Zimmerman - Guilty of Murder or Self Defense

[BLS 314]

Guys....taking your pissing match to another thread.

 

Don't hijack this one.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

This trial is done. Unless this jury is another OJ jury GZ is walking.

 

No amount of fake lawyering by Matlock, and nutsack swinging by Slo-N-Nuts, will change that.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Guys....taking your pissing match to another thread.

 

Don't hijack this one.

 

 

yes..because this one has been clean right?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Um. No he hasn't. But keep swinging from that nutsack.

O yeah...I forgot for a second who I was talking to, the guy that is too stupid or whatever to admit when he is wrong.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

O yeah...I forgot for a second who I was talking to, the guy that is too stupid or whatever to admit when he is wrong.

I was correct.

 

The testimony of the investigating officers was admitted, and used to great advantage for the defense. They even played video of the interviews.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I was correct.

 

The testimony of the investigating officers was admitted, and used to great advantage for the defense. They even played video of the interviews.

And he explained why that happened...you are just too much of a pigheaded idiot who needs to think he is right all the time to understand it all.

[Casual Observer 597]

 

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is basically a CLASSIC example of present sense impression. Trayvon tells her what is happening as it unfolds. That is the very definition of present sense impression.

 

You have no idea what you're talking about and you've gone to Google to try to throw sh!t against the wall. Know when it's over, man.

The excerpt I posted is Florida State Law re: hearsay exceptions from a State website. Fla. doesn't have present sense impression - 3(a) is the closest it gets (as I said above).

[Recliner Pilot 61]

And he explained why that happened...you are just too much of a pigheaded idiot who needs to think he is right all the time to understand it all.

Yeah. He claimed it was because the prosecution brought it in. Said the defense couldn't because it would be hearsay. He never explained why one could bring it in, and not the other.

 

And this was on top of his "due process" argument saying all parties have to be treated the same. He ran away when I brought that up.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

I'm done trying to explain stuff to people who can't/don't want to understand. Time to get this thread back on track.

 

When are closing arguments? That'll be fun to watch and discuss.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Forensics shows Trayvon's shirt was 3-4 inches away from his body when the bullet went thru it. Consistant with him being on top of GZ and leaning over him.

 

Not consistant with Matlock's claim GZ stood over Trayvon and executed him.

[NewbieJr 541]

I'm done trying to explain stuff to people who can't/don't want to understand. Time to get this thread back on track.

 

When are closing arguments? That'll be fun to watch and discuss.

You're a lawyer discussing a criminal trial with a messageboard wannabe. I think he's a salesman or something. Not quite sure. He certainly can't sell much. Anyway, what did you think you'd get from him, good debate? He's a mental midget arguing with you about the field you're in.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm done trying to explain stuff to people who can't/don't want to understand. Time to get this thread back on track.

When are closing arguments? That'll be fun to watch and discuss.

You can't explain why the prosecution can bring something in, but the defense can not bring the same stuff in.

 

It is time for you to run away.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Yeah. He claimed it was because the prosecution brought it in. Said the defense couldn't because it would be hearsay. He never explained why one could bring it in, and not the other.

 

And this was on top of his "due process" argument saying all parties have to be treated the same. He ran away when I brought that up.

 

This seems to be the closest you will ever come to admitting you were wrong.

Congrats.

[phillybear 366]

You're a lawyer discussing a criminal trial with a messageboard wannabe. I think he's a salesman or something. Not quite sure. He certainly can't sell much. Anyway, what did you think you'd get from him, good debate? He's a mental midget arguing with you about the field you're in.

Oh, puleese. Having a lawyering degree means jack squat. It just means you know where all the fancy schmancy papers are kept that you need to turn in to a court stenophotographer. I've personally seen five thousand episodes of Law & Order and all of their spinoffs, including Trial By Jury and Conviction. So I can fearlessly claim to be the best legal mind around these here parts. I plan to file a wrist of habaneros corpses to spice things up. So take that in your pipe and shove it.

[NewbieJr 541]

Oh, puleese. Having a lawyering degree means jack squat. It just means you know where all the fancy schmancy papers are kept that you need to turn in to a court stenophotographer. I've personally seen five thousand episodes of Law & Order and all of their spinoffs, including Trial By Jury and Conviction. So I can fearlessly claim to be the best legal mind around these here parts. I plan to file a wrist of habaneros corpses to spice things up. So take that in your pipe and shove it.

