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

DomKen -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:00:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: PressPlay If you listened to his 911 call, you know that he did not stop following. Sorry but this is wrong. The encounter started at nearly exactly the same spot George agreed to not follow, after agreeing not to follow George spent the rest of the call not knowing where Trayvon was, and the lead investigator, Chris Serino was unable to offer any evidence that George continued to follow. So Zimmerman is a liar. He did tell the dispatcher he would go to the mailboxes and wait for the police there.. and again there is nothing to prove he wasn't heading that way or preparing to head that way... even if all he did was stand completely still, it would mean he was not following is there something that pinpoints exactly where Z was at the moment the 911 OP said he didn't need to follow? if I rememebr right, it seemed to me, Z had indicated he was a confused about his exact location at that moment and I'll admit, I do not know, I am asking! There was a 3 minute gap between him hanging up and the shooting. The police arrived on scene within a minute of the shooting so if he was going to the mailboxes he should have been underway before Martin confronted him and this whole thing would not have happened.

BitYakin -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:01:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Mark O’Mara, Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyer, argued that Mr. Martin’s drug use could have made him aggressive and paranoid, which the defense said might have prompted him to attack Mr. Zimmerman, 29, a neighborhood watch volunteer. “All of that fits in squarely to what the defense is going to present: that George Zimmerman was put in the position that he had to act in self-defense,” Mr. O’Mara said. “How could you keep us from arguing that?” Judge Nelson replied, “The rules of evidence keep you from doing it.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/us/judge-in-trayvon-martin-case-puts-limits-on-defense.html?smid=pl-share&_r=1& Updated 2010.... Current as of May 2013... Florida Rules of Evidence http://law.onecle.com/florida/evidence/90.803.html I think there is some confusion here, you seem to be talking about testimony about drug use, and they seem to be talking about wether txt messages can be admitted and under what circumstances they can be admitted

Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:02:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Straw man, ad hominem. You said admission of X = evidence that x is true. I proved otherwise. It is neither straw man nor ad hominem. One of our posters admits to be a super genius. Are you saying that is evidence that he is?

igor2003 -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:06:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: PressPlay Are you serious BitYakin?? The evidence is a teenager is dead. A teenager who did not think his life would end at his fathers girlfriends apartment complex. If you listened to his 911 call, you know that he did not stop following. The entire exchange was not caught on the phone. The call ended before the encounter ended. WE do not know what else took place except a Teen died. It took 45 days for them to arrest Zimmerman. Even his interview at the station on the day this happened is faulty in MY opinion. You can be in his corner, I don't mind that, but understand that Zimmerman caused the dead of a teen simply because........ and if that was the ONLY evidence you'd have a point! I did listen to the 911 call and there is absolutley nothing in there at indiactes he did not stop following him... he did not say, NO I am going to follow him anyhow, there are no sounds that indicate and/or prove he continued to follow... maybe you could tell me/us the specific words and/or sounds you heard on the 911 call that conclusively proves Z continued to follow M?? First, I doubt that you did listen to the NEN call (it wasn't 911) because you keep referring to the operator as "she" when it was a man. But other than that, you're right, there was no "sound". But you do have Z first saying that he will meet the police back at his vehicle, then changing his mind and asking that the police call him on his cell when they arrive so that he can tell them where he is at that time. That is a clear indication that he is continuing to look for Martin. Or maybe you think he was just out enjoying the rain? Then there is the fact that from the time the operator told him that he didn't need to follow Martin, Zimmerman had about 2 minutes while they remained on the phone in which he could have easily walked the short distance back to his truck. But he didn't go back to his truck, and again I ask you why...was he just enjoying being out in the rain too much? cause I think if what you say is there, is in fact there, the prosecution MIGHT have pointed it out to the jury maybe you can give me a link to where the prosecution said and this sound proves conclusively that Z did not stop following M as suggested to him to do and yes the entire verbal exchange up to the point that physical contact was made was testified to by an eye, or rather ear witness! and it clearly shows M made NO ATTEMPT to respond verbally to Z's question of what are you doing here? It would appear that Martin didn't have time to verbally respond. The "ear witness" said the next thing Martin said was "Get off. Get off." Why would he say that unless Zimmerman was physically trying to detain him? Also, Zimmerman didn't bother to respond to Martin's question about why Z was following him, and THAT question was asked first. Throughout various interviews and interactions with the police and the media Zimmerman constantly made it a point to point out he was with the Neighborhood Watch...except for the time when it was most critical to do so...when Martin asked why Z was following him. Had Z simply said then, like he did many, many times other than that, that he was with the Neighborhood Watch the entire incident would most likely have been avoided.

