Zimmerman stuns court waives stand your ground

Posted in the Columbus Forum

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 60 of107
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Mar 6, 2013
 
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts are for a jury to determine.
And you're not on the jury.
And even if she was on the jury, she's only one vote. There are going to be at least 7 others who have to agree with her.

Based on what we've seen in the media, it's pretty obvious to me that Zimmerman wins. Maybe he isn't the brightest bulb, but it sounds like Mr. Hoodie wasn't exactly a boy scout, either.

I have to give credit to Glenn Beck, which I rarely do. He came up with one of the better analogies lately about guns:

If you climb into the cage with a bear, does the bear get blamed when he mauls you? Of course not, you say the guy who got mauled was a dumbass for entering the cage of a wild animal, which was a place he had no business being. Then why should people complain about someone breaking into a house and getting shot? I think the same analogy applies here.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
The facts are for a jury to determine.
And you're not on the jury.
Well, not quite. Guilty or not guilty is for the jury to determine. That calls for reaching a conclusion based on the facts. That doesn't mean that there are no facts prior to the jury being called, or before they reach their verdict.

And not everything put before them will be strictly factual. We put a lot of faith in eye-witness testimony, but it is highly unreliable stuff, as I believe this trial will bear out. Eye witnesses will provide bits and snatches of what was certainly a moving scene across several minutes.

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, not quite. Guilty or not guilty is for the jury to determine. That calls for reaching a conclusion based on the facts. That doesn't mean that there are no facts prior to the jury being called, or before they reach their verdict.
And not everything put before them will be strictly factual. We put a lot of faith in eye-witness testimony, but it is highly unreliable stuff, as I believe this trial will bear out. Eye witnesses will provide bits and snatches of what was certainly a moving scene across several minutes.
You remain completely clueless.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Mar 6, 2013
 
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Wasn't OJ's glove a stunner from the prosecution?
It doesn't matter where it came from, the prosecution was caught flat footed in responding to "If it doesn't fit you must acquit" both during the trial and in the closing arguments. You show your cards at the first hearing and you give the prosecution time to address the issue in the second one ... especially in a media trial where everything gets scrutinized.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
And even if she was on the jury, she's only one vote. There are going to be at least 7 others who have to agree with her.
Based on what we've seen in the media, it's pretty obvious to me that Zimmerman wins. Maybe he isn't the brightest bulb, but it sounds like Mr. Hoodie wasn't exactly a boy scout, either.
I have to give credit to Glenn Beck, which I rarely do. He came up with one of the better analogies lately about guns:
If you climb into the cage with a bear, does the bear get blamed when he mauls you? Of course not, you say the guy who got mauled was a dumbass for entering the cage of a wild animal, which was a place he had no business being. Then why should people complain about someone breaking into a house and getting shot? I think the same analogy applies here.
I believe in Florida the jury will only include 6 total (unless you were counting alternates).

The problem is you are making a judgment based on what you believe to be the personalities of two people. And that seems to be what O'Mara is likely to be going with--not because it makes a real strong case, but because it's all he has available to him.

Add up some of the following:

1. Zimmerman's injuries are not consistent with his story.
2. The timeline from Zimmerman's walkthrough with police places him at the "t" where he says he was attacked at a time when he was still on the phone with the police.
3. Zimmerman claims he spotted Trayvon outside his friend Frank Traafe's house, drove to the clubhouse and called police. Trayvon passed him ("he's looking at me") and made it to the sidestreet where Zimmerman says he started running in lightening quick time--much faster than someone walking a normal, or even quick pace (and Z. says he was walking slowly--just looking about).
4. Near impossibility of pulling a hip-holstered gun while pinned to the ground and firing a bullet straight (90 degrees) into the heart.
5. Complete lack of Zimmerman's DNA found on Trayvon's hands or clothing--despite a claim that Trayvon leaned on Zimmerman's (broken and bleeding) nose and mouth, full weight with both hands.
6. Zimmerman claims recorded screams were his--asking his neighborhs for help, yet the terrorized yells continued without a break (inconsistent with being smothered) until the gunshot, then abruptly stopped.
7. Zimmerman claims he straddled the still-struggling and articulating Trayvon following the shot, holding his arms spread-eagled in case he had a weapon. Trayvons arms were found beneath him.

That's a lot to overcome.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesn't matter where it came from, the prosecution was caught flat footed in responding to "If it doesn't fit you must acquit" both during the trial and in the closing arguments. You show your cards at the first hearing and you give the prosecution time to address the issue in the second one ... especially in a media trial where everything gets scrutinized.
That was because the prosecution messed up.

They never should have had him try to put it on. It was leather and had been wet. Wet leather shrinks.

In this case, we seem to have moved from a clear expectation of immunity (so much so that the Sanford PD initially refused to make and arrest because the claimed the self-defense immunity claim was so strong) to the defense attorney not being willing to take a chance on it.

