Yes, it was a huge screw up by NBC. Without that edited call, this thread does not exist, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton aren't leading rallies and we are not debating the racial divide in this country.
The focus on the case should have been the "stand your ground" law, but clearly that wasn't the focus.
Trayvon Martin's family has reached a settlement in a wrongful death suit they filed against the homeowners association of the sub-division where Martin was killed, the Orlando Sentinel reports.
Martin was shot to death just steps from his father's home on Feb. 26, 2012, by volunteer neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman. The case drew national attention last year as the Sanford Police Department vacillated on whether to file charges against Zimmerman, who indicated that he'd shot Martin only after being attacked. Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder and is currently awaiting trial.
Portions of the settlement released Friday do not specify how much money Martin's family will receive, but according to the Sentinel, the figure is believed to be in excess of $1 million. The settlement does, however, state that Zimmerman is not part of the agreement. Lawyers for Martin's family have made it clear that they still plan to file a civil claim against Zimmerman at a later point.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
yeah they can't even seat a jury who has not been tainted by leaks and media coverage. they need a change of venue, but where else could the trial be held? anyone who has been halfway paying attention has heard about the leaks from the defense that are pretty much character assasinations of trayvon. these are not admissable in court, but i am sure that they biased potential jurors by portraying trayvon as a thug. unethical, but brilliant move by the defense team.
i think the crux of the case is going to be the question of stand your ground. if zimmerman pursued trayvon, how can zimmerman be standing his ground and defending himself if he gained ground by pursuing trayvon??
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
yeah they can't even seat a jury who has not been tainted by leaks and media coverage. they need a change of venue, but where else could the trial be held? anyone who has been halfway paying attention has heard about the leaks from the defense that are pretty much character assasinations of trayvon. these are not admissable in court, but i am sure that they biased potential jurors by portraying trayvon as a thug. unethical, but brilliant move by the defense team.
i think the crux of the case is going to be the question of stand your ground. if zimmerman pursued trayvon, how can zimmerman be standing his ground and defending himself if he gained ground by pursuing trayvon??
the easy solution ... get these guys on the jury ...
yeah they can't even seat a jury who has not been tainted by leaks and media coverage. they need a change of venue, but where else could the trial be held? anyone who has been halfway paying attention has heard about the leaks from the defense that are pretty much character assasinations of trayvon. these are not admissable in court, but i am sure that they biased potential jurors by portraying trayvon as a thug. unethical, but brilliant move by the defense team.
i think the crux of the case is going to be the question of stand your ground. if zimmerman pursued trayvon, how can zimmerman be standing his ground and defending himself if he gained ground by pursuing trayvon??
I guess... Although I've been paying attention, and if I were on that jury I would already have decided that Zimmerman is guilty, which shows that the tainting very much goes both ways... Even Steven!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I watched his police questioning video. He seemed believable. Evidence so far back up his story.
My Binaural for your Riot Act; he walks.
The problem is, from what I've heard, there's no evidence on who confronted who, other than the word of the guy who survived. And that's not evidence, thats just testimony.
Its gonna be an ugly trial. And there's a good chance Zimmerman walks, although he's a dingbat and likely accosted the kid.
As i've always said, its too bad there was a gun involved and one person didnt just beat up the other like the old days. Bottom line is, with better judgement on behalf of Zimmerman, the kid would still be alive, Zimmerman wouldnt be in the shit he's in, and he might have not gained 142 pounds.
Heard a thing on the news the other day about the gender and race make-up of the jury - why should it matter? Are we saying that there IS bias based on those factors but then it doesn't (or shouldn't) apply in other situations?
Heard a thing on the news the other day about the gender and race make-up of the jury - why should it matter?
It most definitely matters. Much like the OJ trial, people are very divided on this issue, and it tends to run across race/ethnicity lines. The absolute last thing you want, sad to say, is a jury of all black women who may very well get emotionally tied up in the case (think of it as a motherly reaction). It's hard enough to fill a jury for this case. I think they chose the jury wisely.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Heard a thing on the news the other day about the gender and race make-up of the jury - why should it matter?
It most definitely matters. Much like the OJ trial, people are very divided on this issue, and it tends to run across race/ethnicity lines. The absolute last thing you want, sad to say, is a jury of all black women who may very well get emotionally tied up in the case (think of it as a motherly reaction). It's hard enough to fill a jury for this case. I think they chose the jury wisely.