You probably know more about bus fares and insulin than anyone here. So, I guess that's something.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

You're a lawyer discussing a criminal trial with a messageboard wannabe. I think he's a salesman or something. Not quite sure. He certainly can't sell much. Anyway, what did you think you'd get from him, good debate? He's a mental midget arguing with you about the field you're in.

Very true. It was against my better judgment that I got drawn into that discussion. Hopefully I'll learn my lesson but probably not.

[The Moz 69]

 

This seems to be the closest you will ever come to admitting you were wrong.

Congrats.

I Have yet to see many that do admit they are wrong. A few seem to like to act like they won a slap fight what they got smacked silly.

[The Moz 69]

Also Worms is not a Lawyer but he has watched Judge Judy religiously everyday for the last 10 years from his mothers basement! So he knows the law inside and out.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I Have yet to see many that do admit they are wrong. A few seem to like to act like they won a slap fight what they got smacked silly.

 

Like your boy RP is doing?

But I have seen plenty of people admit when they are wrong...he simply deflects and runs away when proven so.

[The Moz 69]

 

Like your boy RP is doing?

But I have seen plenty of people admit when they are wrong...he simply deflects and runs away when proven so.

Not just RP ................ But dammit he is not my boy

[parrot 789]

Yeah, it's weird that the defense didn't make any objections when the prosecution brought forth evidence that according to pretty much every legal expert in the country was a big assist to their defense by getting out their client's exculpatory testimony without exposing him to cross. I know I was totally confused by that.

 

Also, how come you never see the scoring team protest that their own runner missed a base in baseball? It's a mystery.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Like your boy RP is doing?

But I have seen plenty of people admit when they are wrong...he simply deflects and runs away when proven so.

I have been correct all along. Your boy Worms has failed to show how the prosecution can bring certain evidence, but the defense would be prohibited from bringing the same evidence because it is hearsay.

[drobeski 3,061]

Yip yip yip

[Sho Nuff 720]

I have been correct all along.

 

hah!!!!

 

Glad your little lapdog drobeski could chime in for you though.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yep. Correct all along.

[Mike Honcho 5,304]

I have been correct all along. Your boy Worms has failed to show how the prosecution can bring certain evidence, but the defense would be prohibited from bringing the same evidence because it is hearsay.

 

 

Yep. Correct all along.

 

you're correct, because you assert he hasn't disproved your claim..not that you proved it. Wonderful logic there, Socrates.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

Yeah, it's weird that the defense didn't make any objections when the prosecution brought forth evidence that according to pretty much every legal expert in the country was a big assist to their defense by getting out their client's exculpatory testimony without exposing him to cross. I know I was totally confused by that.

 

Also, how come you never see the scoring team protest that their own runner missed a base in baseball? It's a mystery.

 

I don't know how to say it any other way, so I'll make it a little bigger: Admission by a party opponent.

 

It is simply not hearsay to use the other party's statements against them.

 

But THEY can't introduce their own statements. Why? Because it's not a party opponent if it's your own statement.

 

So, to recap:

 

Prosecution uses Zimmerman's statements: not hearsay

Defense uses Zimmerman's statements: hearsay, if it is for the truth of the matter asserted (but some hearsay exceptions might apply to let the statements in, depending on the circumstances)

 

RP can't seem to understand this, but let me ask you: when did we hear Zimmerman's statements? Did the defense bring them in during their case in chief? NO! Because that would be hearsay. The prosecution brought them in during their case in chief, and that is not hearsay.

 

I realize it's complicated but that's why people go to law school.

[parrot 789]

I have been correct all along. Your boy Worms has failed to show how the prosecution can bring certain evidence, but the defense would be prohibited from bringing the same evidence because it is hearsay.

 

Page 5:

 

The exemption permits one party to offer the out-of-court statement of any opponent party. It may not be used by a party to offer that party's own out-of-court statement.

 

 

Like the old saying goes, you can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him stop being a jackass.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So Matlock argues that Due Process ensures all parties to a trial are treated the same.

 

Then he argues that the prosecution can bring evidence A, B & C, but the defense can not bring evidence A, B & C.

