(07-09-2013, 04:57 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]Then why couldn't the grand jury - who would have been selected from the same jury pool - have decided that charges were merited?
I wasn't a member of the Grand Jury, Jim. So, I don't know what went down there.
I just know that it's my opinion that George Zimmerman should have been charged, and I understand that it's your opinion that he shouldn't have been.
I'm not interested in changing your opinion, just disagreeing with it and sharing mine.
(07-09-2013, 04:08 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]If I were on the jury, and it could be established 100% that either GZ or T threw the first punch, it would go a long way toward a conviction or an acquittal.
100%?
And you call me a moron!
Good luck hitting that percentage point.
The defense can concede that tubbie was the initial aggressor (pursuit).
They can then turnaround and claim Skittles got the upper-hand and put tubbie
in fear for his life and was prevented from escaping 'cuz Skittles was riding him cowgirl style.
It satisfies the statute. Now . . . sell it to the jury.
Ceding the initial aggressor point will not necessarily erase the visceral feeling of injustice.
Yeah, sport . . . the initial aggressor is the lynchpin for this case.
(07-09-2013, 05:24 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2013, 04:08 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]If I were on the jury, and it could be established 100% that either GZ or T threw the first punch, it would go a long way toward a conviction or an acquittal.
100%?
And you call me a moron!
Good luck hitting that percentage point.
The defense can concede that tubbie was the initial aggressor (pursuit).
They can then turnaround and claim Skittles got the upper-hand and put tubbie in fear for his life and was prevented from escaping 'cuz Skittles was riding him cowgirl style.
Now . . . sell it to the jury.
Ceding the initial aggressor point will not necessarily erase the visceral feeling of injustice.
Yeah, sport . . . the initial aggressor is the lynchpin for this case.
Yeah, 100%.
As in, an eyewitness' testimony. If they'd been fortunate enough to have had one.
So, spin it however you'd like.
If it was proven GZ was the initial aggressor and
then feared for his life (enough to justify homicide), you'd have a hard time convincing the jury of that.
And, I agree with you about the feelings of injustice EVEN if it's a given that Trayvon initiated the altercation.
Most on T's side believe that G
had it coming just because he was following/profiling him.
There's no real happy ending for Z here.
(07-09-2013, 05:39 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, 100%.
As in, an eyewitness' testimony. If they'd been fortunate enough to have had one.
So, spin it however you'd like.
If it was proven GZ was the initial aggressor and then feared for his life (enough to justify homicide), you'd have a hard time convincing the jury of that.
I deal in reality, so quit trying to justify your ill conceived epiphany based on "what-ifs".
You're stuck with NO credible eye-witness (see how I've removed tubbie from the equation) . . . deal with it.
Again, for those LIKE YOU who didn't quite grasp the concept, the statute protects the initial aggressor after meeting specific criteria.
Concede tubbie WAS the initial aggressor AND THEN MAKE DAMNED SURE HE MEETS THE REQUIRED CRITERIA TO GET A PASS ON THE SHOOTING!
And then convict him because he killed a nigger and killing niggers makes the world sad.
(07-09-2013, 05:51 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]Concede tubbie WAS the initial aggressor AND THEN MAKE DAMNED SURE HE MEETS THE REQUIRED CRITERIA TO GET A PASS ON THE SHOOTING!
And then convict him because he killed a nigger and killing niggers makes the world sad.
I've read your posts regarding a self-defense plea for the initial aggressor.
However, I wouldn't care what color either person was.
IF I thought the initial aggressor was the one who later claimed 'self-defense' because they feared for their life, it'd have to very compelling evidence for me to acquit.
In THIS case, T had no marks on him, Z's hands showed no evidence of hitting anyone, so I personally feel that T is the one who started things.
I hope you're not trying to paint me into the camp of T supporters. I've never been there, however, I also would have no problem convicting GZ if I knew he had started the confrontation (and then claimed 'feared for his life').
(07-09-2013, 06:02 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]IF I thought the initial aggressor was the one who later claimed 'self-defense' because they feared for their life, it'd have to very compelling evidence for me to acquit.
Here's the statute.
I have no idea, nor do I care, what you find "compelling".
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. - The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Surely you can understand this.
The "reasonably believes" part . . . right?
(07-09-2013, 06:11 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2013, 06:02 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]IF I thought the initial aggressor was the one who later claimed 'self-defense' because they feared for their life, it'd have to very compelling evidence for me to acquit.
Here's the statute.
I have no idea, nor do I care, what you find "compelling".
