Attorneys for George Zimmerman,..say they can't find him, fear for his safety [W:169]

[Caine]

Re: Zimmerman charged

That makes sense. Although, the girlfriend can testify to his state of mind at the time when she was on the phone, so I guess that could help. Although the defense could say she doesn't really know what Martin was thinking.

Speculating what someone was thinking is not allowed.

Trust me... Ive been asked and objected to many times on that question on the stand myself.

 

[Michael Johnson]

Re: Zimmerman charged

Deflect what? :coffeepap

Your socks. :coffeepap

 

[Caine]

Re: Zimmerman charged

Which is probably the last thing the defense wants to do because that opens him up for cross.

There are times where taking the stand is a good thing.

If his defense is "fear for his life or serious bodily injury" the only person who can testify to George Zimmerman's state of mind during that assault is George Zimmerman.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Honor my ass. You said I said murder was the only charge that they could charge him with. Are you going to show me where I said that or not? this has nothing to do with Jason or Rev. This is YOU saying I said something that I didnt say. Focus and show me where I said this.

I already did ,it was you and the Rev (as he just confirmed) that only argued that point.....and it is backed by the fact that you continued to avoid that point in that thread. It was only here, away from me and that thread where you accepted that OTHER CHARGES could apply.

JasonI falsey described the killing, what he described is clearly 2nd degree murder

Again, no honesty, no honor.

 

[Michael Johnson]

nobody wants to debate the term fat ass with you.

Nobody wants to debate the term "troll" with you.

 

[MaggieD]

I'm rather of the opinion (now, as a result of this incident) that any time one person kills another there should be a hearing or a trial or a Grand Jury or something. . . it shouldn't be easy to kill another human being. The defense of self-defense should always come under scrutiny, if for no other reason than the public, and especially the families, have the right to know.

Hope he gets a fair trial. It'll be interesting to see what he's charged with. In a way, I'm surprised.

 

[Caine]

Re: Zimmerman charged

2. You don't think they are relevant. The judge might disagree. Consequently, your attempt to phrase your opinion as fact and project onto the judge has no bearing on reality anymore than your earlier attempts to phrase your earlier opinion that Zimmerman shouldn't be charged had no bearing on reality as we see now.

No. its not about whether or not he THINKS it is relevant.

You cannot testify to someone's past criminal record on the stand during presentation of evidence, even if for the same offense.

Ive seen frustrated officers leave the courtroom after letting it slip that the defendant had a past dwi during a dwi trial, frustrated with the mistrial called in the case.

 

[Kreton]

Re: Zimmerman charged

1. No, the girlfriend clearly stated that Zimmerman came up behind Martin and then Martin asked him, "Why are you following me?"

This is what I have read about her statement to police.

According to the attorney's statement, Martin's girlfriend said that he expressed concern about a strange man following him, and she advised him to run. She says she heard Martin say "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding "What are you doing here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing and that Martin's headset suddenly went silent, leading her to believe that he had been pushed. She attempted to call him back immediately, but was unable to reach him

Also I remember reading on ABC's review of all the evidence that the GF stated what was says but said she didnt know who approached who. Or who hit who first.

2. You don't think they are relevant. The judge might disagree. Consequently, your attempt to phrase your opinion as fact and project onto the judge has no bearing on reality anymore than your earlier attempts to phrase your earlier opinion that Zimmerman shouldn't be charged had no bearing on reality as we see now.

YOu keep saying stuff like this. You are being retarded. I am going to go ahead and discuss this with people who are not acting retarded. I clearly and very clearly said I THINK in my post and posted why I think that. You can keep trying to twist things around but I dont see any point in discussing this with you when you are refusing to actually read the words I am posting. Dont bother to reply to this because I wont reply back to yours.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: Zimmerman charged

No. its not about whether or not he THINKS it is relevant.

You cannot testify to someone's past criminal record on the stand during presentation of evidence, even if for the same offense.

Ive seen frustrated officers leave the courtroom after letting it slip that the defendant had a past dwi during a dwi trial, frustrated with the mistrial called in the case.

That's my understanding as well. The only time someone's past criminal record can be talked about in the courtroom is at sentencing.

Actually, though, it's almost kind of a shame since most jurors will know something about it -- and the truth of it is probably much better for Zimmerman than the fiction.

 

[Caine]

I'm rather of the opinion (now, as a result of this incident) that any time one person kills another there should be a hearing or a trial or a Grand Jury or something. . . it shouldn't be easy to kill another human being. The defense of self-defense should always come under scrutiny, if for no other reason than the public, and especially the families, have the right to know.

