The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by bbracken677

 

I'm not the one saying he was a burglar. For all your apparent criticisms of criminals, you seem to overlook that they come in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and levels of intelligence. I like how now Trayvon is not only a scumbag criminal, but automatically a dumb one too, despite never having been caught for his transgressions.

I see...so your assumption that he was too smart a criminal to be casing homes for B&E to have been dressed that way at the time is.....?

To me, it is immaterial to the case, however my point was that how he was dressed would in no way prove he wasn't casing homes for B&E due to the fact that the average criminal is hardly an Einstein...in fact, most B&E people are possessed of an IQ somewhat less than 100, which is considered average. Care to debate that?

Whether he was an actual criminal has no firm bearing on this case, other than to establish character.... The judge will not allow such evidence to be admitted, so it is pointless.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
The defense attorney is just confusing the jury with all this long drawn-out review. A simple statement about the State's obligation (and failure) to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was murder would be a better closing strategy than this.

edit on 12-7-2013 by MuzzleBreak because: (no reason given)

I'd rather listen to a rational 3-hour speech than a 3-hour emotional one with the Prosecution prancing about and hooping and hollering throughout.

From reports inside the court room the jury is still very attentive to the defense closing arguments after 3 hours and only 1 recess. So it seems like he is keeping their attention pretty good with what he is doing.

In a last ditch effort, at the risk of losing any jurors they might have had, the state drags in the child endangering stuff. Oh how truly desperate to the point of blithering comedy. A shameful lack of legal ethics displayed. Not to mention f-in stupid.

Originally posted by TKDRL
Pretty sure they get an hour for rebuttal.

The live stream says that they only have 45 minutes left. They were given 3 hours and they used 2 hours and 15 minutes for their closing statements. So they only get what's left. At least, that's what I'm reading.

reply to post by FlyersFan


You could be right, I am not entirely sure how it works.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
If that's the case, why do you suppose so many people are preparing to celebrate when Zimmerman walks out of the courtroom?

IF ... and that's a big IF ... anyone is preparing to celebrate when Zimmerman walks out, it'll be that they are celebrating the fact that an innocent person didn't get sent to prison. That's worth celebrating. That in no way takes away from the seriousness of a 17 year old self professed thug making bad decisions and getting himself killed. People are capable of separating the two issues.

Zimmerman said Martin was looking at his gun. He also said his gun was in his pants on his rear.

Flat out, he's lying!!


1) Martin couldn't see the gun behind Zimmerman.
2)How could Zimmerman pull his gun from the small of his back with Martin on top of him?

Zimmerman statements do not make sense and prove he is lying.

Case closed.

Originally posted by freedom12
Zimmerman said Martin was looking at his gun. He also said his gun was in his pants on his rear.

Flat out, he's lying!!


1) Martin couldn't see the gun behind Zimmerman.
2)How could Zimmerman pull his gun from the small of his back with Martin on top of him?

Zimmerman statements do not make sense and prove he is lying.

Case closed.

When this thing first developed Zim said his gun was on the side, on the hip.

reply to post by bbracken677


Try telling that to everyone who has smeared Trayvon Martin's character from the outset of this "investigation."

Originally posted by Logarock
In a last ditch effort, at the risk of losing any jurors they might have had, the state drags in the child endangering stuff. Oh how truly desperate to the point of blithering comedy. A shameful lack of legal ethics displayed. Not to mention f-in stupid.

I was under the impression that you couldn't change the charges in the middle of the trial. That seems completely unfair to the defendant in my view, and a desperate attempt by the prosecution to save themselves.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Now he's saying Trayvon was armed with a pavement.

The prosecution witness stated very clearly that a person is armed with their fists and, if they use the sidewalk, the sidewalk then is something they are also armed with. That's in the court testimony.

reply to post by suz62


Yeah, good thing the court ruled properly.

Originally posted by suz62

Originally posted by Logarock
In a last ditch effort, at the risk of losing any jurors they might have had, the state drags in the child endangering stuff. Oh how truly desperate to the point of blithering comedy. A shameful lack of legal ethics displayed. Not to mention f-in stupid.

I was under the impression that you couldn't change the charges in the middle of the trial. That seems completely unfair to the defendant in my view, and a desperate attempt by the prosecution to save themselves.

Its grounds for a mistrial if you ask me.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


As opposed to those smearing Zimmerman. People such as the idiotbox talking heads, racebaiters, plenty of members of all kinds of forums etc etc.

Heh why ask if they need a break, they know this next guy is going to cause need for a break before and after his ranting.

reply to post by Logarock


I know nothing about the legal process. It seems unethical to me though.

Did anyone else catch that nod from West (Defense) to one of the jurors leaving out?

If so, it wasn't anything sneaky; it was more like "Good day"...byt it came from the juror to West.

In a way that seemed tlike the juror was assuring him...

reply to post by TKDRL


These were justifiable responses to the accusations made by the defendant about Trayvon Martin's character within moments of killing him.

reply to post by Logarock


Maybe one of the stories when it first came out sir, but the evidence presented at trial, said the gun was to the rear, holstered and in his waistband.

It's impossible to pull a gun out from the small of your back, while lying on your back with someone on top of you reigning blows down.




Also, love how defense attorney just said, "I can't believe I've been talking for 3 hours", then looks at his watch. LOL.....sure buddy. Look at you watch first, then say 3 hours.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by suz62

 

Yeah, good thing the court ruled properly.

Yeah the court "ruled" instead of scolding the prosecution and tossing the case out on the grounds that it may have polluted the jury and was a clear and unethical means of doing so.