I agree with you, but then it goes back to the second sentence of my previous post. I'm not saying it's right or wrong (I can't really, since I believe it's mostly human nature), but if it's applicable in one setting why is it unacceptable in another?
Heard a thing on the news the other day about the gender and race make-up of the jury - why should it matter?
It most definitely matters. Much like the OJ trial, people are very divided on this issue, and it tends to run across race/ethnicity lines. The absolute last thing you want, sad to say, is a jury of all black women who may very well get emotionally tied up in the case (think of it as a motherly reaction). It's hard enough to fill a jury for this case. I think they chose the jury wisely.
I agree with you, but then it goes back to the second sentence of my previous post. I'm not saying it's right or wrong (I can't really, since I believe it's mostly human nature), but if it's applicable in one setting why is it unacceptable in another?
Is this truly bias though? Jury selection had to be agreed upon by both the prosecution and defense...
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
It most definitely matters. Much like the OJ trial, people are very divided on this issue, and it tends to run across race/ethnicity lines. The absolute last thing you want, sad to say, is a jury of all black women who may very well get emotionally tied up in the case (think of it as a motherly reaction). It's hard enough to fill a jury for this case. I think they chose the jury wisely.
I agree with you, but then it goes back to the second sentence of my previous post. I'm not saying it's right or wrong (I can't really, since I believe it's mostly human nature), but if it's applicable in one setting why is it unacceptable in another?
Is this truly bias though? Jury selection had to be agreed upon by both the prosecution and defense...
Exactly. There is a reason the defense made this happen, for better or worse.... of course, from what I can tell, the defense attorney is an idiot, so...
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I agree with you, but then it goes back to the second sentence of my previous post. I'm not saying it's right or wrong (I can't really, since I believe it's mostly human nature), but if it's applicable in one setting why is it unacceptable in another?
Is this truly bias though? Jury selection had to be agreed upon by both the prosecution and defense...
I don't know, but it sure makes me wonder. I mean, it's OK to make certain assumptions based on the make-up of the jury but in everyday life it's frowned upon.
Again, I dunno. It was something that particularly struck me this morning.
I think the map kinda makes it look more like Zimmerman was stalking Martin, although Zimmerman claims he was walking along in the dark with his gun behind martin to see the street signs. The street signs in his own neighborhood.
Afraid for his life? He got punched in the nose for stalking someone. I still think he'll get off, though I think he's guilty as shit. If he's found not guilty, some shit will hit the fan I fear.
I think the map kinda makes it look more like Zimmerman was stalking Martin, although Zimmerman claims he was walking along in the dark with his gun behind martin to see the street signs. The street signs in his own neighborhood.
Afraid for his life? He got punched in the nose for stalking someone. I still think he'll get off, though I think he's guilty as shit. If he's found not guilty, some shit will hit the fan I fear.
I agree with everything you just said.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I too think he is guilty as sin but will most likely get off. Once the police/911 operator told him to stop following Martin and he did not...in my mind...that should be game over. He was stalking the guy.
if zimmerman pursued him, how can he be standing his ground? if he stood still and trayvon ran up and attacked him, that is one thing. but he was told to stay put and not follow trayvon. he put himself in that situation. it was his own doing that got him into a confrontation.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
if zimmerman pursued him, how can he be standing his ground? if he stood still and trayvon ran up and attacked him, that is one thing. but he was told to stay put and not follow trayvon. he put himself in that situation. it was his own doing that got him into a confrontation.
I totally agree Rod... There's also tape of him saying (before he hangs up with dispatcher) that he will wait for the police by the mailboxes, which were near the clubhouse i nthe opposite direction.
Also, there's a video of him talking about his injuries and he's saying that his head needed stitches but they decided not to give him stitches...yada yada yada... really? Why no stitches George? They figured it would heal better as a gaping wound? One thing that I also feel is misleading is Zimmerman's injury pictures. They are bloody, but his injuries are not substantial and they certainly arent life threatening. After the blood is wiped away, it looks like a nick.
if zimmerman pursued him, how can he be standing his ground? if he stood still and trayvon ran up and attacked him, that is one thing. but he was told to stay put and not follow trayvon. he put himself in that situation. it was his own doing that got him into a confrontation.
I totally agree Rod... There's also tape of him saying (before he hangs up with dispatcher) that he will wait for the police by the mailboxes, which were near the clubhouse i nthe opposite direction.
