quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

And again, the actual statute:

Florida Statute 90.108

 Introduction of related writings or recorded statements.—
(1) When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section.

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion

Everyone here has heard about or even had a relative who fell, bumped their head, seemed fine, no bleeding, no apparent injury, die a couple of days later from a brain injury. Punching, wrestling around, that's fighting, Intentionally pounding someone's head onto concrete is attempting potentially PERMANENT damage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

And again, the actual statute:

Florida Statute 90.108

 Introduction of related writings or recorded statements.—
(1) When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section.

I bolded it for you. That means that the only reason to include the rest of the statement is if it has bearing on the part being introduced. Prosecutors can show a confession without the many hours of interview prior to it. They can show the segment of a security camera tape that shows the suspect not the many hours that don't.

Go talk a judge if you don't understand that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: papassion

Everyone here has heard about or even had a relative who fell, bumped their head, seemed fine, no bleeding, no apparent injury, die a couple of days later from a brain injury. Punching, wrestling around, that's fighting, Intentionally pounding someone's head onto concrete is attempting potentially PERMANENT damage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So in your opinion a fist fight is a capital crime?

So in your opinion the victim of an assault should have to wait until he's dead before pulling the trigger?

K.

He should have to wait until there is a reasonable reason to believe his opponents intent is to cause imminent death or great bodily harm. You cannot just shoot someone because you are a pants pissing coward who is losing a fist fight.

Lets take two cases:
In case "A" you have a society where people are allowed to assault people and get their hands spanked "if" the police witness it, if it is corroborated, trial etc.

Society "B" you have a place where people are entitle to defend themselves, and are subjected to scrutiny (in the form of a trial) with jeopardy of going to jail for potentially life if you make a mistake.

Which society do you prefer to live in.

I'll take "B" everyday, and twice on Sundays.

You have the right to defend yourself. However you must reserve the use of deadly force for situations where your life is imminently in danger. Losing a fist fight does not count.

quote:

2. The state exhausted 1000's of manhours trying to surmount enough evidence for a year... then when they didn't arrest, the public went bonkers forcing them to fire a bunch of people and then go on a witch hunt.

quote:

1. The majority of forensic evidence supports self defense. Why would Zimmerman have a head injury and a broken nose, these injuries are consistent with being "ground and pounded"
Secondly, the GSW, was 2-18 inches away according to CSI, which means if TM was on top, it would be probable that the distance is this range.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantJ247

I didn't read all 5 pages of the thread,

To me as an intelligent human being looking completely objective i see many things wrong with the "public outrage"

1. The majority of forensic evidence supports self defense. Why would Zimmerman have a head injury and a broken nose, these injuries are consistent with being "ground and pounded"
Secondly, the GSW, was 2-18 inches away according to CSI, which means if TM was on top, it would be probable that the distance is this range.
2. The state exhausted 1000's of manhours trying to surmount enough evidence for a year... then when they didn't arrest, the public went bonkers forcing them to fire a bunch of people and then go on a witch hunt.
3. If you evaluate opinions of all the top lawyers in the country, they all would not want to be the prosecutor. It's like climbing out of a muddy well, in monsoon season... not happening. Almost all lawyers agree that he wasn't going to get found "guilty". For either lack of evidence, or for being innocent.
4. Everyone says "he's so racist, and he profiled Treyvon". Don't we all? Example: Do you feel uneasy about a 6 foot black guy with face tatoos with a hoodie on? Or do you feel uneasy about a sharp dressed black guy with a tie and slacks? I would say ding ding ding yep you guessed it all people would feel uneasy and more on edge and more suspicious about Mr. Hoodie. Any race, any height, the hoodie tatted guy is the more suspicious one, no matter what.
5. There were multiple break in's in the neighborhood recently and Zimmerman was probably put a little on edge about it, also i believe there was something like 500 911 calls in the neighborhood in the past year, quite a bit.
6. I agree, he was too agressive in not following dispatch orders. However, it's a free country, you can confront anyone you want whenever. Who knows the words that were exchanged, many hypothesis for this part of the timeline. To me this is the only thing Zimmerman did "wrong" was be too agressive.
7. Martin isn't exactly the model citizen, supposedly a jewelry thief and dope smoker (a little weed is fine it's normal for hser's), but nonetheless also the way he talked was that of a gangbanger if you listened to his girlfriends testimony.
8. His parents are profiting immensly from this situation, making millions off of his death and trademarking his name etc. His dad, who is an ex- gang member, is now a happy camper.


Seeing the protests out here in LA , on I10, made me laugh. In summary, the "creepy ass cracka" ended up having to shoot the 17 yr old 6 foot 175 lb "kid", due to the fact he was being beaten down physically by him. Despite whatever words were exchanged, makes no difference, the bottom line is he was on bottom and being owned, hence him shooting the thug, and erasing his life.

Sure it sucks to see a kid die. Always. However, i can't help but be happy about it, because the kid was trying to kill Zimmerman (according to evidence and wounds suffered by zimmerman, this is the most likely scenario)

Who agrees?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

And again, the actual statute:

Florida Statute 90.108

 Introduction of related writings or recorded statements.—
(1) When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section.

I bolded it for you. That means that the only reason to include the rest of the statement is if it has bearing on the part being introduced. Prosecutors can show a confession without the many hours of interview prior to it. They can show the segment of a security camera tape that shows the suspect not the many hours that don't.

Go talk a judge if you don't understand that.

