Zimmerman - Guilty of Murder or Self Defense

[OldMaid 2,133]

I think that's a pretty conceited view. I do understand where you are coming from, but I've actually been pretty impressed with the juries I've seen. People want to do the right thing in those situations so they generally work hard to understand the evidence and apply the instructions given to them.

I think your faith in humanity might be a little high.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

 

I can guarantee Judges would be closer to my peers than the people that end up in the jury box. I believe the average person is not that bright and is very easily influenced by non-facts. Further complicating the issue is that our laws have become so damn convoluted. I’ll put this way; if I was arrested for murder and I did commit murder I sure as hell want a jury of my idiot “peers”. If I had not committed murder I would want a three judge jury.

 

Seems like those are most certainly your peers.

 

Hiyo!!!!

[Bert 1,128]

 

Seems like those are most certainly your peers.

 

Hiyo!!!!

And we are still smarter than anyone from Wisconsin. :wink:

[Mike Honcho 5,308]

 

 

And we are still smarter than anyone from Wisconsin. :wink:

 

We? Are you counting the voices in your head?

[Bert 1,128]

 

We? Are you counting the voices in your head?

Wow. Me and my peers = we.

[DankNuggs 305]

Is there any evidence to him getting his head bashed on the concrete? I saw some mild abrasions... but I would think he'd have a knot or something if what he says is true. This.

 

It's sad we leave the decisions to the people who aren't even smart enough to get out of jury duty.

The cuts on the back of his head were shown to corroborate his story. How severe is subjective, but if he had his head smashing into concrete I think it's reasonable to be fearful of being knocked out

[Mike Honcho 5,308]

 

Wow. Me and my peers = we.

 

Dude, I was joking....

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

Wow. Me and my peers = we.

 

Nice job, Honcho.

[Mike Honcho 5,308]

 

Nice job, Honcho.

 

a joke went over your head..say it aint so...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

a joke went over your head..say it aint so...

Nice crawfish, Corky.

[Mike Honcho 5,308]

Nice crawfish, Corky.

 

dude, if I was going to BS, I would of made something like 'there was no pronoun/antecedent relationship'

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yer trying too hard, Kid. Take your lumps and move on.

[Mike Honcho 5,308]

It went over your head, only person trying to turn this into something it's not is you...you already way behind, quit.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It went over your head, only person trying to turn this into something it's not is you...you already way behind, quit.

I'm not trying to turn it into anything. I just LMFAO after Bert nailed your dumbass to the floor.

[The Moz 69]

RP > Everyone else

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Judge Napalitano says it was another slam dunk day for the defense.

[BLS 314]

Toxicology report is going to be allowed into evidence.

 

I'm guessing that's NOT gonna help the prosecution.

[The Moz 69]

Judge Napalitano says it was another slam dunk day for the defense.

Will The Hispanic population riot if he is convicted?

[NorthernVike 2,087]

Will The Hispanic population riot if he is convicted?

They are now considered white, so, no.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

They are now considered white, so, no.

White if ancestry traced back to Spain/Portugal. Non-white if Native American. I'm really not sure why this is so hard for some people to understand.

[Bert 1,128]

 

Dude, I was joking....

My bad. I get a little defensive when people make fun of the voices in my head.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Yer trying too hard, Kid. Take your lumps and move on.

 

"Sez" the guy with 42,000+ examples of himself trying too hard on this board.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

[slo-N-Nuts] YIP! YIP! YIP! YIP! [slo-N-Nuts]

 

[Sho Nuff 720]

I have nothing better to say so Im going to keep crying and making up unwitty names for people because I really am a 13 year old girl.

[Casual Observer 597]

 

Yes, generally. If Zimmerman is questioning them then it is hearsay:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_admission

 

 

You can't try to sneak in your statements by putting up witnesses and asking them what they told you.

 

Now there are a few exceptions. Completeness, mentioned above, allows you to get in statements when the other party has admitted part of the statement. So they can't just ask a witness to talk about something Zimmerman did and then avoid follow-up statements Zimmerman might have made at that same time.

 

Also there are hearsay exceptions like present sense impression and so forth, where you might be able to get statements in under a few limited scenarios. You can also get in hearsay statements if they aren't offered for the truth of the matter asserted, such as if the purpose of the statement is the effect on its listener. For example: you didn't take Zimmerman to the hospital that night, did you? Answer: No. Question: Why? Answer: He said he didn't need to go. Now whether Zimmmerman actually should have gone to the hospital or not is beside the point--the point of the statement is to explain why nobody took him to the hospital.

 

So the defense can probably get in bits and pieces of testimony regarding Zimmerman's statements throughout the whole trial, as they already have (i.e., the guy who testified that Zimmerman said he had to shoot Martin in self defense). But if they want to get in the whole story from Zimmerman, he's probably gonna have to testify. And as The Moz said, it doesn't make a lot of sense for the defense to have him testify at this point.

What I heard was a lot more than a present sense impression. No discussion of unavailable witnesses and exceptions to hearsay, Counselor?

[IGotWorms 4,059]

I think it's bullsh!t the judge is letting in the marijuana evidence. It establishes nothing, other than that he had smoke some pot sometime within the last month. It doesn't mean he was high at the time and pot doesn't make someone crazy violent or anything anyway.

 

I don't think it will make a big difference though.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

What I heard was a lot more than a present sense impression. No discussion of unavailable witnesses and exceptions to hearsay, Counselor?