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:06:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Mark O’Mara, Mr. Zimmerman’s lawyer, argued that Mr. Martin’s drug use could have made him aggressive and paranoid, which the defense said might have prompted him to attack Mr. Zimmerman, 29, a neighborhood watch volunteer. “All of that fits in squarely to what the defense is going to present: that George Zimmerman was put in the position that he had to act in self-defense,” Mr. O’Mara said. “How could you keep us from arguing that?” Judge Nelson replied, “The rules of evidence keep you from doing it.” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/us/judge-in-trayvon-martin-case-puts-limits-on-defense.html?smid=pl-share&_r=1& Updated 2010.... Current as of May 2013... Florida Rules of Evidence http://law.onecle.com/florida/evidence/90.803.html I think there is some confusion here, you seem to be talking about testimony about drug use, and they seem to be talking about wether txt messages can be admitted and under what circumstances they can be admitted A recap so everyone is on the same page: Nelson's ruling on drug use: Past use is inadmissible, use on that night would be admitted if the defense could show the amount he was tested for would cause impairment. Nelson then seemed to forget that ruling when Dr. Bao said he believed Trayvon could have been impaired. Nelson's ruling on texts: No mention allowed in opening statements, would have to be authenticated before further argument would be heard in regards to admissibility.

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:08:40 PM)
quote: I think there is some confusion here, you seem to be talking about testimony about drug use, and they seem to be talking about wether txt messages can be admitted and under what circumstances they can be admitted Look at the Rules of Evidence Certain evidence could ultimately be raised during the trial, however, if it is proven relevant and admissible based on what the prosecution presents, the judge decided. Nelson left the door open on one issue involving marijuana. Defense attorneys say toxicology tests show Martin had enough THC -- the key active ingredient in marijuana -- in his system to indicate he may have smoked the drug a couple of hours before the shooting. Nelson barred any mention of this from opening statements but said she will rule later on whether it will be admissible after she hears defense experts' testimony about the marijuana use. Marijuana use in general can come up during jury selection, the judge said. The attorneys also cannot bring up Martin's text messages. The defense argued that texts from the day of the shooting show the teen was "hostile." The judge also agreed to block previous text messages from Martin about drugs and a gun. http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/justice/florida-zimmerman-trial

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:09:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Straw man, ad hominem. You said admission of X = evidence that x is true. I proved otherwise. It is neither straw man nor ad hominem. Rule admits to be a super genius. Are you saying that is evidence that he is? No you didn't prove anything. And you're confusing evidence with proof.

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:13:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Straw man, ad hominem. You said admission of X = evidence that x is true. I proved otherwise. It is neither straw man nor ad hominem. Rule admits to be a super genius. Are you saying that is evidence that he is? Also, the state used nothing more than George saying he was taking MMA training as evidence of being a capable fighter. By your logic, that would be inadmissible, yet the judge allowed it.