Also, there's a video of him talking about his injuries and he's saying that his head needed stitches but they decided not to give him stitches...yada yada yada... really? Why no stitches George? They figured it would heal better as a gaping wound? One thing that I also feel is misleading is Zimmerman's injury pictures. They are bloody, but his injuries are not substantial and they certainly arent life threatening. After the blood is wiped away, it looks like a nick.
i have not seen the wounds yet.
being in medicine, generally anything on the face you want to suture. especially if it is horizontal because gravity will be a constant force pulling that cut open that will result in ugly scarring. you can get away with steri strips or something, but sutures are the standard. especially if it is a horizontal cut. in the back of the head, where most people have hair, sutures are done most of the time. you can get away with superglue or dermabond back there because you don't need to be concerned with cosmetics.
the face and head are very vascular, so they bleed. a LOT. that is good because the better the blood supply = the better healing. the bad part is all of that blood makes wounds look more scary and more severe than they really are. need an example? watch a ric flair wrestling match from the 70s. a little forehead cut causes a crimson mask lol...
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
being in medicine, generally anything on the face you want to suture. especially if it is horizontal because gravity will be a constant force pulling that cut open that will result in ugly scarring. you can get away with steri strips or something, but sutures are the standard. especially if it is a horizontal cut. in the back of the head, where most people have hair, sutures are done most of the time. you can get away with superglue or dermabond back there because you don't need to be concerned with cosmetics.
the face and head are very vascular, so they bleed. a LOT. that is good because the better the blood supply = the better healing. the bad part is all of that blood makes wounds look more scary and more severe than they really are. need an example? watch a ric flair wrestling match from the 70s. a little forehead cut causes a crimson mask lol...
Interesting. I didnt know about the horizontal issue. Zimmerman looked like he had a small nick on his nose, and one or two on the back of his head. The two on the back of the head had streams of blood, but nothing you wouldnt expect. They DO look worse with the blood, but when I saw the pics of the blood wiped away, it looked like more nicks. Im sure you'll see them in the news. Ive had a few nicks on my head that bled pretty good too.
In anothre interview Zimmreman said he forgot he even had his gun on him until the fight started. what a joke this guy is. :fp:
Here's my take (humble though it may be) after reading the last few pages of the thread and following the first few days of the trial:
1. Every case I've ever tried or watched always looks really, really convincing when only one side is presenting it's case. If the State's case looks solid right now, wait until cross of key witnesses. Wait until the defense presents witnesses. If Zimmerman's attorneys are worth their salt, they'll make it close.
2. Someone raised the question of why jury selection allows (hell, encourages) attorneys to make distinctions among jurors that would otherwise be inappropriate in daily life. That's a valid question, and one that is routinely debated among bar associations and attorneys alike. In Minnesota, there are proposals to change the rules of criminal procedure to prohibit the use of sexual orientation during jury selection (proponents argue: if we want to outlaw discrimination, we need to do so everywhere; allowing attorneys to strike jurors because of their LGBT status is discrimination etc). You'd be surprised who is opposing these changes: many defense attorneys (and liberal ones at that). Their argument is that protecting potential jurors from discriminating strikes would create a "quasi-right to sit on a jury," one that does not exist, and one that, if it did exist, should take a back-seat to the rights of a defendant to a fair trial. The essence of the opponents' argument is: if an attorney has to be a bigot to ensure his client gets a fair trial or jury pool, then so be it.
I look at jury selection like this: use of strikes against prospective jurors, for reasons that otherwise might be inappropriate in daily life (keep in mind: race based strikes are NOT OK), is probably a necessary evil. We know juries can be biased, just like anyone else and in some cases, obviously biased. To prevent jurors from exercising those obvious biases against defendants and thereby tainting an otherwise fair process, attorneys need to make some assumptions (sometimes unwarranted) and remove those who they believe may have reason to be unfairly predisposed toward one side or the other.
3. Key facts/arguments that I expect each to hit on
The State: (a) the record of phone calls from Zimmerman in previous months. My gut tells me this is huge. It shows a guy predisposed toward a confrontation; (b) Zimmerman "following" Martin; (c) any witness recollection of Martin screaming or saying "stop following me." These facts, if unsuccessfully impeached, fit perfectly within the State's argument that Zimmerman was the provocateur, or at the very least, not standing his ground.
