Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12) [W:252]

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

Speaking of race, I wonder how this played among Hispanics with Zimmerman constantly being referred to as white.

Are the two categories mutually exclusive?

 

[justabubba]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

"Could have"? "supporting the notion?". All you've shown is that at some point TM got the better of the fistfight. I've said it a dozen times and it never seems to register with Z lovers...

In all of Z's statements to police, he never once claims "I shot because I was in fear for my life over the injuries I sustained". He did however state he shot because he believed TM was going for his gun.

which was the point when he feared for his person
consistent with the self defense position

 

[Grim17]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

I don't have any bias except bias against lying,

How about you address my questions?

 

[Caine]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

Doesn't matter.. George believed all the daytime .. weekday burglaries were committed by black youth.

Can you quote his brain thoughts?

 

[justabubba]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

Let's be honest here...

All the state did was prove that there's reasonable doubt of his innocence... They did NOT prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

So what's the standard again?

outstanding point
one i hope is not lost on the jury

 

[spanky]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

So, are you saying that the state has proven Zimmerman murdered Martin beyond a reasonable doubt?

Are you saying that state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense?

IMO this case is not one of murder, but of manslaughter.

The state may have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ has been lying throught this whole incident. That may be all they have to do to create enough doubt in the jurors minds about Z's version and cause them to vote for manslaughter.

 

[Grim17]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

Can you quote his brain thoughts?

I must have missed the mind reading testimony from Madam Zelda... The oversleeping is killing me here.

 

[Grim17]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

IMO this case is not one of murder, but of manslaughter.

The state may have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ has been lying throught this whole incident. That may be all they have to do to create enough doubt in the jurors minds about Z's version and cause them to vote for manslaughter.

I'll ask this one again, and maybe you can answer it this time...

Are you saying that state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense?

 

[justabubba]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

Doesn't matter.. George believed all the daytime .. weekday burglaries were committed by black youth.

remember that testimony of the woman with young child whose home had been invaded by two african Americans?

they caught one, a community resident

what about the other?

 

[CalGun]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

I'm not sure why you consider the "L" to be the middle of the block? That doesn't equate.

BTW I was born and raised in a pretty small town, lived there, walked around it every day, and when I became a patrolman there at age 18 I had a hell of a time with street signs and street names. You could tell me "so and so"s house and I knew it instantly but the address...OMG I didn't know addresses and streets for nothing so it does not surprise me he needed to look and see street signs or address numbers.

You would? Realy? You would get out your car on a rainy night to walk to the intersection to find the street instead of driving your car to the intersection.
You know that slows down the process of getting the info to the NEN, don't you?

It does not. Street signs are not usually found where there is no intersection. They just aren't.

Imho, it's not reasonable to to look for a street sign in the middle of the block instead of at an intersection.
I guess your mileage varies on this count. I don't find it reasonable to believe that it's reasonable to to look for a street sign in the middle of the block.
:shrug:


He said that he exited the car to look for a street sign. Failing to find a street sign in the middle of the block [go figure], he then decided to seek an address.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

In all of Z's statements to police, he never once claims "I shot because I was in fear for my life over the injuries I sustained". He did however state he shot because he believed TM was going for his gun.

While that is true, the jury is not limited to deciding based on that alone. As I heard tell anyway. The jury is free to decide that the fear of injury is enough despite GZ not making that case. I heard this from an attorney on some other MB. So, maybe it's not accurate. Bu I suspect it is.

 

[Mason66]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

IMO this case is not one of murder, but of manslaughter.

The state may have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ has been lying throught this whole incident. That may be all they have to do to create enough doubt in the jurors minds about Z's version and cause them to vote for manslaughter.

I am sure you know you have it backwards. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt he is guilty, not the other way around.

Do you think the doubt was erased?

 

[CalGun]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

Look where he parked his vehicle - Zimmerman - its not an intersection other than an "L" in the continuous street.

What "L"? Twin Trees had a street sign.. There are NO street lights or streets signs behind homes.

 

[justabubba]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

I'll ask this one again, and maybe you can answer it this time...

Are you saying that state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense?

i will expect your question to now be avoided - AGAIN

 

[spanky]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

I'll ask this one again, and maybe you can answer it this time...

Are you saying that state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense?

If the state creates enough doubt in jurors minds about Z's version of events, that may be enough for them to convict on manslaughter.

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

In addition to it being reasonable for someone to feel fear in a situation to justify the use of force, the defendant also has to actually feel that fear.
Therefore, I think that showing that GZ lied does significantly impact the self-defense argument.