BitYakin -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:14:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: PressPlay If you listened to his 911 call, you know that he did not stop following. Sorry but this is wrong. The encounter started at nearly exactly the same spot George agreed to not follow, after agreeing not to follow George spent the rest of the call not knowing where Trayvon was, and the lead investigator, Chris Serino was unable to offer any evidence that George continued to follow. So Zimmerman is a liar. He did tell the dispatcher he would go to the mailboxes and wait for the police there.. and again there is nothing to prove he wasn't heading that way or preparing to head that way... even if all he did was stand completely still, it would mean he was not following is there something that pinpoints exactly where Z was at the moment the 911 OP said he didn't need to follow? if I rememebr right, it seemed to me, Z had indicated he was a confused about his exact location at that moment and I'll admit, I do not know, I am asking! There was a 3 minute gap between him hanging up and the shooting. The police arrived on scene within a minute of the shooting so if he was going to the mailboxes he should have been underway before Martin confronted him and this whole thing would not have happened. OK fair enough, but like I said, even standing still is not following even if he stood right there for the whole 3 minutes now I am not saying I know for sure this is what happened, but in the heat of the moment, the excitment of "gonna catch a bad guy" and all that maybe he really was confused about where he was exactly and was just standing there trying to orient himself you mention a 3 minute gap between the hang up and shooting, but that means there was a less than 3 minute gap between the hang up and the actual start of the confrontation... would you say it was fair to split the differance, and assume the entire spoken part and physical contact just prior to the shot may have taken 90 seconds? leaving the uncertianty gap at more like 90 seconds?

thompsonx -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:15:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Ladytisha I have every right to defend myself from harm. Self Defense By attacking someone who has not harmed you? How many innocent people have you attacked today? Are you saying that it is against the law to bitch slap someone who assaults you? no we are saying its against the law to bitch slap someone who has NOT attacked you Is an assault an attack?

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:17:25 PM)
quote: Also, the state used nothing more than George saying he was taking MMA training as evidence of being a capable fighter. By your logic, that would be inadmissible, yet the judge allowed it. No, its part of his medical record... whole different story.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:22:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Straw man, ad hominem. You said admission of X = evidence that x is true. I proved otherwise. It is neither straw man nor ad hominem. Rule admits to be a super genius. Are you saying that is evidence that he is? No you didn't prove anything. And you're confusing evidence with proof. What I'm proving is that people who brag on the internet about doing something are frequently full of shit. Full of shit doesn't fly in court.

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:24:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun Straw man, ad hominem. You said admission of X = evidence that x is true. I proved otherwise. It is neither straw man nor ad hominem. Rule admits to be a super genius. Are you saying that is evidence that he is? No you didn't prove anything. And you're confusing evidence with proof. What I'm proving is that people who brag on the internet about doing something are frequently full of shit. Full of shit doesn't fly in court. So George could have been full of it when he told the pretty PA that he was taking MMA classes. Yet, that flew in court.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:30:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun So George could have been full of it when he told the pretty PA that he was taking MMA classes. Yet, that flew in court. If that's all they had to go on, yes. But there were real flesh and blood witnesses and written records. Do you know the difference between real people and a text?[:D]

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:35:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun So George could have been full of it when he told the pretty PA that he was taking MMA classes. Yet, that flew in court. If that's all they had to go on, yes. But there were real flesh and blood witnesses and written records. Do you know the difference between real people and a text?[:D] All the State submitted was what George told the PA. No different than what Trayvon told people in texts.