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. - The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Surely you can understand this.
The "reasonably believes" part . . . right?
I get the reasonbly believes part.
Wouldn't it be prudent though to convince a jury of the 'reasonbly believes' part?
I was talking about me, hypothetically, being on a jury and having an attorney convince me that their client 'reasonbly believed' they were in peril AFTER initiating a confrontation.
I mentioned it the other day when O'Mara crossed one of the detectives and said Z didn't have to beaten to a bloody pulp BEFORE reasonably believing he was in grave danger (or feared for his life).
Dammit!
Go work on Adub.
Please.
(07-09-2013, 06:35 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldn't it be prudent though to convince a jury of the 'reasonbly believes' part?
Golly! That thought NEVER crossed my mind.
(07-09-2013, 05:51 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]Again, for those LIKE YOU who didn't quite grasp the concept, the statute protects the initial aggressor after meeting specific criteria.
Concede tubbie WAS the initial aggressor AND THEN MAKE DAMNED SURE HE MEETS THE REQUIRED CRITERIA TO GET A PASS ON THE SHOOTING!
I thought Dr. Di Maio was a much better forensic expert for the defense than Dr. Bao was for the state.
I also thought that de la Rionda was highly effective in his cross of Dr. Di Maio today. I'd found de la Rionda mostly unimpressive previously.
Under cross, Dr. Di Maio acknowledged that Trayvon could have been pulling away from Zimmerman when the shot was fired. He also acknowledged that the abrasions to the back of George's head could have been caused by either the tree branches or concrete.
Another of George's neighbors testified by phone. Nothing of value. IMO.
There's a hearing regarding the admissibility of an animated recreation of events, based on the timing of 911 calls and defense witness testimony (if I'm following correctly). The defense wants the animation presented to the jury.
It's clear, to me, that there's no forensic evidence that can either confirm or refute either sides' version of events - with or without the animated re-enactment. I'd hoped there would be.
The jury is going to be left to deliberate evidence that is open to interpretation and credibility is going to be the deciding factor. IMO. Still more testimony and closing arguments left to consider, but none of the possible verdicts (or a hung jury) will surprise me.
(07-09-2013, 07:42 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]There's a hearing regarding the admissibility of an animated recreation of events, based on the timing of 911 calls and defense witness testimony (if I'm following correctly). The defense wants the animation presented to the jury.
I would be surprised if that animation is allowed in. First, it supposedly depicts the first encounter which nobody witnessed. It doesn't show T jumping out of a bush or something; just the two walking up to each other and it's based on ear-witness testimony as to where the two *might* have been at first encounter. Then purportedly it jumps numerous feet to where the scuffle took place (again, without any explanation of what happened in between). The prosecutor questioned the person who created the animation...."did they teleport from the one place to another"? The animation is based largely on G's version of events (absent T jumping out from some hedges or something). It's anyone's guess if it's accurate...it shouldn't be allowed.
Adub, I can't see your video post.
Is this it?
You've got a wonderful feeling today?
(07-09-2013, 08:09 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]It's anyone's guess if it's accurate...it shouldn't be allowed.
I agree.
Judge Nelson expressed concern that the jury would be able to play and replay it in deliberations, lending more presumption of accuracy than it merits (again, if I understood her correctly).
O'Mara made a request to introduce additional exhibits too, including messages from Trayvon's cell phone. I can't think of how the prosecution would have opened the door for that, but could have missed something.
Maybe O'Mara is just pushing to introduce as much subjective information into the equation as possible, to increase the likelihood of reasonable doubt. I think it's risky at this juncture; could work against the defense too. I'd have rested the case after Di Maio, but so far I think O'Mara's been smart in his strategy, so...
(07-09-2013, 05:23 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I wasn't a member of the Grand Jury, Jim. So, I don't know what went down there.
There was no grand jury HotD...they were never allowed to do their job because they were never allowed to convene. Angela Corey took over the case and pushed the other state attorney aside who had scheduled a grand jury that was to consider the charges.
I'm still left a bit confused as to how citizens weren't to be trusted to make the right decision on whether charges were warranted... but now they are to be trusted with a trial decision.
It had nothing to do with political opportunism I'm sure.
We will never agree on whether or not George Zimmerman deserves to be standing trial, Jim.
I only care about the the death of Trayvon Martin and whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense, or if he instead committed manslaughter or murder.
Both sides' positions have merit, in my mind. It's a tough case; this one isn't just a legal formality for the court and the jury.