The Defense: (a) Zimmerman's injuries; injuries on a presumed aggressor are always critical when asserting self-defense. Personally, I find it extremely hard to believe that a skinny 17 year old was able to gain a physical advantage on Zimmerman, even with 4 inches difference in their heights, given than most reports put Zimmerman at anywhere from 35 to 50 pounds heavier than Martin. Expect the defense to hammer this point though; (b) argument or implication about where Martin lived, his recent disciplinary issues at school. I don't believe that those are relevant, unless George Zimmerman knew about those things (which he in all probability could not have known), but I expect the defense, as they should (for their client's sake), to raise them nonetheless; (c) reasonable doubt reasonable doubt reasonable doubt (yes, 3 times over). The toughest cases to prove are the supposed "he-said, she-said" ones. In this case, only two witnesses to the entire incident exist, and only one of them is alive. Without an additional eyewitness, the State has to rely on deductive arguments rather than direct eyewitness evidence, which in many cases, juries confuse for "reasonable doubt." This has to be the defense's strongest argument.
Why Zimmerman will be convicted: the State can likely paint a picture of a man spoiling for a fight, who followed a kid and provoked an argument with a kid and ended it with a bullet. Witness testimony saying Martin told Zimmerman to stop following him, police dispatcher telling Zimmerman to stop following Martin, Zimmerman's history of calling the police about young black males, combined with the sheer illogic of believing that despite all that, an unarmed Martin, alone, jumped Zimmerman could be enough to convict.
Why Zimmerman will be acquitted: Reasonable doubt. The defense will have a strong argument that with no other witnesses, who can say what really happened, other than George Zimmerman? That might not mean he is innocent, but it goes a long way toward convincing a jury that there's doubt, perhaps reasonable, as to whether the State has proven it's case. The best attorneys in the world don't convince juries that defendants are innocent, they convince them that reasonable doubt exists. That's a crucial threshold here.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Vant, once again thank you for your thoughts on the matter. Hearing your perspective is certainly interesting. This is a tough case.
In the end, I keep asking myself, did someone need to die?
I don think so.
I've seen plenty of people get beat up worse than that and live. Was he really in fear for his life? But there's no way to tell that besides Zimmerman's word. Tough case for sure.
Why Zimmerman will be acquitted: Reasonable doubt. The defense will have a strong argument that with no other witnesses, who can say what really happened, other than George Zimmerman? That might not mean he is innocent, but it goes a long way toward convincing a jury that there's doubt, perhaps reasonable, as to whether the State has proven it's case. The best attorneys in the world don't convince juries that defendants are innocent, they convince them that reasonable doubt exists. That's a crucial threshold here.
This is how i see it playing out. It will be just like the Casey Anthony trial.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Here's my take (humble though it may be) after reading the last few pages of the thread and following the first few days of the trial:
1. Every case I've ever tried or watched always looks really, really convincing when only one side is presenting it's case. If the State's case looks solid right now, wait until cross of key witnesses. Wait until the defense presents witnesses. If Zimmerman's attorneys are worth their salt, they'll make it close.
2. Someone raised the question of why jury selection allows (hell, encourages) attorneys to make distinctions among jurors that would otherwise be inappropriate in daily life. That's a valid question, and one that is routinely debated among bar associations and attorneys alike. In Minnesota, there are proposals to change the rules of criminal procedure to prohibit the use of sexual orientation during jury selection (proponents argue: if we want to outlaw discrimination, we need to do so everywhere; allowing attorneys to strike jurors because of their LGBT status is discrimination etc). You'd be surprised who is opposing these changes: many defense attorneys (and liberal ones at that). Their argument is that protecting potential jurors from discriminating strikes would create a "quasi-right to sit on a jury," one that does not exist, and one that, if it did exist, should take a back-seat to the rights of a defendant to a fair trial. The essence of the opponents' argument is: if an attorney has to be a bigot to ensure his client gets a fair trial or jury pool, then so be it.
I look at jury selection like this: use of strikes against prospective jurors, for reasons that otherwise might be inappropriate in daily life (keep in mind: race based strikes are NOT OK), is probably a necessary evil. We know juries can be biased, just like anyone else and in some cases, obviously biased. To prevent jurors from exercising those obvious biases against defendants and thereby tainting an otherwise fair process, attorneys need to make some assumptions (sometimes unwarranted) and remove those who they believe may have reason to be unfairly predisposed toward one side or the other.