BitYakin -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:35:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: PressPlay Are you serious BitYakin?? The evidence is a teenager is dead. A teenager who did not think his life would end at his fathers girlfriends apartment complex. If you listened to his 911 call, you know that he did not stop following. The entire exchange was not caught on the phone. The call ended before the encounter ended. WE do not know what else took place except a Teen died. It took 45 days for them to arrest Zimmerman. Even his interview at the station on the day this happened is faulty in MY opinion. You can be in his corner, I don't mind that, but understand that Zimmerman caused the dead of a teen simply because........ and if that was the ONLY evidence you'd have a point! I did listen to the 911 call and there is absolutley nothing in there at indiactes he did not stop following him... he did not say, NO I am going to follow him anyhow, there are no sounds that indicate and/or prove he continued to follow... maybe you could tell me/us the specific words and/or sounds you heard on the 911 call that conclusively proves Z continued to follow M?? First, I doubt that you did listen to the NEN call (it wasn't 911) because you keep referring to the operator as "she" when it was a man. But other than that, you're right, there was no "sound". But you do have Z first saying that he will meet the police back at his vehicle, then changing his mind and asking that the police call him on his cell when they arrive so that he can tell them where he is at that time. That is a clear indication that he is continuing to look for Martin. Or maybe you think he was just out enjoying the rain? Then there is the fact that from the time the operator told him that he didn't need to follow Martin, Zimmerman had about 2 minutes while they remained on the phone in which he could have easily walked the short distance back to his truck. But he didn't go back to his truck, and again I ask you why...was he just enjoying being out in the rain too much?[/color] cause I think if what you say is there, is in fact there, the prosecution MIGHT have pointed it out to the jury maybe you can give me a link to where the prosecution said and this sound proves conclusively that Z did not stop following M as suggested to him to do and yes the entire verbal exchange up to the point that physical contact was made was testified to by an eye, or rather ear witness! and it clearly shows M made NO ATTEMPT to respond verbally to Z's question of what are you doing here? It would appear that Martin didn't have time to verbally respond. The "ear witness" said the next thing Martin said was "Get off. Get off." Why would he say that unless Zimmerman was physically trying to detain him?[/b] Also, Zimmerman didn't bother to respond to Martin's question about why Z was following him, and THAT question was asked first. Throughout various interviews and interactions with the police and the media Zimmerman constantly made it a point to point out he was with the Neighborhood Watch...except for the time when it was most critical to do so...when Martin asked why Z was following him. Had Z simply said then, like he did many, many times other than that, that he was with the Neighborhood Watch the entire incident would most likely have been avoided. no its not a clear indication its supposition and speculation! and no she said the next thing he heard was a scuffle, THEN she heard SOME ONE say get off get off, its not been proven either way WHO yelled get off get off, 1/2 say M 1/2 say Z... so as I stated earlier, its your opinion then that Z asked why are you here, and threw a punch and /or lunged at the SAME instant giving M ZERO chance to respond verbally, even a cut off attempt to verbaly respond? and yes Z did respond, he responded with a question! ever heard the expresion, answering a question with a question?? may not be the response you would prefer but it IS a reponse and a VERBAL response not a physical response! and finally, you guys complain about MY POSTS being hard to read, geeeez I had to read that like 5 times!

tazzygirl -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:39:28 PM)
RULE 803. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE AGAINST HEARSAY — REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DECLARANT IS AVAILABLE AS A WITNESS The following are not excluded by the rule against hearsay, regardless of whether the declarant is available as a witness: (4) Statement Made for Medical Diagnosis or Treatment. A statement that: (A) is made for — and is reasonably pertinent to — medical diagnosis or treatment; and (B) describes medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803 Florida Laws: FL Statutes - Title VII Evidence Section 90.101 Short title. 90.803 Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.—The provision of s. 90.802 to the contrary notwithstanding, the following are not inadmissible as evidence, even though the declarant is available as a witness: (4) STATEMENTS FOR PURPOSES OF MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT.—Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment by a person seeking the diagnosis or treatment, or made by an individual who has knowledge of the facts and is legally responsible for the person who is unable to communicate the facts, which statements describe medical history, past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inceptions or general character of the cause or external source thereof, insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. http://law.onecle.com/florida/evidence/90.803.html Careful what you tell your Doc .. even when that Doc is a PA [;)]

BitYakin -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:39:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: BitYakin quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: Ladytisha I have every right to defend myself from harm. Self Defense By attacking someone who has not harmed you? How many innocent people have you attacked today? Are you saying that it is against the law to bitch slap someone who assaults you? no we are saying its against the law to bitch slap someone who has NOT attacked you Is an assault an attack? sure it is, who are you saying assulted and/or attacked whom? there is ZERO evidence that that Z attacked and/or assualted M

Raiikun -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:40:57 PM)
It's not even proven "Get off" was even said. The one witness changed her testimony in that regard, and has admitted to lying under oath.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/7/2013 5:56:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun So George could have been full of it when he told the pretty PA that he was taking MMA classes. Yet, that flew in court. If that's all they had to go on, yes. But there were real flesh and blood witnesses and written records. Do you know the difference between real people and a text?[:D] All the State submitted was what George told the PA. No different than what Trayvon told people in texts. It's verifiable. Is that word in your vocabulary? If someone was taking classes whether it's MMA or fly tying, there is a paper trail and instructors to verify. Internet boasting isn't verifiable. Jeff, I'll take 4th grade vocabulary.[8\|]

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875