I see it impacting it, but not significantly. There are numerous reasons to lie that don't in any way preclude that he honestly feared death. To me, Zimmerman being a liar or not doesn't change that the evidence provided outside of Zimmerman's statements to lead me to believe the claim of self defense was a legitimate one. I can see how others could feel differently, but to act as Spanky does that this begins and ends on the notion that Zimmerman is a liar is I think a bit naive.

Additionally, there is a two part issue here. The affirmative defense of self defense essentially would be an attepmt to clear of any wrong doing in the killing. Even if the notion of Self Defense fails however, the State still has to prove within a reasonable doubt that the killing was done within the statutes of Murder and I do not see in any way how they've demonstrated that...even IF the Self Defense argument is faulty.

Manslaughter is a more reasonable case to make at that point, though by focusing on the Murder side of things I think it's harder to make that claim based just on the trial. But if Self Defense isn't adequetely proven by the Defense it still doesn't necessarily mean it was fits the bill for Murder.

I do think you're right, being able to demonstrate he did feel that fear nad being credible would certainly help...but I don't think it's some kind of death sentence to the self defense argument if Zimmerman isn't trustworthy as Spanky seems to imply.

While I don't think that it meets the positive obligation to demonstrate that the defendant definitely did not feel that fear, it is a necessary first step in the process of demonstrating that definitively.[/QUOTE]

 

[Grim17]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

If the state creates enough doubt in jurors minds about Z's version of events, that may be enough for them to convict on manslaughter.

That's not what I asked you spanky.... Let's try it again, shall we...

Are you saying that state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense?

It's a simple yes or no question.

 

[Caine]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

If the state creates enough doubt in jurors minds about Z's version of events, that may be enough for them to convict on manslaughter.

You can't convict someone based upon doubt.

The standard to convict someone is "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

A conviction is not based upon doubt, but upon the lack of doubt.

Your answer shows you know absolutely nothing about how our criminal justice system works.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

I'm not sure why you consider the "L" to be the middle of the block? That doesn't equate.

"Middle" as in not the intersections. I did't mean to imply that it precisely bisected the block if that's what you mean.

BTW I was born and raised in a pretty small town, lived there, walked around it every day, and when I became a patrolman there at age 18 I had a hell of a time with street signs and street names. You could tell me "so and so"s house and I knew it instantly but the address...OMG I didn't know addresses and streets for nothing so it does not surprise me he needed to look and see street signs or address numbers.

And when you needed to see a street sign, did you go to an intersection where street signs are posted?
Or did you go to the "middle" of the block where street signs are not posted?

It's not about whether or not he could remember the name of the street. It's about looking for a street sign where there is no reasonable expectation of finding one. [and about needing to exit the vehicle to see something which by design is visible from inside vehicles.]

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

I don't have any bias except bias against lying,

I don't think that word means what you think it does.

 

[Mason66]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

If the state creates enough doubt in jurors minds about Z's version of events, that may be enough for them to convict on manslaughter.

The jury cannot convict on lieing. That charge is not in front of them.

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

"Could have"? "supporting the notion?". All you've shown is that at some point TM got the better of the fistfight. I've said it a dozen times and it never seems to register with Z lovers...

That he got the better of the fist fight and the degree in which he was getting the better. Even in a "fist fight", an individual can escalate enough to warrant self defense. Is it definite in this case? Absolutely not. But acting liKe "George Zimmerman is a liar, that disqualifies everything" as you have is idiotic and unreasonable. It's HILLARIOUS as you bitch and bitch about "Z Lovers" (IE anyone that dares to disagree with your ridiculous assertion) while acting in the very fashion you bitch about with over exaggerations, ignoring of evidence, and other such actions.

 

[Grim17]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

You can't convict someone based upon doubt.

The standard to convict someone is "Beyond a reasonable doubt".

A conviction is not based upon doubt, but upon the lack of doubt.

Your answer shows you know absolutely nothing about how our criminal justice system works.

I believe he does know but answering my question honestly shoots down everything he has been saying.

 

[justabubba]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

That's not what I asked you spanky.... Let's try it again, shall we...

Are you saying that state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense?

It's a simple yes or no question.

expect this yes/no question to be avoided yet again

 

[Grim17]

Re: Day 14, Closing Arguments - Defense (Friday 7/12)

Here spanky, it's simple... I'll ask myself the question:

Hey Grim, do you think the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense?

Why no Grim, I don't think they have come anywhere close to doing so.