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

BamaD -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:16:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: He was suspended from school for fighting...that is more than mere posturing. He's also on video referring one of the fights, and in texts talks about the rounds he lost. Hell, I was suspended for fighting.. and I didnt start it. Point isn't that he started it but that he had fighting experience.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:17:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD No it's like saying this guy isn't ready to take on the white belts cause they will take him apart. Basically is 100% true. Unfortunately, it seems that zim was a wannabe cop who would have been afraid to get out of the truck if he hadn't been packing. If he had actually paid attention to wtf neighborhood watch was supposed to do, he would have stayed in the truck as well. He got out, something happened (we know not exactly what) and it's going to cost him one way or another. I predict he walks but they might get a negligent homicide verdict.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:20:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: He was suspended from school for fighting...that is more than mere posturing. He's also on video referring one of the fights, and in texts talks about the rounds he lost. Hell, I was suspended for fighting.. and I didnt start it. Point isn't that he started it but that he had fighting experience. I taught HS. Suspended for "fighting" was frequently for something as simple as being jumped and throwing an elbow to get away or even just being in a shouting match. That's right kids. A coupla people jump you and you do anything but lay there and take an ass whipping and you too can get suspended for fighting. Blame "Zero Tolerance" for that one. I wouldn't call that something admissible in court as proof that this was a violent person.

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:21:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: He was suspended from school for fighting...that is more than mere posturing. He's also on video referring one of the fights, and in texts talks about the rounds he lost. Hell, I was suspended for fighting.. and I didnt start it. Point isn't that he started it but that he had fighting experience. Precisely. The evidence we're talking about isn't admissible to show tendency for violence; that would require a witness to testify on his reputation for violence according to the Florida Rules of Evidence. This is just evidence to show the comparative capabilities of the two, something the jury is allowed to consider.

PressPlay -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:22:21 PM)
BamaD, you're so good!!! To be suspended means only that you participated in, not that you initiated.

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:24:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: He was suspended from school for fighting...that is more than mere posturing. He's also on video referring one of the fights, and in texts talks about the rounds he lost. Hell, I was suspended for fighting.. and I didnt start it. Point isn't that he started it but that he had fighting experience. I taught HS. Suspended for "fighting" was frequently for something as simple as being jumped and throwing an elbow to get away or even just being in a shouting match. That's right kids. A coupla people jump you and you do anything but lay there and take an ass whipping and you too can get suspended for fighting. Blame "Zero Tolerance" for that one. I wouldn't call that something admissible in court as proof that this was a violent person. We're not discussing proof he was a violent person. People are confusing the two separate legal issues. That said, some of the texts in discussion also include friends imploring him to stop fighting so much.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:30:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun We're not discussing proof he was a violent person. People are confusing the two separate legal issues. That said, some of the texts in discussion also include friends imploring him to stop fighting so much. To be admissible in court, it has to be shown as a FACT that this person has a tendency to violence IN REAL LIFE, not that he is known for posturing on the interwebz. (please learn the difference)[:D]

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:31:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun We're not discussing proof he was a violent person. People are confusing the two separate legal issues. That said, some of the texts in discussion also include friends imploring him to stop fighting so much. To be admissible in court, it has to be shown as a FACT that this person has a tendency to violence IN REAL LIFE, not that he is known for posturing on the interwebz. (please learn the difference)[:D] That's not how it works. And again, we aren't discussing tendency for violence in regards to the texts. That is a separate legal issue.

Rule -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:33:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PressPlay I too don't think either of them angels, but I will not confront a stranger on the street if I don't think I have an advantage over them. Having his gun with him was the advantage and he alone knew he had it until he pulled it. For some reason he allowed Trayvon to get close enough to him to get him to the ground, pin him and bang his head on the sidewalk and managed not to become at least light headed during this struggle. I get it, adrenaline kicked in and caused him to throw Martin off, clear his head, pull the gun, remove the safety, put a bullet in the chamber, and then the trigger. I can see all of that happening in an instant. If Zimmerman planned that all in advance, Various businesses and secret services will want to recruit him for their case. [8\|]

Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:39:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun That's not how it works. And again, we aren't discussing tendency for violence in regards to the texts. That is a separate legal issue. You want Martin to be shown in court to be a violent person. You have to show factually that it is true. Interweb posturing isn't truth. Suspended for fighting isn't truth because at least half of the people suspended for fighting weren't the aggressor. Hell, if you want to show violent tendencies, which of the two has been arrested for violence and had a restraining order served for violence.[8\|] If you're pulling for Zim, you should be happy as shit that kind of stuff won't be admitted.

PressPlay -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:39:53 PM)
Not what I said Rule. I do think he had doing damage in mind when he got close to Martin. Since no one knows what words were exchanged before he shot , we can only speculate. Bottom line, had he followed the dispatchers advice, we would not be here armchair lawyering right now.

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:42:27 PM)
~FR Someone point me to the testimony about Z not being ready for the ring, please.