That says something.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You remain completely clueless.
So--explain.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Mar 6, 2013
 
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
That was because the prosecution messed up.
They never should have had him try to put it on. It was leather and had been wet. Wet leather shrinks.
In this case, we seem to have moved from a clear expectation of immunity (so much so that the Sanford PD initially refused to make and arrest because the claimed the self-defense immunity claim was so strong) to the defense attorney not being willing to take a chance on it.
That says something.
That says nothing. The prosecution has to prove their case. Why give them two bites at the apple?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
That says nothing. The prosecution has to prove their case. Why give them two bites at the apple?
Don't be silly, Bob.

Reader already knows what evidence will be ruled admissible, what facts will be determined by the jury, and what verdict that jury will return.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
That says nothing. The prosecution has to prove their case. Why give them two bites at the apple?
Well, apparently that is what the law requires, according to the lawyer on the blog I have been reading. And while O'Mara has offered some hints before the court that he would like to "roll the immunity into the tria," he has made no such formal request and the court has therefore not ruled on it. Which is pretty much what the judge said yesterday when the prosecution asked for clarification when O'Mara said that she could release the time she was holding on her calendar for the immunity hearing.

However, the standard for immunity is a lower standard--preponderance of evidence as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt--and allows the defense to take the lead and present their case.

If, as so many have been claiming for so long, this is a clear-cut case of self-defense, supported by evidence, why would there be any advantage for the defense to hold off?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be silly, Bob.
Reader already knows what evidence will be ruled admissible, what facts will be determined by the jury, and what verdict that jury will return.
tip--I bet you don't let people speculate on the outcome of sporting events, either, do you?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
tip--I bet you don't let people speculate on the outcome of sporting events, either, do you?
Sure, and every single time half of them are bitterly disappointed with the final result.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, and every single time half of them are bitterly disappointed with the final result.
But never you, correct?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
But never you, correct?
Not really, because all sport is entertainment.
A jury trial is not.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
That says nothing. The prosecution has to prove their case. Why give them two bites at the apple?
Here's some commentary on another case that made a similar attempt in Florida:

"But it's unclear whether Zimmerman's defense team will be allowed to ask the judge to dismiss the case based on Stand Your Ground once the trial has started. The strategy has been attempted before, unsuccessfully, in Miami-Dade.

"The defendant: Andrew James Rolle, is accused of murdering a Miami police detective in January 2008. He claims he was defending himself when he shot and killed James Walker in a confrontation in North Miami Beach.

"Earlier this year, Rolle's lawyer asked for a Stand Your Ground immunity hearing to be held at the same time as the trial, allowing Rolle to testify only once. But Miami-Dade prosecutors objected; they worried that they would be unable to appeal the judge's decision on the Stand Your Ground issue once a jury was selected, because that would raise the issue of double jeopardy, which prevents defendants from being tried twice for the same crime. Rolle withdrew his request this week.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/03/05/184914/...

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really, because all sport is entertainment.
A jury trial is not.
You never watched Perry Mason?

Law and Order?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
You never watched Perry Mason?
Law and Order?
You are delusional.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Mar 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
You are delusional.
You don't get those shows on your TV?
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Mar 7, 2013
 
FKA Reader wrote:
I don't think they actually have many cards--from the fishing expeditions that they have been going on. Apparently what they wanted from the bios (and got) are social networking user-names. That's not likely to get them much from accounts that have been closed down--unless Facebook and Twitter cede client info without a legal fight, which is dubious.
Likewise the request for 6 months of Witness 8's medical records. Allegedly that had to do with confirming (or denying) the witness's statement about why she wasn't at Trayvon's funeral. Actually what she said under oath was pretty noncommittal on that topic--investigator asked her is she went. She said, no, she didn't feel well. He said, well, you went somewhere, the hospital or something. She said "yeah." The prosecution squelched that request by telling the judge there was no medical record. But a request for 6 months following the murder is pretty excessive just to establish whether she got medical treatment on the day of the funeral.
There's an attorney blog I've been following. That fellow suggests that "rolling the self-defense into the trial" would not meet with the approval of the court (but has not officially been asked)--and would violate Florida law or constitutionality. My personal theory is that O'Mara wants to use the notion of self-defense to soften the jury without actually having to make a case and have a judge rule on it. It's not very likely he could make a case that could pass muster with the judge--and having the judge's ruling on self-defense would make a pretty strong statement to a jury. By avoiding the immunity ruling he can try to imply self-defense and hope that the jury will either find him not guilty (pretty unlikely) or go for the lesser charge of manslaughter.
you don't think....first truthful statement out of your mouth.

this case was determined months ago by law.

Zimmerman walks; and riots begin.

more trial dates are required for future to handle the 100's of cases for property protection ending in a gun fight.

this case is only for pandering to a base of kooks; and the kooks are not going to like outcome.

if riots occur, the citizens are capable and energetic to end them.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
Mar 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
you don't think....first truthful statement out of your mouth.
this case was determined months ago by law.
Zimmerman walks; and riots begin.
more trial dates are required for future to handle the 100's of cases for property protection ending in a gun fight.
this case is only for pandering to a base of kooks; and the kooks are not going to like outcome.
if riots occur, the citizens are capable and energetic to end them.
Ummm, how was the case determined by law, RS?

What law would that be?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 60 of107
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••

Severe Thunderstorm Watch for Franklin County was issued at July 13 at 1:20PM EDT

•••
•••
•••
Columbus Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Columbus Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••