(07-10-2013, 11:37 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Who was victorious is irrelevant.
I wouldn't be too quick to discount relevance.
If his "pussy" ass was beaten by the cop, the defense might argue it triggered his fear of death or bodily harm during his ass whooping by Skittles.
If his ass was beaten, the defense might argue he'd be hesitant to engage in a physical confrontation. (However, I wouldn't use the term "Gun Shy" to describe the condition)
If his ass was beaten, the prosecution might argue the only reason tubbie elected to engage Skittles was because he had a gun and he was determined he wouldn't be beaten, again.
You can also make an argument if tubbie got the best of the cop, too.
IMO it's a bit of a stretch to conclude that two physical altercations,
separated by many years, constitutes an aggressive pattern.
The fact he was forced into anger management indicates aggression . . . but not a pattern.
(07-11-2013, 12:01 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013, 11:37 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Who was victorious is irrelevant.
I wouldn't be too quick to discount relevance.
If his "pussy" ass was beaten by the cop, the defense might argue it triggered his fear of death or bodily harm during his ass whooping by Skittles.
IMO it's a bit of a stretch to conclude that two physical altercations, separated by many years, constitutes an aggressive pattern.
The fact he was forced into anger management indicates aggression . . . but not a pattern.
Point taken. It's just my opinion that the defense has portrayed G as being, well pee-wee. If he in fact initiated an altercation with LE even years ago, it indicates he might not be as passive as portrayed.
T might not be a wall flower either but I think the defense has opened up the questions about Z's character.
(07-11-2013, 12:15 AM)username Wrote: [ -> ]It's just my opinion that the defense has portrayed G as being, well pee-wee. If he in fact initiated an altercation with LE even years ago, it indicates he might not be as passive as portrayed.
I hear you.
It's now the battle of the spin doctors . . . and not about the "truth".
(07-10-2013, 11:37 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]It shows an aggressive pattern vs. a softie/passive personality.
Sonofabitch!
I forgot about his alleged domestic abuse against his former fiancé!
Why isn't the damned prosecution calling her, too?
(07-11-2013, 12:50 AM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ] (07-10-2013, 11:37 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]It shows an aggressive pattern vs. a softie/passive personality.
Sonofabitch!
I forgot about his alleged domestic abuse against his former fiancé!
Why isn't the damned prosecution calling her, too?
Juan would have. :hah:
Hell, I dunno. This whole trial seems tainted/weird.
The judge ruled that the jury can consider Manslaughter.
The state is asking that the jury also be able to consider 3rd Degree Murder supported by the elements of Child Abuse; arguments underway for those.
The state dropped the request for Aggravated Assault.
Maybe the jury can consider jaywalking as well... I mean I'm sure he didn't use a crosswalk at some point when wandering around the community.
Judge Nelson has had it with Don West.
He continues to object after being over-ruled.
The court is going over jury instructions for justifiable use of deadly force now and West wants the jury instructions to be amended to include the statement that "it is not illegal to follow".
Nelson says that's not part of the statute and the defense can argue that in closing statements. Common sense imo; the judge is not adding a list of what is not illegal in the instructions.
Nelson warned West again about proper conduct in the courtroom and reminded him that if he takes issues with her rulings and thinks she's made mistakes, there's the appeal process.
There is a line between doggedly pursuing your objective and being a stubborn twat for the sake of it and west is definitely straying into stubborn twat territory.
I just saw a blip where the judge walked out while West was talking last night?? Ha ha!
The defense is likely already writing the appeal... allowing additional charges to be considered at the end of the trial is likely a violation of the defendants due process. The prosecution is not allowed to get so many bites at the apple.
Theoretically a prosecutor could then overcharge every defendant, and wait to see how the testimony plays out to go after the 'real' charge they want a conviction on.
That's an unfair burden for any defendant to meet, as they can't be expected to prepare a defense for every possible scenario. They prepare a defense and strategy based on the original charges, not charges that have not been made or put forward.
ETA: I'm referring to the 3rd degree murder with child abuse charge, if allowed. Although I think allowing the manslaughter consideration is bogus as well - but that's how their law works.
(07-11-2013, 12:55 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]The defense is likely already writing the appeal... allowing additional charges to be considered at the end of the trial is likely a violation of the defendants due process. The prosecution is not allowed to get so many bites at the apple.
ETA: I'm referring to the 3rd degree murder with child abuse charge, if allowed. Although I think allowing the manslaughter consideration is bogus as well - but that's how their law works.
Case law supports the consideration of lesser charges at this time. An appeal may be attempted; it will fail.
The judge ruled that evidence doesn't support the prosecution's request to have 3
rd Degree Murder added to the jury instructions for consideration; the defense won that argument.
The jury will be considering only Murder 2, Manslaughter, and Not Guilty verdicts.
Closing arguments underway. Bernie de la Rionda is presenting for the state.
Live stream here:
http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/
Unfortunately, the state (in their closing argument) states the reason for this trial IS racially based.