3. Key facts/arguments that I expect each to hit on
The State: (a) the record of phone calls from Zimmerman in previous months. My gut tells me this is huge. It shows a guy predisposed toward a confrontation; (b) Zimmerman "following" Martin; (c) any witness recollection of Martin screaming or saying "stop following me." These facts, if unsuccessfully impeached, fit perfectly within the State's argument that Zimmerman was the provocateur, or at the very least, not standing his ground.
The Defense: (a) Zimmerman's injuries; injuries on a presumed aggressor are always critical when asserting self-defense. Personally, I find it extremely hard to believe that a skinny 17 year old was able to gain a physical advantage on Zimmerman, even with 4 inches difference in their heights, given than most reports put Zimmerman at anywhere from 35 to 50 pounds heavier than Martin. Expect the defense to hammer this point though; (b) argument or implication about where Martin lived, his recent disciplinary issues at school. I don't believe that those are relevant, unless George Zimmerman knew about those things (which he in all probability could not have known), but I expect the defense, as they should (for their client's sake), to raise them nonetheless; (c) reasonable doubt reasonable doubt reasonable doubt (yes, 3 times over). The toughest cases to prove are the supposed "he-said, she-said" ones. In this case, only two witnesses to the entire incident exist, and only one of them is alive. Without an additional eyewitness, the State has to rely on deductive arguments rather than direct eyewitness evidence, which in many cases, juries confuse for "reasonable doubt." This has to be the defense's strongest argument.
Why Zimmerman will be convicted: the State can likely paint a picture of a man spoiling for a fight, who followed a kid and provoked an argument with a kid and ended it with a bullet. Witness testimony saying Martin told Zimmerman to stop following him, police dispatcher telling Zimmerman to stop following Martin, Zimmerman's history of calling the police about young black males, combined with the sheer illogic of believing that despite all that, an unarmed Martin, alone, jumped Zimmerman could be enough to convict.
Why Zimmerman will be acquitted: Reasonable doubt. The defense will have a strong argument that with no other witnesses, who can say what really happened, other than George Zimmerman? That might not mean he is innocent, but it goes a long way toward convincing a jury that there's doubt, perhaps reasonable, as to whether the State has proven it's case. The best attorneys in the world don't convince juries that defendants are innocent, they convince them that reasonable doubt exists. That's a crucial threshold here.
I disagree. Zimmerman will walk. And deserves to walk. Here's why:
He thought he was a good guy.
He was concerned Martin was a bad guy.
He called the cops; if he had any plan to start a fight he would have called buddies to get his back.
Martin kicked his ass fair and square.
He thought his gun would be used to kill him; if he was acting like a gangster he would have had his finger on the trigger before he got punched in the nose.
He was the one screaming for help; nobody yells for help as they are pummeling someone's head. Martin was not beat up, Zimmerman was.
Hey Vant, Martin was a better fighter and tougher than Zimmerman. Size never ever matters in a street fight.
I find Zimmerman's story completely believable. Martin was pissed some dude was following him and when they were face to face he punched him then proceeded to beat the shit out of him. Zimmerman says Martin saw his gun and said "Ur gonna die tonight". Then Zimmerman held his hand got his gun and shot him. It's a fucking shame but he was protecting himself. The gun was legal and Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch cheif or something. He was trying to help his community not rolling around the streets looking for trouble.
It's too bad a young guy died but there are consequences with your actions; if Zimmerman died I would say the same thing. You risk your life anytime you choose to fight.
I find Zimmerman's story completely believable. Martin was pissed some dude was following him and when they were face to face he punched him then proceeded to beat the shit out of him. Zimmerman says Martin saw his gun and said "Ur gonna die tonight". Then Zimmerman held his hand got his gun and shot him. It's a fucking shame but he was protecting himself. The gun was legal and Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch cheif or something. He was trying to help his community not rolling around the streets looking for trouble.
If this is the case then Zimmerman will get charged with something because he was told not to follow. He did and as a result someone died. He provoked a fight and killed someone in the process. It could have been avoided.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Comments
The focus on the case should have been the "stand your ground" law, but clearly that wasn't the focus.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/0 ... 22300.html
Trayvon Martin's family has reached a settlement in a wrongful death suit they filed against the homeowners association of the sub-division where Martin was killed, the Orlando Sentinel reports.
Martin was shot to death just steps from his father's home on Feb. 26, 2012, by volunteer neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman. The case drew national attention last year as the Sanford Police Department vacillated on whether to file charges against Zimmerman, who indicated that he'd shot Martin only after being attacked. Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder and is currently awaiting trial.
