RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option

RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 8:50:43 PM)
http://news.yahoo.com/defense-trying-martin-texts-introduced-005223637.html quote: Zimmerman's attorneys called a forensics computer analyst to tell the judge presiding over the trial that text messages on Martin's cellphone showed he was trying to buy or sell a gun. The analyst, Richard Connor, read to the judge text messages he found on Martin's phone that describe Martin recounting a fight he had been in to a friend. Jurors were out of the courtroom. The testimony was given to Judge Debra Nelson to help her decide whether to allow the defense to use them. She had ruled that information about Martin's interest in guns and fighting couldn't be used during opening statements. But she left open the possibility that they could be introduced later Interesting. A victim's past behavior isn't always relevant... But the prosecution did seem to open the door for questions as to whether Martin had a specific set of fighting skills.

Arturas -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 9:14:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: There is no "too" here from what I see. How do you equate the two? Its your insistence that George will be found innocent. That is what I was equating. So you think because I think George is likely to be found innocent he must be just as guilty as OJ. Sweet. That means that if I decided Nixon was guilty then Clinton really had sex? My head hurts.

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 9:18:32 PM)
It should hurt... and we all know why. I dont believe OJ was ever innocent. Nor do I believe George is completely innocent.

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 9:23:47 PM)
quote: Interesting. A victim's past behavior isn't always relevant... But the prosecution did seem to open the door for questions as to whether Martin had a specific set of fighting skills. That door has been open for the whole trial... they just have to find a way to convince the Judge to allow it...

Arturas -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 9:47:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It should hurt... and we all know why. I dont believe OJ was ever innocent. Nor do I believe George is completely innocent. Yes. It hurts. I feel assaulted. Violated. But I know you are innocent.

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 9:54:27 PM)
The judge denied it for the defense from a pretrial motion, so no, it wasn't open at all, until the point at which the prosecution raised it. The legal jargon for that is 'opened the door'. Do try to keep up, 'counselor'. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Interesting. A victim's past behavior isn't always relevant... But the prosecution did seem to open the door for questions as to whether Martin had a specific set of fighting skills. That door has been open for the whole trial... they just have to find a way to convince the Judge to allow it...

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 9:56:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It should hurt... and we all know why. I dont believe OJ was ever innocent. Nor do I believe George is completely innocent. Yes. It hurts. I feel assaulted. Violated. But I know you are innocent. Of course I am. Im tazzy... Im always innocent. [:D]

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 9:57:22 PM)
quote: The judge denied it for the defense from a pretrial motion, so no, it wasn't open at all, until the point at which the prosecution raised it. The legal jargon for that is 'opened the door'. Do try to keep up, 'counselor'. The Judge denied it in opening statements only. From your own link.... Jurors were out of the courtroom. The testimony was given to Judge Debra Nelson to help her decide whether to allow the defense to use them. She had ruled that information about Martin's interest in guns and fighting couldn't be used during opening statements. But she left open the possibility that they could be introduced later. I dont need to be a "counselor". I know how to read. [:D]

Powergamz1 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 10:08:50 PM)
Not reading the law. Google and denial won't get you paid as a professional legal expert, anywhere but the internet. I'll take the consensus of my colleagues and ignore your assertions when they conflict with reality... M'kay? quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: The judge denied it for the defense from a pretrial motion, so no, it wasn't open at all, until the point at which the prosecution raised it. The legal jargon for that is 'opened the door'. Do try to keep up, 'counselor'. The Judge denied it in opening statements only. From your own link.... Jurors were out of the courtroom. The testimony was given to Judge Debra Nelson to help her decide whether to allow the defense to use them. She had ruled that information about Martin's interest in guns and fighting couldn't be used during opening statements. But she left open the possibility that they could be introduced later. I dont need to be a "counselor". I know how to read. [:D]

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 10:12:04 PM)
quote: Not reading the law. Google and denial won't get you paid as a professional legal expert, anywhere but the internet. I'll take the consensus of my colleagues and ignore your assertions when they conflict with reality... M'kay? The reality is the link YOU brought into the conversation. Dont get pissy when its used against you. The Judge never "closed the door" on the evidence, she simply said.. not in opening statements. Beyond that, the "door" was still open... they just have to find the door. Pick better sources that agree with your position next time. M'kay?

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 11:23:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Depending upon who's testimony? Like I said, none of us who weren't there can ever know for sure. Such is my point. The only thing that is certain is that Zimmerman is the one who set events in motion, apparently based upon nothing more than his own racial bigotry. The only one who displayed racial bigotry was Martin.

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 11:32:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle How does any of this stuff change the essential facts: 1) That Zimmerman provoked martin by following him (or some other way), losing his right to self defense 2a) That he didn't exhaust every effort to escape. or 2b) That his life wasn't reasonably in danger. 1 Walking up to him and calling him the n word would not negate his right of self defense, let alone this 2a He didn't get a chance to escape 2b Bang your head off what you believe to be cement and see how threatened you feel.