 

Who introduced it? If the prosecution introduces it then it's an admission of a party opponent.

 

Also a statement is not hearsay if it isn't offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. You can get A LOT of statements that "seem" like hearsay in that way.

 

Don't feel like going over all of this again though. I suspect you are simply here to agitate.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What I heard was a lot more than a present sense impression. No discussion of unavailable witnesses and exceptions to hearsay, Counselor?

You are using legal terms, so you will have to give Worms time to google them. I'm sure his go-to legal source, Wikipedia, will have something.

[phillybear 366]

I think it's bullsh!t the judge is letting in the marijuana evidence. It establishes nothing, other than that he had smoke some pot sometime within the last month. It doesn't mean he was high at the time and pot doesn't make someone crazy violent or anything anyway.

 

I don't think it will make a big difference though.

They allowed Zimmerman's college records. You can't possibly be serious in protesting this move. Seriously, I am somewhat convinced that you are mentally retarded.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

They allowed Zimmerman's college records. You can't possibly be serious in protesting this move. Seriously, I am somewhat convinced that you are mentally retarded.

 

The college records were far more relevant, and not really prejudicial in any sense either.

[drobeski 3,061]

I think it's bullsh!t the judge is letting in the marijuana evidence. It establishes nothing, other than that he had smoke some pot sometime within the last month. It doesn't mean he was high at the time and pot doesn't make someone crazy violent or anything anyway.

 

I don't think it will make a big difference though.

then why does it both you or the prosecution that the judge allows it ?

[Voltaire 5,322]

Sez the clown who convicted GZ of murder and sentenced him to life in prison based on doctored tapes and a 6 year old pic of lil Trayvon.

You guys keep bringing that up, but the pic in the red hollister shirt was only seven months old (he was 16) and the only reason anybody knows of the doctored tapes is because of the brew-ha-ha afterwards that got the dumbfock at the TV station who did it to get fired.

[phillybear 366]

 

The college records were far more relevant, and not really prejudicial in any sense either.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

then why does it both you or the prosecution that the judge allows it ?

 

Because it's a classic example of evidence that isn't probative at all and yet could be highly prejudicial. The jury could decide that Martin was a bad person or something because he smoked marijuana. But obviously not all marijuana smokers deserve to be shot.

[phillybear 366]

I think that logically we can all agree that Trayvon Martin should be charged with attempted murder, criminal tresspassing, and that George Zimmerman should be given the key to a city for being a hero.

 

Yahtzee.

[drobeski 3,061]

You guys keep bringing that up, but the pic in the red hollister shirt was only seven months old (he was 16) and the only reason anybody knows of the doctored tapes is because of the brew-ha-ha afterwards that got the dumbfock at the TV station who did it to get fired.

So if you didn't know hear about the bullsh!t lies, they aren't an issue ?

Well now your opinion on all things Obama make complete sense. You just don't know, so it has to be ok. Your attitude on Benghazi makes complete sense now.

[Voltaire 5,322]

So if you didn't know hear about the bullsh!t lies, they aren't an issue ?

Well now your opinion on all things Obama make complete sense. You just don't know, so it has to be ok. Your attitude on Benghazi makes complete sense now.

They are. But the only reason they got famous is because they are discredited. Since you don't recall correctly, let me remind you that when we had the thread about them, I was bashing the focktard that doctored the tapes as well.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

Because it's a classic example of evidence that isn't probative at all and yet could be highly prejudicial. The jury could decide that Martin was a bad person or something because he smoked marijuana. But obviously not all marijuana smokers deserve to be shot.

Having drugs in your system doesn't go to state of mind? Paranoia is a byproduct of smoking pot. Lil Trayvon may have been paranoid and attacked GZ because of his drug induced paranoia.

 

You aren't very good a pretending to know how a court case works.

[Casual Observer 597]

 

Who introduced it? If the prosecution introduces it then it's an admission of a party opponent.

 

Also a statement is not hearsay if it isn't offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. You can get A LOT of statements that "seem" like hearsay in that way.

 

Don't feel like going over all of this again though. I suspect you are simply here to agitate.

The State called the star witness who went on and on about what Trayvon said to her on the phone that night. The State also called the police officers. Admissions of party opponents are for civil cases. Declarations against penal interest are for criminal trials. Once the State opened the door, those witnesses were fair game, though. They acted exactly as the defense wanted. Your second to last statement is a crock. The "statement" is either hearsay, not hearsay or falls under one of the exceptions to hearsay. So we are clear, you didn't go over this before and I commented because you didn't even go over the basics of hearsay exceptions and unavailable witnesses (which makes you a tool and a fake lawyer).

[Voltaire 5,322]

The State called the star witness who went on and on about what Trayvon said to her on the phone that night. The State also called the police officers. Admissions of party opponents are for civil cases. Declarations against penal interest are for criminal trials. Once the State opened the door, those witnesses were fair game, though. They acted exactly as the defense wanted. Your second to last statement is a crock. The "statement" is either hearsay, not hearsay or falls under one of the exceptions to hearsay. So we are clear, you didn't go over this before and I commented because you didn't even go over the basics of hearsay exceptions and unavailable witnesses (which makes you a tool and a fake lawyer).

Too many big werds.

 

Admissions of party opponents are for civil cases. Declarations against penal interest are for criminal trials.

 

Can you dumb it down? Thanks.

 

招生党的对手是民事案件。声明对罚息是刑事审判。For the record, it doesn't make sense in Chinese either.