell, the DA was sitting next to and comforting Trayvon's mother in the courtroom 2 days ago. That tells you all you need to know about where this is headed," I don't think she wasn't saying the DA shouldn't comfort the mother. I think what's she's saying is that - in her mind - seeing the DA comforting the mother already (before the trial's even ended) just proves that things aren't looking too good for their side.

 

[Bocefish]

For anyone that heard the PA's closing argument... I used to think Jeff Foxworthy's shrill voice was the most annoying.

 

[Jupiter551]

For anyone that heard the PA's closing argument... I used to think Jeff Foxworthy's shrill voice was the most annoying.

I think you're all underestimating the effect on the jury packed full of women of a prosecutor who looks JUST like Dr Phil.

Also, the video on the top of this page is funny and hillarious to watch but if you can't be bothered watching it I'll sum it up for you: Cry moar defense team. :lol: I love how at about 4 minutes in the guy is like (paraphrasing) 'Omg it's so not fair! It's very lucky for the prosecution that Zimmerman did actually kill Martin because thanks to this technicality those damned prosecutor just might actually somehow get justice, that sneaky bastard.'

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/11/closing-arguments-to-begin-in-zimmerman-trial/

I'm hoping when he gets sentenced (hopefully) I'm not going to be a sore winner, but considering how many posts in the last two days have been harping on about how the prosecution is so bad, and he's gonna walk and it's as good as done I'd just like to say a slightly early

 

[Bocefish]

The PA's closing argument was a big bowl of inneundo soup. It didn't come anywhere near proving their case and seriously doubt the jury will swallow any of it.

 

[Jupiter551]

The PA's closing argument was a big bowl of inneundo soup. It didn't come anywhere near proving their case and seriously doubt the jury will swallow any of it.

I just watched a panel of 'legal experts' argue that the judge had no right to overrule the defense attorney when he objected to the judge asking Zimm a direct question :lol: 'How dare that judge make decisions about her courtroom!' That shit would never have flown on LA Law.

 

[Jupiter551]

Most hilarious shit ever - first watch as the judge rips the idiot defense lawyer a new one when he should learn to STFU, then a panel of 'experts' half of whom seem to have gotten their law degrees off a cereal box.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/11/closing-arguments-to-begin-in-zimmerman-trial/

Oh and also WTF how dare the token black panelist guest sound almost like he was defending the judge's right to protect the sovereignty of the court! He's there to nod his head and make stupid statements for the other guys to shoot down!

 

[Bocefish]

The judge certainly seems biased against the defense from what I've seen. There's no doubt she doesn't like Don West and the way she kept asking Z over and over again if he was going to testify long before the trial was over, was totally out of character for a judge.
:twocents-02cents:

 

[Nordling]

The judge certainly seems biased against the defense from what I've seen. There's no doubt she doesn't like Don West and the way she kept asking Z over and over again if he was going to testify long before the trial was over, was totally out of character for a judge.
:twocents-02cents:

No, Don West was totally unprofessional for whining loudly about so many of the judge's decisions. She simply wanted him to act proper in her court.

 

[Jupiter551]

The judge certainly seems biased against the defense from what I've seen. There's no doubt she doesn't like Don West and the way she kept asking Z over and over again if he was going to testify long before the trial was over, was totally out of character for a judge.
:twocents-02cents:

No, Don West was totally unprofessional for whining loudly about so many of the judge's decisions. She simply wanted him to act proper in her court.

Exactly, he objected, she overruled him, her court END OF STORY.

Not to mention, btw, that Zimmerman is a grown man and it is HIS right to testify not his lawyer's, and as a grown man he should be able to make the decision that 'yes, I have something to say' or 'no I have no desire to testify', or perhaps even 'I have no plans to testify but I would like to reserve the right to do so at a later time.'?

Seriously though - he KILLED a man, an unarmed teenager, is it REALLY such a difficult question to ask one whether or not they intend to say anything in their own defense?