Kirata -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/9/2013 11:37:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b The only thing that is certain is that Zimmerman is the one who set events in motion, apparently based upon nothing more than his own racial bigotry. You're just making shit up. Zimmerman has black family members and good relationships with his black neighbors. In one case in particular, he went out of his way to help get justice for a black guy who was assaulted by a white cop. As for setting "events in motion," when Zimmerman made clear his intent by asking Martin what he was doing there, Martin could have replied along the lines of, "I live here. What's your excuse?" instead of going gangsta on him. That was what set the "events in motion" that lead to Martin's death. Otherwise, you might as well blame Zimmerman's mother for ever getting pregnant with George in the first place, and nail the source of the problem on Adam and Eve. K.

farglebargle -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/10/2013 1:05:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle How does any of this stuff change the essential facts: 1) That Zimmerman provoked martin by following him (or some other way), losing his right to self defense 2a) That he didn't exhaust every effort to escape. or 2b) That his life wasn't reasonably in danger. 1 Walking up to him and calling him the n word would not negate his right of self defense, let alone this 2a He didn't get a chance to escape 2b Bang your head off what you believe to be cement and see how threatened you feel. 1. "Are you following him?" "Yes" "We don't need you to do that" "OK" That doesn't NEGATE his self defense PRIVILEGE, but of course, it raises the bar. 2a. Yes he did. Remember, the argument they had. Zimmerman could have easily communicated that he was trying to leave ( he didn't ) or try to run away ( he didn't ). There were a few minutes of words being exchanged. 2b. EVERYONE agrees that the injuries were trivial. Of course there's the "HYPOTHETICAL" case, but as we've seen -- Zimmerman's judgement doesn't meat the REASONABLE standard. Was it the drugs Zimmerman takes? Who cares? Zimmerman didn't do what any reasonable person would have.

Kirata -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/10/2013 1:11:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Zimmerman's judgement doesn't meat the REASONABLE standard. Not many meats do these days, plus prices have gone up. K.

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/10/2013 1:16:48 AM)
1. "Are you following him?" "Yes" "We don't need you to do that" "OK" That doesn't NEGATE his self defense PRIVILEGE, but of course, it raises the bar. 2a. Yes he did. Remember, the argument they had. Zimmerman could have easily communicated that he was trying to leave ( he didn't ) or try to run away ( he didn't ). There were a few minutes of words being exchanged. 2b. EVERYONE agrees that the injuries were trivial. Of course there's the "HYPOTHETICAL" case, but as we've seen -- Zimmerman's judgement doesn't meat the REASONABLE standard. Was it the drugs Zimmerman takes? Who cares? Zimmerman didn't do what any reasonable person would have. 1 glad to see you admit this is bs, and self defense is a right, not a privilege 2a why are you following me what are you doing here smack no chance to run most likely didn't know a fight was coming. 2b why can't you comprehend that the injuries already sustained are irrelevant? Again if you believe that your head has been bounced off the cement how many times makes it reasonable? When your brains fall out it is too late.

farglebargle -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/10/2013 1:27:54 AM)
RIGHTS aren't taken away by Law. They come from Our Creator ( MY MOMMY in my case... ) "Self Defense" is a qualified immunity, therefore it is a privilege. Don't argue with me, take it up with the publishers of legal dictionaries. And the Defense just pissed off the Judge for the final time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaLKQvTOXtc If they're working on their appeal grounds this hard at this point, they know it's all over but the deliberation and verdict.

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/10/2013 1:59:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle RIGHTS aren't taken away by Law. They come from Our Creator ( MY MOMMY in my case... ) "Self Defense" is a qualified immunity, therefore it is a privilege. Don't argue with me, take it up with the publishers of legal dictionaries. And the Defense just pissed off the Judge for the final time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaLKQvTOXtc If they're working on their appeal grounds this hard at this point, they know it's all over but the deliberation and verdict. Which, assuming a sane jury, will be not guilty.

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/10/2013 2:02:05 AM)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

farglebargle -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/10/2013 2:15:06 AM)
quote: a why are you following me what are you doing here smack no chance to run most likely didn't know a fight was coming. That is not supported by the TRIAL TESTIMONY where the resident reports hearing a multi-part verbal exchange. Which is confirmed by other witnesses. The only person claiming that he was attacked in the way you suggest is Zimmerman himself, and without any credibility, there's no reason to believe his account, is there? So the prosecution has established -- via testimony from multiple, unrelated witnesses -- that Zimmerman is lying about being attacked with no opportunity to signal his intent to disengage, or tried to retreat. And right there, Zimmerman lost Self-Defense.

Page: << < prev 19 20 [21] 22 23 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625