Portions of the settlement released Friday do not specify how much money Martin's family will receive, but according to the Sentinel, the figure is believed to be in excess of $1 million. The settlement does, however, state that Zimmerman is not part of the agreement. Lawyers for Martin's family have made it clear that they still plan to file a civil claim against Zimmerman at a later point.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
:fp:
Plywood and Czech hedgehogs should be going for a premium in Sanford right now.
i think the crux of the case is going to be the question of stand your ground. if zimmerman pursued trayvon, how can zimmerman be standing his ground and defending himself if he gained ground by pursuing trayvon??
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
My Binaural for your Riot Act; he walks.
The problem is, from what I've heard, there's no evidence on who confronted who, other than the word of the guy who survived. And that's not evidence, thats just testimony.
Its gonna be an ugly trial. And there's a good chance Zimmerman walks, although he's a dingbat and likely accosted the kid.
As i've always said, its too bad there was a gun involved and one person didnt just beat up the other like the old days. Bottom line is, with better judgement on behalf of Zimmerman, the kid would still be alive, Zimmerman wouldnt be in the shit he's in, and he might have not gained 142 pounds.
Who's there?
Ben
Ben Who?
Ben Dover and welcome to prison
Ironic.
It most definitely matters. Much like the OJ trial, people are very divided on this issue, and it tends to run across race/ethnicity lines. The absolute last thing you want, sad to say, is a jury of all black women who may very well get emotionally tied up in the case (think of it as a motherly reaction). It's hard enough to fill a jury for this case. I think they chose the jury wisely.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Is this truly bias though? Jury selection had to be agreed upon by both the prosecution and defense...
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Again, I dunno. It was something that particularly struck me this morning.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.hlntv.com/interactive/2013/0 ... ?hpt=hp_t2
I think the map kinda makes it look more like Zimmerman was stalking Martin, although Zimmerman claims he was walking along in the dark with his gun behind martin to see the street signs. The street signs in his own neighborhood.
Afraid for his life? He got punched in the nose for stalking someone. I still think he'll get off, though I think he's guilty as shit. If he's found not guilty, some shit will hit the fan I fear.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I totally agree Rod... There's also tape of him saying (before he hangs up with dispatcher) that he will wait for the police by the mailboxes, which were near the clubhouse i nthe opposite direction.
Also, there's a video of him talking about his injuries and he's saying that his head needed stitches but they decided not to give him stitches...yada yada yada... really? Why no stitches George? They figured it would heal better as a gaping wound? One thing that I also feel is misleading is Zimmerman's injury pictures. They are bloody, but his injuries are not substantial and they certainly arent life threatening. After the blood is wiped away, it looks like a nick.
being in medicine, generally anything on the face you want to suture. especially if it is horizontal because gravity will be a constant force pulling that cut open that will result in ugly scarring. you can get away with steri strips or something, but sutures are the standard. especially if it is a horizontal cut. in the back of the head, where most people have hair, sutures are done most of the time. you can get away with superglue or dermabond back there because you don't need to be concerned with cosmetics.
the face and head are very vascular, so they bleed. a LOT. that is good because the better the blood supply = the better healing. the bad part is all of that blood makes wounds look more scary and more severe than they really are. need an example? watch a ric flair wrestling match from the 70s. a little forehead cut causes a crimson mask lol...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Interesting. I didnt know about the horizontal issue. Zimmerman looked like he had a small nick on his nose, and one or two on the back of his head. The two on the back of the head had streams of blood, but nothing you wouldnt expect. They DO look worse with the blood, but when I saw the pics of the blood wiped away, it looked like more nicks. Im sure you'll see them in the news. Ive had a few nicks on my head that bled pretty good too.
In anothre interview Zimmreman said he forgot he even had his gun on him until the fight started. what a joke this guy is. :fp:
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
1. Every case I've ever tried or watched always looks really, really convincing when only one side is presenting it's case. If the State's case looks solid right now, wait until cross of key witnesses. Wait until the defense presents witnesses. If Zimmerman's attorneys are worth their salt, they'll make it close.