 

[Bocefish]

Asking Zimmerman about testifying is not unusual, but she asked him on three different occasions long before the trial was coming to a close. It's her job to make sure he knows his rights. It's not her job to try and coerce anything out of him.

 

[Jupiter551]

Asking Zimmerman about testifying is not unusual, but she asked him on three different occasions long before the trial was coming to a close. It's her job to make sure he knows his rights. It's not her job to try and coerce anything out of him.

She wasn't coercing him, NO ONE is better qualified to answer whether Zimm has something to say, than the man himself. It's her job to ensure the trial proceeds in a timely and punctual manner, she's organising the order of events for the end of this huge trial she is MORE than entitled to know if he intends to testify.

And for the record, here it is unedited, without commentary:

 

[Bocefish]

Oh, OK... since you say it was for her organizational purposes. :lol:

http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video ... D=24939151

 

[Jupiter551]

Oh, OK... since you say it was for her organizational purposes. :lol:

http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video ... D=24939151

I didnt say that's why she did it, I do believe it's probably a factor though. The fact is it doesn't matter why - she's perfectly entitled to ask the defendant a simple question just like she's perfectly entitled to slam that idiot West with contempt of court if he doesn't STFU when his objection is overruled.

Thanks for the video, 'Spiderman Amazes With Crazy Basketball Skills', how apt.

 

[Bocefish]

I'd like to see the defense closing start off something like this:

Well... we spent a good part of the evening going over the prosecution closing to refute arguments the prosecution was making in regards to the evidence, but, to the surprise of no one, we realized he paid no attention to the evidence and, in fact, completely ignored it or lied about it.

And since the prosecutor implied 40 seconds of beating is actually nothing and couldn't be life threatening, I'd grab that stupid doll and beat on it for 40 seconds.

Then I'd show them this video:

http://www.break.com/video/ugc/brutal-m ... nd-1967798

And that would be just for starters.

The defense is going to clean their clock tomorrow. Their animation will be some powerful stuff too.

 

[bawksy]

I'm very concerned about the Manslaughter charge as I think that the jury may use it as an easy way out. Since they probably have reasonable doubt as to Zimmerman's guilt, but, like I was describing, probably feel like he's "guilty of SOMETHING", they may use the manslaughter charge as a compromise between not guilty and murder 2.

I also find it very interesting that the prosecution's closing arguments contained so many rhetorical questions. "Did this happen? Did that happen? We'll never know." That type of stuff is usually what the defense will say to try to convince jurors there is doubt. I'm not sure how the prosecution giving doubt to the jurors is helping their case. Like this:

How, the prosecutor said, does a neighborhood watch volunteer not know the names of that neighborhood's three streets, getting out of his car to find an address? Why would a scared man get out of his car and walk around, after being told by a 911 dispatcher not to follow a man he thought was suspicious? Did Zimmerman walk toward Martin, or did Martin come after him -- as he seemingly said both? Should he have had more than a bloody nose and scratches on his head after being pummeled?

The prosecution should NOT be asking questions. They should be TELLING the jury that the evidence is solid.

"The truth does not lie," de la Rionda said. "... So how does he manage to get it out and get a perfect shot to the heart of a 17-year-old man?"

Don't ask me that question! You're the prosecution, with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt! Tell me exactly how George executed Trayvon, if you have proof!

This is also a very good example about why you should never ever talk to the police without a lawyer present, even if you are innocent. The prosecution picked apart every slip up George ever made when telling his story. Maybe George is a liar, or maybe he's just an imperfect human.

 

[Bocefish]

^^ I know! It's almost as if the trial roles were reversed. The prosecution just brought up possible doubts and the defense presented evidence... totally bassackwards.

I also wish the jury would be allowed to know the sentencings for each charge. If they believe the manslaughter charge is way less time, they will be sadly mistaken. Both charges bring about the same sentence.

