The Zimmerman Trial

The difference is he told them to go with their heart only, that reasonable doubt was not what they thought it was, even had a powerpoint slide show...said to not let doubt sway their decision, THIS is what we are referring to. We all get the hes a kid, your a mom line of closing, but he straight up told them to ignore facts , the few that are available and go with their emotion...this is wrong

I do not believe the jury will fall for this though, at least not all. Its either hung jury or not guilty for sure.

reply to post by muse7


That made no sense what so ever. Next your going to say eye contact is wrong.

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by freedom12
I have a question for those ATSer's who are questioning the use of "emotions" by lawyers in a CLOSING ARGUEMENT-

Is this the first time you have watched a trial?

Closing arguments are whatever the attorney's want to say, and "facts" or lack of them, doesn't matter.

It's Basic Lawyering 101, to attempt to appeal to the jurors emotions during closing arguments.

People in this thread don't seem to mind the defense appealing to emotion when they are trying to paint Trayvon as a scary black guy that deserved to be killed for walking while black.

And therein lies the reason for lawyer jokes. Most people tend to bad-mouth lawyers.

Good, cut-throat lawyers, do what is necessary to defend/prosecute their side.

You and I may not like it, but it's what happens sir.

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by ugie1028

 

If you're a wanna be cop armed with a gun, and you start following someone you should be responsible for the outcome of the situation you started.

Unless the other person starts the fight.
Then the assaulter may get his just desserts.

Originally posted by firemonkey

People in this thread don't seem to mind the defense appealing to emotion when they are trying to paint Trayvon as a scary black guy that deserved to be killed for walking while black.

really...deserved to be killed while walking black. Really?

Trolling much?

No one here, that I can recall, has stated that TM deserved to be killed for being black or scary. What HAS been said is that TM's attack on GZ justified the exercise of self-defense on GZ's part.

What HAS been said is that TM committed a felony in his attack on GZ.
What HAS been said is that TM could have just continued on home, instead of confronting and attacking the "creepy a$$ cracka", and would have lived to see the next day.

What HAS been said is that following someone is not illegal.
What HAS been said is that the right thing for TM to have done was to continue on home. (you do know right from wrong, no?)
What HAS been said is that the evidence presented has NOT poked holes in the defenses claim of self-defense.
What HAS been said is that much of the prosecution's evidence has supported the defense

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by firemonkey

 

I read the document. its just the definitions of each charge and how to apply it when deliberating and getting to a verdict.

The judge will also inform the jury that no matter what the jury thinks the judge thinks about the case... they get the final call. not the judge.

And that's why he'll never be on a jury. Neither side would pick him.

Some people cannot define between rational thought and emotional thought.

Click here for more information.

*conflict of evidence*
Yep, the state themselves brought up many conflicts lol.

Originally posted by muse7


On Topic -

George Zimmerman thought Trayvon Martin was a criminal...why? Because Trayvon Martin was a teenager, black and looked "thugish" this can be supported by the audio recording of GZ saying "these punks always get away." Why would he need to say those things if he didn't think Trayvon was a criminal? At this point he is advised by the dispatcher NOT TO FOLLOW him.

Now Trayvon has not committed a crime at this point, but GZ assumes he is a criminal so he follows him...most likely Travyon confronted him...as would I and I think a lot of people if they saw someone following them and stalking them with a gun.

A few minutes after that, Trayvon Martin lays on the ground dead because George Zimmerman ASSUMED he was a criminal.

Martin is dead because he assaulted Zimmerman, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

He was acting suspicious, walking around in the rain and looking into windows in a neighborhood plagued with break-ins is suspicious behavior.

On a side note, there are many people most of them black who are serving long prison sentences on drug convictions based on less evidence than this case. That is a tragedy.

Anytime someone is dealt an untimely death it is tragic, however in this case it appears that TM's actions resulted in his death. There is not any factual evidence to suggest otherwise.

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by muse7

 

where is the law that states that i cant follow someone?

ill wait...

Lol

It's called common sense.

It's common sense not to follow someone through several streets with a gun tucked in your waist. especially if the person you are following has not committed a crime.

and that's why its up to the jury.

www.breitbart.com... is reporting they have audio of DOJ helping Trevon Martin protesters.

If George Zimmerman is found guilty could this be use to have the verdict thrown out?

reply to post by muse7


Common sense is not a law. And it can't be enforced.

Besides, GZ was known by all within the community to be part of the Neighborhood watch. So why wouldn't he be on the streets that night?

Regarding "Jury Instructions" (since they are being read right now), I thought I should point-out for the benefit of anybody who has never worked in the courts, the Judges don't just make most of this stuff up. Most of it comes from a book, computer program or these days probably a web-site.

Basically, it's a "form-letter" kind of thing, where they paste-in the name of the defendant, etc. These days it's probably generated by a web-site, where they check-off the relevant topics and it generates like 90% of it for them.

During the 90's, I had the experience of rolling-out several computer programs for the bench officer's convenience, including those for Jury Instructions (individually-installed computer program at that time), Case-law Resource (shared CD-ROM based library at that time), and Lexis/Nexis (dial-up at that time - before it all went Internet-based).

PS: I should clarify "bench officers" (a bit off-topic, so feel free to ignore). This is a generic way of referring to the Judge, Commissioner, or Judge Pro-Tem that is presiding over the court. Judges are typically appointed, elected or a combination of both - depends the jurisdiction, state, which state, federal, etc. "Commissioners" (varies probably some by state) are basically employees of the Court - that the Judges of the Court have hired to preside over some cases (typically lower-level cases like Traffic, Civil cases, Misdemeanor cases, etc.) to reduce case-load. Some Courts also sometimes use "Judge Pro-Tem's", which are typically temporary paid or even unpaid/volunteer employees - almost always used for stuff like Small Claims and other more "routine" matters. I don't think they ever get to handle "criminal" matters. Lawyers interested in maybe becoming a Judge will often volunteer to act as a Judge Pro-Tem to rack-up experience - which they can point to later trying to get an appointment, or in an election for an open Judicial position, or when the Court is looking to hire a Commissioner.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by muse7

 

So you have nothing. Noted.

So you think its okay to arm yourself with a gun and start following a person? a person that you have not seen commit a crime?

reply to post by muse7


I'll say this again.

There is no law on the books that says I cant follow someone. common sense or not, I can do it if I want to and the law wouldn't be able to stop me from doing it.

as i said... bring me the law that states otherwise!

if not... then your arguments will just be posts of lost energy.

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by ugie1028

 

If you're a wanna be cop armed with a gun, and you start following someone you should be responsible for the outcome of the situation you started.

Yes, by all means, let's suspend the constitutional rights of those people you choose unworthy of rights.

Who will make the determination of who "wannabe cops" are? Would that be the same people who decide who is a terrorist?

Perhaps we should empower our wise federal govt to make the determination regarding who deserves constitutional rights and who doesn't? Oh...wait...that assumes our Fed knows what those rights are....

reply to post by muse7


Yes, I believe in the right to bear arms, even while following a suspicious person.

Originally posted by muse7
So you think its okay to arm yourself with a gun and start following a person? a person that you have not seen commit a crime?

One word.

Yep

reply to post by bbracken677

What HAS been said is that TM committed a felony in his attack on GZ.

Was Trayvon convicted in a court of law of commiting a felony against Zimmerman?

If not, then no...he did not commit a felon against him. Plenty of you are accusing him...but that means absolutely nothing. They can't use the "felony" defense because Trayvon was not convicted of commiting any crime at all.