I don't wanna see an innocent man (under the law, even if he's a dumb ass) convicted. I don't wanna see a criminally negligent or murderous man go unpunished either. Both men's lives matter, to me.
I think a courtroom in front of his peers is exactly where the case against George Zimmerman should be decided, regardless of politics or perceptions of why the charges were filed.
A qualified jury will decide; not black activists, not politicians, not KKK members, not the NRA, not the DOJ... I will accept the jury's verdict, whatever it may be, in this case.
I know you also see things differently in terms of the jury and their ability to follow the law. That difference of opinion ain't changing either.
I disagree with people that I like and respect on a lot of different subjects. Never been much of a "flock together" kinda bird or an obligatory stroker. Don't expect that from others either.
The defense may rest tomorrow. Closing arguments should be good; hope you get to watch that part of the trial and have a chance to comment.
P.s. We agree on Elton John (the Bernie Taupin years); Levon's whispering in my ears as I finish this post. That's enough common ground for me. Cheers.
(07-09-2013, 08:09 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Adub, I can't see your video post.
Is this it?
You've got a wonderful feeling today?
I have no idea what you are talking about Miss Moderator HOTD.
(07-09-2013, 02:05 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (07-09-2013, 02:02 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Too bad T didn't get a chance to claim stand your ground.
I think he did and died because of this.
Yes, and I agree with your posts about the subjectivity of the SYG laws, though I may disagree with your position as to whether or not George Zimmerman should be on trial.
Correct me if I'm wrong in understanding our agreement on these points:
It's quite possible under the law that Trayvon Martin was standing his ground when he, either proactively or in reaction, engaged in a physical altercation with the man who had admittedly been following him; a creepy ass cracker grown man who had chosen not to disclose his NW role nor the fact that police were en route.
It's also quite possible that George Zimmerman, whether he initiated first physical contact or responded to it, was legally acting in self defense when he shot Trayvon Martin - the teen who had gotten the better of his soft pussy ass and against whom he hadn't the competence to remove himself from a life threatening (in his mind) situation.
For me...
SYG is great for cases where someone enters your property uninvited and there's an inherent reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. Fuck you, I'm gonna try to incapacitate your ass if you creep into my property. By default, it's reasonable for me to fear great bodily harm or death. I hope I don't have to kill you, but if I do, so long, sucker...
SYG is great in saving the taxpayers money when a public altercation ends in a shooting and consistent eye witness accounts, or better yet - surveillance cams, clearly show that the shooter had been attacked and acted in self defense. Immunity hearing; immunity granted. No brainer - RIP, asshole.
SYG sucks major ass when there are no eyewitnesses or surveillance cams to a public shooting of an unarmed person (especially an unarmed kid shot by an adult). And this is the case with the State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman.
Should we simply trust the account of the sole survivor? I say, "no".
Does the fact that the sole survivor, a self-admitted pussy of the highest order, killed someone due to reasonable fear make it justifiable simply because the "reasonableness" is contingent upon the fact that the shooter was too incompetent to finish what he either provoked or physically initiated? The SYG law says, "shit howdy, yeah!".
While it may be legal under a law with grave scenario-specific flaws (imo) is it "just" that a twat who would be legitimately in fear for his own life (though for some of us it would simply be considered analogous to a typical Saturday night "brush" at closing time) be legally immunized from repercussions after not having the common sense to avoid the situation in the first place, or having entered the situation with inflated balls due to gun possession? The SYG law says, "shit howdy, yeah!".
Agree with Florida's SYG self defense laws or not, the jury will have clear instructions as to the statutes. And, here we are.
The State of Florida needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not do everything he reasonably could have to escape the situation before, out of reasonable fear in his pussy mind, he chose to shoot Trayvon Martin in the heart.
So, here's what the prosecution is attempting to address with the jury:
Did George Zimmerman really fear for his pussy life when he shot Trayvon, or was it the easiest and quickest means to end his fear that the teen would simply get away and/or make him look bad to the cops who would shortly be arriving on the scene?
Was the NW pussy so pissed off and paranoid about anything foreign or outside of his control in his little neighborhood that he was actually looking for an opportunity to take some perceived "fucking punk asshole" out and achieve his glory - with Trayvon Martin simply being the target of a deranged mind?
(07-10-2013, 02:39 AM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]I have no idea what you are talking about Miss Moderator HOTD.
Sorry, Miss Adub.
I took the brackets out of your video (in quote function), and I ended up listening to "Zippity Doo Da". Coulda just been my browser search.
Was sorta hoping you had a different, more positive take, on the day in court.
Ah, well.