 

[bawksy]

It's because the evidence does not support the prosecution's claim. All they can go on is how much of an angel Trayvon was for eating Skittles (because violent people only eat spinach, apparently), and how despite the evidence, George must be guilty because he's kind of a



Like this guy. There's NO WAY he could possibly be a violent mobster. All he did was drive to town to get some delicious, wholesome cannoli.

 

[Bocefish]

My understanding is that he was giving the reasons for which Zimmerman shouldn't be charged for 2nd degree murder and that the defense was arguing he acted in self-defense. He stated the facts and I tend to agree with him since I've watched probably 90% of the trial (one of the benefits of being a cam model and working nights ) and not just the post-trial coverage.

That's a relief knowing the jury is all women and they have seen ALL the facts and evidence. The MSM is still race baiting, especially MSNBC and most of the post-trial reports are usually slanted.

 

[Jupiter551]

Haha I know, it's C-RAZY! It's almost as if the prosecution has been reading this thread and seems to believe as many others here have been trying to tell you for the last year and a half, his story doesn't add up, he's lying, it was excessive force. OMG it's the presidential election all over again! Mitt! Zimmerman! Nooooo! But Fox said...NOOOOO!

 

[Bocefish]

MSNBC wonders why they are last in ratings...



He asks what if the roles were reversed.

CNN and the NYT would then have to describe Martin as a white-African American shooting a Hispanic to get the racial tensions going to up their ratings.

It's becoming painfully obvious why no charges were brought against Zimmerman in this case -- until Al Sharpton got involved. All the eyewitness accounts, testimony, ballistics and forensics keep backing up Zimmerman. We should send a big, fat bill for the whole thing to Sharpton, courtesy of MSNBC.

With the prosecution's witnesses making the defense's case, the inquisitors' last stand is to claim that, if the races were reversed, the black guy would have been instantly charged with murder. As explained in The New York Times:

"Had Mr. Martin shot and killed Mr. Zimmerman under similar circumstances, black leaders say, the case would have barreled down a different path: Mr. Martin would have been quickly arrested by the Sanford Police Department and charged in the killing, without the benefit of the doubt." (Also, CNN could have dropped the "white" and referred to Zimmerman exclusively as "Hispanic.")

The people who say this are counting on the rest of us being too polite to mention that it is nearly impossible to imagine such a case in a world where half of all murders and a majority of robberies are committed by blacks. To reverse the races with the same set of facts, first, we're going to need a gated, mixed-race community, similar to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, that has recently experienced a rash of robberies by white guys. The only way to do that is to enter "The Twilight Zone."

There were at least eight burglaries in the 14 months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin. Numerous media accounts admit that "most" of these were committed by black males. I'm waiting to hear about a single crime at Twin Lakes that was not committed by a black male.

Just six months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin, two men had broken into the home of a neighbor, Olivia Bertalan, while she was alone with her infant son. She had just enough time to call 911 before running upstairs and locking herself in a room. The burglars knew she was home, but proceeded to rob the place anyway, even trying to enter the locked room where she held her crying child.

Bertalan had seen the burglars just before they broke into her house -- one at the front door and one at the back. They were young black males. They lived in the Retreat by Twin Lakes.

In another case, a black teenager strode up to Zimmerman's house and, in broad daylight, stole a bicycle off the front porch. The bike was never recovered.

Weeks before Zimmerman saw Martin, he witnessed another young black male peering into the window of a neighbor's house. He called the cops, but by the time they arrived, the suspect was gone.

A few days later, another house was burglarized. The thieves made off with jewelry and a new laptop. Roofers working across the street had seen two black teenagers near the house at the time of the robbery. When they spotted one of the teens the next day, they called the police.

This time, the roofers followed the suspect so he wouldn't get away. The cops arrived and found the stolen laptop in his backpack. This was the same black teenager Zimmerman had seen looking in a neighbor's window.

The only reason it's hard to imagine the Zimmerman case with the races reversed is that it's hard to imagine a white teenager living in a mixed-race, middle-class community, mugging a black homeowner. This is not a problem of society's reactions, but of the facts.