"We are here because the defendant thought this teenager was a criminal!"
In other words: Colored boy, hoodie, "sneaking" around = racially profiled criminal.
It's unfortunate that the state didn't take the high road and say something to effect of:
"A young man is dead because this defendant shot him to death. This young man had no weapon. This young man was committing no crime. This young man was trying to get home and the defendant shot him dead!
The defendant claims he was justified in killing this unarmed, young man due to Florida's self defense laws.
In your heart of hearts, do you really believe the intent and spirit of the law encourages and allows an armed assailant to approach an unarmed teenager, provoke a confrontation and then shoot him dead because suddenly he claims he was fearful of losing life or limb?"
On second thought . . . fuck that!
Make it a profiling case and stir emotional racially charged outrage.
(07-11-2013, 02:00 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Case law supports the consideration of lesser charges at this time. An appeal may be attempted; it will fail.
Look who's a legal expert all of a sudden.
The prosecution attempted to sandbag the defense, and rightly was turned away. Shameful. Case law does not support the introduction of charges that are not in line with the original charge. Attempting to add 3
rd degree murder with child abuse was well outside of the scope of the original charge and testimony, which is why the judge denied it.
BTW, it's also why I said "if allowed" in my original post.
(07-11-2013, 03:47 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: [ -> ]Unfortunately, the state (in their closing argument) states the reason for this trial IS racially based.
"We are here because the defendant thought this teenager was a criminal!"
In other words: Colored boy, hoodie, "sneaking" around = racially profiled criminal.
It's unfortunate that the state didn't take the high road and say something to effect of:
"A young man is dead because this defendant shot him to death. This young man had no weapon. This young man was committing no crime. This young man was trying to get home and the defendant shot him dead!
The defendant claims he was justified in killing this unarmed, young man due to Florida's self defense laws.
In your heart of hearts, do you really believe the intent and spirit of the law encourages and allows an armed assailant to approach an unarmed teenager, provoke a confrontation and then shoot him dead because suddenly he claims he was fearful of losing life or limb?"
On second thought . . . fuck that!
Make it a profiling case and stir emotional racially charged outrage.
No, no. I prefer your approach!
I think they're just grasping at straws trying to obtain their murder 2 conviction. They have to show malice somewhere, right? I've said it before but I think murder 2 was always a huge stretch. I don't think George set out to kill the kid that night.
(07-11-2013, 03:58 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2013, 02:00 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Case law supports the consideration of lesser charges at this time. An appeal may be attempted; it will fail.
Look who's a legal expert all of a sudden.
The prosecution attempted to sandbag the defense, and rightly was turned away. Shameful. Case law does not support the introduction of charges that are not in line with the original charge. Attempting to add 3rd degree murder with child abuse was well outside of the scope of the original charge and testimony, which is why the judge denied it.
BTW, it's also why I said "if allowed" in my original post.
I thought that the manslaughter charge was already on the table. I was glad the judge ruled against that 3
rd degree murder charge. I do agree if that was allowed it would have been a basis for appeal. Throwing child abuse in at the end of the case? Ummmm, no.
(07-11-2013, 04:11 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]I thought that the manslaughter charge was already on the table. I was glad the judge ruled against that 3rd degree murder charge. I do agree if that was allowed it would have been a basis for appeal. Throwing child abuse in at the end of the case? Ummmm, no.
Manslaughter has always been on the table... that is the way the law works in Florida.
The 3
rd degree w/ child abuse was a step too far, and was not allowable. I thought it seemed kind of desperate... shame the jury can't know about it.
As strident as the prosecutor's voice is, I thought he did a pretty good job with his closing argument (from what I heard of it).
I heard a few minutes of it... kind of flinched when he said something about Trayvon not stealing the skittles. I thought, 'did he really just say that?'
Why would he have stolen the skittles mr. prosecutor? Because he is BLACK?
Racist.
(07-11-2013, 05:19 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]I heard a few minutes of it... kind of flinched when he said something about Trayvon not stealing the skittles. I thought, 'did he really just say that?'
Why would he have stolen the skittles mr. prosecutor? Because he is BLACK?
Racist.
Mr. de la Rionda was making the point that T had just come from the store where he had purchased, not stole, the candy and drink, that he wasn't a "suspect", the candy & drink had been bought, not stolen and the clerk hadn't felt threatened or intimidated by the transaction, that this was just a teenager buying a snack in the early evening.
I thought Bernie was brilliant. I fist pumped the air a couple times. I liked the use of the video & audio recordings a lot and thought his commentary on what he choose to play was genius. The photographs of George, of his hands, head, clothes, shoes, everything, was perfection. It was a wonderful presentation. He didn't have to present everything today and I look forward to when he's before the jury again. I feel he has saved stuff for then and the defense is done at that point, they won't get a shot at rebutting whatever he has.
I saw George writing with his left hand again. At this point I don't know why I am focused on that or why I even care.
I would swear that George's mother is staring down the jury.
I'd like to put Mr. de la Rionda in my pocket & bring him home.