Hope he gets a fair trial. It'll be interesting to see what he's charged with. In a way, I'm surprised.

A grand jury after the conclusion of the investigation before charges are filed is fine.

I don't think we should go arresting people and making them put up thousands of dollars in bond and assets as collateral to ensure they return for trial just because they have defended themselves.

Also, if you go putting self-defense under extra scrutiny.... is that going to discourage people from defending themselves? Personally, I want people to learn to defend themselves rather than relying upon police protection that will ALWAYS be inadequate.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Re: Zimmerman charged

This is what I have read about her statement to police.

Also I remember reading on ABC's review of all the evidence that the GF stated what was says but said she didnt know who approached who. Or who hit who first.

YOu keep saying stuff like this. You are being retarded. I am going to go ahead and discuss this with people who are not acting retarded. I clearly and very clearly said I THINK in my post and posted why I think that. You can keep trying to twist things around but I dont see any point in discussing this with you when you are refusing to actually read the words I am posting. Dont bother to reply to this because I wont reply back to yours.

1. No she didn't know who hit first. But she did say that Zimmerman came up behind Martin which is "approaching".
2. You did say, "I don't think" which I appreciate as an acknowledgment of opinion rather than fact. However, the entire statement was, "I dont think the judge is going to allow Zimmermans or Martins history's into the case since they are not relevant and neither was actually convicted an anything that I recall." My point is the judge might think they are relevant even if you don't. :shrug:

 

[Kreton]

Re: Zimmerman charged

That's my understanding as well. The only time someone's past criminal record can be talked about in the courtroom is at sentencing.

Actually, though, it's almost kind of a shame since most jurors will know something about it -- and the truth of it is probably much better for Zimmerman than the fiction.

His defense can bring up his history at anytime if they feel like the jury may have been unfairly influenced by the media. I don't think the prosecution could or would object to that. However if they prosecution tries to introduce it as evidence, especially where he was never convicted, the defense would object.

I personally have never heard of a case where the judge allows a person previously being accused of a crime that was completely unrelated and not found guilty to be introduced as evidence in a case.

 

[longview]

I think in this case the gunpowder residue and similar evidence will tell the story.
How far away was Martin from Zimmerman when he was shot?
What was the angle of the shot?
At the moment of the shooting, did Zimmerman believe he was in danger?
782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.
The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to
murder such person or to commit any felony upon him.

If the state can prove otherwise, Zimmerman should be punished to the full extent of the law.

 

[Michael Johnson]

Re: Zimmerman charged

This is what I have read about her statement to police.

Also I remember reading on ABC's review of all the evidence that the GF stated what was says but said she didnt know who approached who. Or who hit who first. YOu keep saying stuff like this. You are being retarded. I am going to go ahead and discuss this with people who are not acting retarded. I clearly and very clearly said I THINK in my post and posted why I think that. You can keep trying to twist things around but I dont see any point in discussing this with you when you are refusing to actually read the words I am posting. Dont bother to reply to this because I wont reply back to yours.

If the GF said that Martin said "What are you following me for" then obviously Zimmerman approached him first, along with the fact that his fat ass got out of his car, disobeyed the dispatcher, and pursued Martin.

 

[Kreton]

Re: Zimmerman charged

1. No she didn't know who hit first. But she did say that Zimmerman came up behind Martin which is "approaching".
2. You did say, "I don't think" which I appreciate as an acknowledgment of opinion rather than fact. However, the entire statement was, "I dont think the judge is going to allow Zimmermans or Martins history's into the case since they are not relevant and neither was actually convicted an anything that I recall." My point is the judge might think they are relevant even if you don't. :shrug:

Ok, I said I wasnt going to reply and I meant it at the time. But Dammit I am anyway.

This part.....My point is the judge might think they are relevant even if you don't. is correct. The judge might. However it would be pretty unprecedented for something like that.

However this is not what is making me not what to bother with you. After i clearly wrote I THINK in my post so you wouldnt keep being so confused you still sit here and write a whole paragraph about how me writing I think is pushing my opinion as 100% fact. If you want to discuss that case, I am game. If you want to be ignorant and twist things and focus on dumb crap like MJ then you can discuss it with him and we can be done.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: Zimmerman charged

If the GF said that Martin said "What are you following me for" then obviously Zimmerman approached him first, along with the fact that his fat ass got out of his car, disobeyed the dispatcher, and pursued Martin.