There is, however, at least one case of a black homeowner fatally shooting a white troublemaker. He was not charged with murder.

In 2006, the ironically named John White was sound asleep at his nice Long Island home when his teenage son woke him to say there was a mob of white kids shouting epithets in front of the house. The family was in no imminent danger. They could have called 911 and remained safely behind locked doors.

But White grabbed a loaded Beretta and headed out to the end of the driveway to confront the mob. A scuffle ensued and White ended up shooting one of the kids in the face, killing him.

White was charged and convicted only of illegal weapons possession -- this was New York, after all -- and involuntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to 20 months-to-four years in prison, but after serving five months was pardoned by Gov. David Paterson.

With all due compassion for the kid who was killed, the public was overwhelmingly on the father's side -- a fact still evident in Internet postings about the case. The kids were punks menacing a law-abiding homeowner. Even the prosecutor complained only that Paterson hadn't called the victim's family first.

The local NAACP had campaigned aggressively on White's behalf. There were no threats to riot in case of an acquittal.

The centerpiece of White's self-defense argument was his recollection of his grandfather's stories about the Ku Klux Klan. George Zimmerman's memory of young black males committing crimes at Twin Lakes is somewhat more recent.

John White wasn't jumped, knocked to the ground, repeatedly punched, and his skull knocked against the ground. He wasn't even touched, though he claimed the white teen was lunging at him. Talk about no reason to "follow," there was no reason for him to leave the safety of his locked home. White's son knew the kids by name. They could have waited for the cops.

So, yes, this case probably would be very different if Zimmerman and Martin's races were reversed. It is only when the victim is black that we must have a show trial, a million-dollar reward paid to the victim's parents and the threat of riots.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ann-coulte ... z2YnnWWNPx

 

[Jupiter551]

what are...are you grasping for these straws I see on the ground here?

 

[Nordling]

Ha ha!@Ann Coulter. Why not just quote an article by Satan in the Inferno Times? lol

 

[Jupiter551]

I found this pretty interesting, supporters of the 1980s 'subway vigilante' Goetz call Zimmerman a nutjob out looking for trouble.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ge-zimmerman-the-same-thing-is-happening.html

But Curtis Sliwa—the founder of the Guardian Angels, the multiracial red-beret-wearing urban patrol group whose members were ubiquitous on trains and elsewhere around 1980s New York, and a prominent ally of Goetz at the time—laughed at the comparison.

“Bernie couldn’t be more totally wrong,” said Sliwa. “He needs to chase some squirrels in the park. This has nothing at all to do with him, nothing in common.

“Bernie Goetz is Charles Bronson in Death Wish,” said Sliwa. “He had enough, and Darrell Cabey represented every guy who had tried to mug him before. George Zimmerman is Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. He’s a nut. He’s a complete nut job who thinks he’s on a ‘mission,’ and this young black man ended up on his radar screen, and then dead.

“Because I deal with the wannabes who want to join the Guardian Angels, I see right away what this guy Zimmerman is: a self-appointed guardian. It’s him determining who is and is not a threat. Forget laws, forget standards, forget the police. Goetz had already been victimized, thrown thru a plate-glass window (in an attemped day-time robbery on Canal Street in 1981). When the four guys began to surround him on the train, to do that dance that many of us were used to back then, when the predators would sniff you out and maybe they’d rob you but they would empower themselves and you’d be completely emasculated and realize there’s nothing you can do if these guy pounce––but this time he got the jump.”

 

[Bocefish]

what are...are you grasping for these straws I see on the ground here?

It was just one small example showing how race is being so unnecessarily, yet intentionally infused into the case at every possible turn by certain media outlets and race baiters.

Ha ha!@Ann Coulter. Why not just quote an article by Satan in the Inferno Times? lol

Can't dispute the facts the of article, whine about the author. I love how she usually gets certain people's panties in a bunch. :lol:

Oh, BTW, Mark O' Mara is currently systematically shredding the state's assumptions with evidence and facts.