Wrong. The bolded part supports what I am saying. Go talk to a judge if you can't understand that.

quote:

A defendant’s exculpatory out-of-court statement is admissible into evidence when a state witness has testified to incriminating statements contemporaneously made by the defendant and ‘the jury should hear the remaining portions at the same time so as to avoid the potential for creating misleading impressions by taking statements out of context

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

And again, the actual statute:

Florida Statute 90.108

 Introduction of related writings or recorded statements.—
(1) When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section.

I bolded it for you. That means that the only reason to include the rest of the statement is if it has bearing on the part being introduced. Prosecutors can show a confession without the many hours of interview prior to it. They can show the segment of a security camera tape that shows the suspect not the many hours that don't.

Go talk a judge if you don't understand that.

Wrong. The bolded part supports what I am saying. Go talk to a judge if you can't understand that.

You do know that the prosecution didn't actually show every minute of both the police interview and the walk through right? The defense didn't even try to get the rest of the tapes into evidence because they had no basis to.

The fact is the prosecution only has show sections that directly relate to the point being made in the section they want to show. they do not have to, for instance, show the cops lying to a suspect before he confesses. They do not have to show any part of interview beyond what they want to show unless it directly relates to the part they are entering into evidence.

And once again the Florida appellate court has interpreted the statute to mean this

quote:

A defendant’s exculpatory out-of-court statement is admissible into evidence when a state witness has testified to incriminating statements contemporaneously made by the defendant and ‘the jury should hear the remaining portions at the same time so as to avoid the potential for creating misleading impressions by taking statements out of context

So yes the prosecution could have entered into evidence only the things Zimmerman said were provably lies as long as they showed nothing else except any correction of those lies he told during that same interview. Which is part of the reason a good defense attorney will tell you to never ever speak to the police about anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

2. The state exhausted 1000's of manhours trying to surmount enough evidence for a year... then when they didn't arrest, the public went bonkers forcing them to fire a bunch of people and then go on a witch hunt.

Ummm... are you sure you know what you are talking about? It wasnt a year from the time of the shooting to the time of the arrest. The shooting was February 26, 2012. Z's arrest was on April 11, 2012.

quote:

1. The majority of forensic evidence supports self defense. Why would Zimmerman have a head injury and a broken nose, these injuries are consistent with being "ground and pounded"
Secondly, the GSW, was 2-18 inches away according to CSI, which means if TM was on top, it would be probable that the distance is this range.

When a news agency went asking, the ranges for what was given went from a few inches to a few feet....

quote:

It doesn't take very long to acrue a thousand manhours Tazzy. You're looking at a 6 week stretch of time. Well, just under. In 6 weeks time it would only take 5 investigators working 40 hours a week to put in 1200 manhours. I'm pretty sure they had more people than that working more than 40 hour weeks on the Zimmerman case.

quote:

There are still news agencies citing parts of the trial that are completely inaccurate. But what news agency are you talking about and who did they ask? The reliability of the source, the question itself, and the qualifications of whom they asked have bearing. News agencies often get facts wrong and report bad information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Bullshit. Again.
The fact that the defendent did or did not try to get other taped minutes into evidence says nothing about the law. It says that the defense was was satisfied with the information presented. Considering that Zimmerman got to get essentially his ENTIRE testimony entered without having to testify - I'd be satisfied to.

Trying to obfuscate doesn't win you any points. All of Zimmermans video was contemporaneously made. So the defense could have compelled the prosecution to play it at any time. Which is what I said, and what Raiken said and which you just simply refuse to acknowledge.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Bullshit. Again.
The fact that the defendent did or did not try to get other taped minutes into evidence says nothing about the law. It says that the defense was was satisfied with the information presented. Considering that Zimmerman got to get essentially his ENTIRE testimony entered without having to testify - I'd be satisfied to.

Trying to obfuscate doesn't win you any points. All of Zimmermans video was contemporaneously made. So the defense could have compelled the prosecution to play it at any time. Which is what I said, and what Raiken said and which you just simply refuse to acknowledge.

Wrong. The statute is called the rule of completeness. If it means what you guys claim then every minute of the tape would have to, by law, be shown if any of it was.

But what the statute actually says if the prosecution shows a tape or has a witness testify to things the defendant said any relevant parts have to be entered into evidence. The appellate court clarified that specifically to say that if the defendant statement implicates himself then any exculpatory statements have to be entered as well. Zimmerman lying about events not directly part of the reason he felt he had to shoot are admissible without showing anything but any possible corrections he may have made during that same interview.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Bullshit. Again.
The fact that the defendent did or did not try to get other taped minutes into evidence says nothing about the law. It says that the defense was was satisfied with the information presented. Considering that Zimmerman got to get essentially his ENTIRE testimony entered without having to testify - I'd be satisfied to.

Trying to obfuscate doesn't win you any points. All of Zimmermans video was contemporaneously made. So the defense could have compelled the prosecution to play it at any time. Which is what I said, and what Raiken said and which you just simply refuse to acknowledge.

Wrong. The statute is called the rule of completeness. If it means what you guys claim then every minute of the tape would have to, by law, be shown if any of it was.

But what the statute actually says if the prosecution shows a tape or has a witness testify to things the defendant said any relevant parts have to be entered into evidence. The appellate court clarified that specifically to say that if the defendant statement implicates himself then any exculpatory statements have to be entered as well. Zimmerman lying about events not directly part of the reason he felt he had to shoot are admissible without showing anything but any possible corrections he may have made during that same interview.

What it means is what it says. If the prosecution plays part of a recording, the defense can insist the rest of it be played too. You have done nothing to refute that fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
I think he was talking about the trial that was recently held here on Earth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DominantJ247

One quick question because i have heard conflicting stories. Was there or was there not a witness to trayvon being on top beating zimmerman?

J