 

Once again Matlock paints himself into a legal corner.

[IGotWorms 4,059]

 

Page 5:

 

 

 

Like the old saying goes, you can lead a jackass to water, but you can't make him stop being a jackass.

Exactly.

 

BTW, I should clarify that you may have been correct earlier about the defense wanting Zimmerman's statements in.

 

There could be many reasons for not objecting. First, you may have no basis for objecting. That would've been the case re: the prosecution's use of Zimmerman's statements. Second, maybe you want the statements in. That could have been at play here. Third, every objection should involve a cost-benefit analysis, because the jury hates it when you keep stuff from them. So if it's not a big deal, you might not object even though technically it could be inadmissible. Fourth, you might've just not realized that you COULD object. Trials are hectic and lawyers can miss stuff. I don't think three and four were at play here.

[parrot 789]

Exactly.

 

BTW, I should clarify that you may have been correct earlier about the defense wanting Zimmerman's statements in.

 

There could be many reasons for not objecting. First, you may have no basis for objecting. That would've been the case re: the prosecution's use of Zimmerman's statements. Second, maybe you want the statements in. That could have been at play here. Third, every objection should involve a cost-benefit analysis, because the jury hates it when you keep stuff from them. So if it's not a big deal, you might not object even though technically it could be inadmissible. Fourth, you might've just not realized that you COULD object. Trials are hectic and lawyers can miss stuff. I don't think three and four were at play here.

 

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say; that even if the defense could object, they probably wouldn't want to, since on balance the whole thing was to their benefit. Everything I read in the lead up said Zimmerman would almost have to testify to get any of his story in at all, then the prosecution went ahead and entered all of his tapes and statements. Zimmerman's team had to just be thinking "Sweet."

[drobeski 3,061]

A riot coming to a city near you soon.

[BLS 314]

A riot coming to a city near you soon.

 

I'm telling you...there will be random acts of violence towards crackers everywhere when he walks.

[Sho Nuff 720]

So Matlock argues that Due Process ensures all parties to a trial are treated the same.

 

Then he argues that the prosecution can bring evidence A, B & C, but the defense can not bring evidence A, B & C.

 

Once again Matlock paints himself into a legal corner.

 

He proved you wrong...you keep claiming to be correct...he again shows you to be wrong, as does parrot...you still keep holding on to such claims.

 

Its ok...its obvious you do not understand the conversations going on and have zero grasp of the law and legal proceedings.

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

I'm telling you...there will be random acts of violence towards crackers everywhere when he walks.

 

We talking saltines here? Cheez-its? Triscuits?

[Voltaire 5,322]

 

Yeah, that's what I was trying to say; that even if the defense could object, they probably wouldn't want to, since on balance the whole thing was to their benefit. Everything I read in the lead up said Zimmerman would almost have to testify to get any of his story in at all, then the prosecution went ahead and entered all of his tapes and statements. Zimmerman's team had to just be thinking "Sweet."

I don't follow the trial so closely, just the 'highlights' I suppose. Some clips that make the news. My understanding was the prosecution selectivly chose only the bits of interview they wanted to show. What you're saying is that's not the case, they put the whole thing in the record? Or they had no choice when they chose to take an inch, they had to take the whole nine yards...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

He proved you wrong...you keep claiming to be correct...he again shows you to be wrong, as does parrot...you still keep holding on to such claims.

 

Its ok...its obvious you do not understand the conversations going on and have zero grasp of the law and legal proceedings.

Wrong.

 

I have no idea where Parrot got his "exception" from. Nothing in it says the defense could not call the investigating officers to testify about their role in the case.

[NewbieJr 541]

 

I'm telling you...there will be random acts of violence towards crackers everywhere when he walks.

Then they should all be Zimmermaned. Eventually they'll get it.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Wrong.

 

I have no idea where Parrot got his "exception" from. Nothing in it says the defense could not call the investigating officers to testify about their role in the case.

 

How cute that you are still holding on to this line of thinking despite Worms and Parrot both showing you how clueless you are on this issue.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How cute that you are still holding on to this line of thinking despite Worms and Parrot both showing you how clueless you are on this issue.

Really?

 

They showed that the defense would not be able to call the investigating officers to testify about their role in the case?