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:47:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun This is just evidence to show the comparative capabilities of the two, something the jury is allowed to consider. The defense still needs an actual witness to him fighting to put any such into testimony or something like what the prosecutors got against Zimmerman with his gym trainer. Reputation unknown to the defendant is the very definition of hearsay and will never be admissible. Even before rape shield laws defendants could just bring in someone to say "I heard she's a slut" which is exactly what you're trying to do to Martin.

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:53:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun We're not discussing proof he was a violent person. People are confusing the two separate legal issues. That said, some of the texts in discussion also include friends imploring him to stop fighting so much. To be admissible in court, it has to be shown as a FACT that this person has a tendency to violence IN REAL LIFE, not that he is known for posturing on the interwebz. (please learn the difference)[:D] A lesson in circumstantial evidence: Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. An example on point: The State has not shown George is factually a well trained fighter. The only evidence they've introduced is a piece of paper where George wrote he was taking MMA training, and the State is expecting the jury to infer that George is a capable fighter. By your logic, that should not be admitted as evidence, because George could have just been posturing for the pretty PA. But that evidence is why the defense is calling in the gym trainer this week to tell the jury that George actually was soft and unfit for the ring, to prevent that inference. Likewise, Trayvon discussing fights he has been in, suspensions for fighting, etc, is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Trayvon was a capable fighter. It doesn't have to be proven factually, it is left to the jury to decide how much weight to give it.

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:55:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun This is just evidence to show the comparative capabilities of the two, something the jury is allowed to consider. The defense still needs an actual witness to him fighting to put any such into testimony or something like what the prosecutors got against Zimmerman with his gym trainer. Reputation unknown to the defendant is the very definition of hearsay and will never be admissible. Even before rape shield laws defendants could just bring in someone to say "I heard she's a slut" which is exactly what you're trying to do to Martin. Nope, they only need a witness to put into evidence a reputation of violence. Evidence of physical capability is a different beast.

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:55:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Likewise, Trayvon discussing fights he has been in, suspensions for fighting, etc, is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Trayvon was a capable fighter. It doesn't have to be proven factually, it is left to the jury to decide how much weight to give it. And the defense can call a school official to testify on that. That isn't hearsay. The texts remain hearsay and were rightfully not admitted.

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:56:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Likewise, Trayvon discussing fights he has been in, suspensions for fighting, etc, is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Trayvon was a capable fighter. It doesn't have to be proven factually, it is left to the jury to decide how much weight to give it. And the defense can call a school official to testify on that. That isn't hearsay. The texts remain hearsay and were rightfully not admitted. I've already provided the source explaining why they aren't hearsay for this specific matter.

BitYakin -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 3:58:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PressPlay Not what I said Rule. I do think he had doing damage in mind when he got close to Martin. Since no one knows what words were exchanged before he shot , we can only speculate. Bottom line, had he followed the dispatchers advice, we would not be here armchair lawyering right now. yes we DO know what words were spoken before the shot, we know M spoke FIRST and said what are you following me for, and that instead of a shot or a punch Z replied what are you doing around here (paraphrased) at this point the scuffle bagan! we also know M did NOT reply with any spoken words to Z's question! M did not respond with I live here, I belng here, I have a right to be here etc etc etc not even a cut off attempt to respond with a spoken word! in your version Z askes a question and is already in the motion of throwing a punch as he said it so that M had absolutley ZERO time to respond verbally soo its your opinion Z asked a question and attacked in the same instant? possible, sure, but doesn't seem likely! also according to all provable testimony, Z did as instructed and stopped following M and was in the process of returning to his car. was he lying? MAYBE, but there is absolutly no evidence to say thats not how it happened

PressPlay -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 4:08:31 PM)
Since I'm late to the discussion, could some one please provide a link where Trayvon's fighting skills are demonstrated so that I may read about who took an ass whippin from Trayvon and how badly he did beat them up? I need to know just how accomplished a street fighter he was. Thank you.

BitYakin -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 4:13:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Likewise, Trayvon discussing fights he has been in, suspensions for fighting, etc, is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Trayvon was a capable fighter. It doesn't have to be proven factually, it is left to the jury to decide how much weight to give it. And the defense can call a school official to testify on that. That isn't hearsay. The texts remain hearsay and were rightfully not admitted. I would say the texts alone would be hearsay, but if a witness stpes forward to say yes it was avilent person the the texts become supporting evidence of that testimony, witness: yes travon was a violent agressive person.. defense attorny: your honor at this time we would like to submit text messages where trayvon bragged about this to support the validity of the witness's testimony! def atty to witness: sir, to your knowledge do any of these txts refer to the incidents you refer to? witness: yes or no or unsure if the witness can link a time and date to a txt and say yeahh I remember that, there ya go, no longer hearsay no differant that showing a pic of someone beat up and asking, is this the guy he beat up? now I am not saying the def can do all that, but thats how it COULD happen!

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875