No, that isn't obvious at all. Ever play Clue? You know, Colonel Mustard in the Library with the Pipe Wrench? Get one.

 

[Kreton]

Re: Zimmerman charged

If the GF said that Martin said "What are you following me for" then obviously Zimmerman approached him first, along with the fact that his fat ass got out of his car, disobeyed the dispatcher, and pursued Martin.

So many lies.

 

[Enola]

Re: Zimmerman charged

I don't understand how using a gun against another person and causing the death of that person can be any excuse. Isn't that excessive force? And wouldn't he be found guilty of manslaughter if found it was accidental? Then again, what if it was not accidental? He got out of his car when told not to, approached the "suspect" which led to confrontation and then he used deadly force due to being "in fear of his life" in what nature? A tea bottle?

If he was in fear of his life, why did he approach the person?

This is why it needs to be done in court. So many things unknown.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Re: Zimmerman charged

Moderator's Warning:

Alright folks play nice.

 

[Paschendale]

That's my understanding as well. The only time someone's past criminal record can be talked about in the courtroom is at sentencing.

It's fair game in cross examining a witness, too. It can go to proclivity for violence, or for dishonesty, depending on the crime in question. The prosecution can't bring it up, but if the defense offers Zimmerman as a witness, the prosecution is free to bring up his past on cross examination to impeach his credibility.

I don't think we should go arresting people and making them put up thousands of dollars in bond and assets as collateral to ensure they return for trial just because they have defended themselves.

It depends on how obvious the need for self-defense was. If Treyvon had killed Zimmerman and claimed self-defense, it would be a much easier case to decide. Zimmerman was armed. Treyvon was not. It is the stalking that Zimmerman did and the fact that he brought a weapon into the situation that calls into question his claim of self-defense. You can't claim that you were just defending yourself in a situation you instigated. And no matter which side you take, there is certainly enough question in this case to call into question the validity of Zimmerman's claim. There is a material question of fact. That's the exact test for whether or not a trial is warranted. If Zimmerman is vindicated, good for him. Hopefully he will not suffer a stigma after he is acquitted. If not, then he ought to be punished for stalking and murdering a young boy. But a trial is necessary to determine what really happened.

 

[Caine]

Re: Zimmerman charged

I don't understand how using a gun against another person and causing the death of that person can be any excuse. Isn't that excessive force? And wouldn't he be found guilty of manslaughter if found it was accidental? Then again, what if it was not accidental? He got out of his car when told not to, approached the "suspect" which led to confrontation and then he used deadly force due to being "in fear of his life" in what nature? A tea bottle?

He was never told not to get out of his car. You are falling for the media misconceptions.

He was ASKED if he was following "him" (referring to the suspicious person, later known to be Martin). To which he responded "Yeah" to which he was told "We don't need you to do that." to which he responded "Ok".

This is the result of the media's misconceptions and your lack of interest in the case has allowed you to run with the false information originally put out there. I forgive you. But damn..... this **** has been debunked a while now.

 

[Kreton]

Re: Zimmerman charged

I don't understand how using a gun against another person and causing the death of that person can be any excuse.

When used in self defense.

Isn't that excessive force?

Sometimes.

And wouldn't he be found guilty of manslaughter if found it was accidental?

I dont think it was accidental. My understanding is he very deliberately shot Martin and shot to kill.

He got out of his car when told not to

He was already out of the car. No one told him not to. And even if the dispacher did, they are not a legal authority.

approached the "suspect"

No proof of this at all.

and then he used deadly force due to being "in fear of his life" in what nature? A tea bottle?

laying defenselessly on the ground after being assaulted. then had martin get on top of him and bash his head into concrete. Then martin going for his gun. Not the tea bottle.

 

[Kreton]

Re: Zimmerman charged

Moderator's Warning:

Alright folks play nice.

Sorry. Got carried away.

 

[Boo Radley]

Re: Zimmerman charged

Your socks. :coffeepap

They're black. What about them?

You're wrong, but I would love to see you present some new silliness, so by all means, present evidence concerning socks.

:coffeepap

 

[Kreton]

It's fair game in cross examining a witness, too. It can go to proclivity for violence, or for dishonesty, depending on the crime in question. The prosecution can't bring it up, but if the defense offers Zimmerman as a witness, the prosecution is free to bring up his past on cross examination to impeach his credibility.
/QUOTE]

This is another great point. If Zimmerman takes teh stand it's fair game on that. I hadnt thought of that.