2. Someone raised the question of why jury selection allows (hell, encourages) attorneys to make distinctions among jurors that would otherwise be inappropriate in daily life. That's a valid question, and one that is routinely debated among bar associations and attorneys alike. In Minnesota, there are proposals to change the rules of criminal procedure to prohibit the use of sexual orientation during jury selection (proponents argue: if we want to outlaw discrimination, we need to do so everywhere; allowing attorneys to strike jurors because of their LGBT status is discrimination etc). You'd be surprised who is opposing these changes: many defense attorneys (and liberal ones at that). Their argument is that protecting potential jurors from discriminating strikes would create a "quasi-right to sit on a jury," one that does not exist, and one that, if it did exist, should take a back-seat to the rights of a defendant to a fair trial. The essence of the opponents' argument is: if an attorney has to be a bigot to ensure his client gets a fair trial or jury pool, then so be it.
I look at jury selection like this: use of strikes against prospective jurors, for reasons that otherwise might be inappropriate in daily life (keep in mind: race based strikes are NOT OK), is probably a necessary evil. We know juries can be biased, just like anyone else and in some cases, obviously biased. To prevent jurors from exercising those obvious biases against defendants and thereby tainting an otherwise fair process, attorneys need to make some assumptions (sometimes unwarranted) and remove those who they believe may have reason to be unfairly predisposed toward one side or the other.
3. Key facts/arguments that I expect each to hit on
The State: (a) the record of phone calls from Zimmerman in previous months. My gut tells me this is huge. It shows a guy predisposed toward a confrontation; (b) Zimmerman "following" Martin; (c) any witness recollection of Martin screaming or saying "stop following me." These facts, if unsuccessfully impeached, fit perfectly within the State's argument that Zimmerman was the provocateur, or at the very least, not standing his ground.
The Defense: (a) Zimmerman's injuries; injuries on a presumed aggressor are always critical when asserting self-defense. Personally, I find it extremely hard to believe that a skinny 17 year old was able to gain a physical advantage on Zimmerman, even with 4 inches difference in their heights, given than most reports put Zimmerman at anywhere from 35 to 50 pounds heavier than Martin. Expect the defense to hammer this point though; (b) argument or implication about where Martin lived, his recent disciplinary issues at school. I don't believe that those are relevant, unless George Zimmerman knew about those things (which he in all probability could not have known), but I expect the defense, as they should (for their client's sake), to raise them nonetheless; (c) reasonable doubt reasonable doubt reasonable doubt (yes, 3 times over). The toughest cases to prove are the supposed "he-said, she-said" ones. In this case, only two witnesses to the entire incident exist, and only one of them is alive. Without an additional eyewitness, the State has to rely on deductive arguments rather than direct eyewitness evidence, which in many cases, juries confuse for "reasonable doubt." This has to be the defense's strongest argument.
Why Zimmerman will be convicted: the State can likely paint a picture of a man spoiling for a fight, who followed a kid and provoked an argument with a kid and ended it with a bullet. Witness testimony saying Martin told Zimmerman to stop following him, police dispatcher telling Zimmerman to stop following Martin, Zimmerman's history of calling the police about young black males, combined with the sheer illogic of believing that despite all that, an unarmed Martin, alone, jumped Zimmerman could be enough to convict.
Why Zimmerman will be acquitted: Reasonable doubt. The defense will have a strong argument that with no other witnesses, who can say what really happened, other than George Zimmerman? That might not mean he is innocent, but it goes a long way toward convincing a jury that there's doubt, perhaps reasonable, as to whether the State has proven it's case. The best attorneys in the world don't convince juries that defendants are innocent, they convince them that reasonable doubt exists. That's a crucial threshold here.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
In the end, I keep asking myself, did someone need to die?
I don think so.
I've seen plenty of people get beat up worse than that and live. Was he really in fear for his life? But there's no way to tell that besides Zimmerman's word. Tough case for sure.
This is how i see it playing out. It will be just like the Casey Anthony trial.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I disagree. Zimmerman will walk. And deserves to walk. Here's why:
He thought he was a good guy.
He was concerned Martin was a bad guy.
He called the cops; if he had any plan to start a fight he would have called buddies to get his back.
Martin kicked his ass fair and square.
He thought his gun would be used to kill him; if he was acting like a gangster he would have had his finger on the trigger before he got punched in the nose.
He was the one screaming for help; nobody yells for help as they are pummeling someone's head. Martin was not beat up, Zimmerman was.
Hey Vant, Martin was a better fighter and tougher than Zimmerman. Size never ever matters in a street fight.
I find Zimmerman's story completely believable. Martin was pissed some dude was following him and when they were face to face he punched him then proceeded to beat the shit out of him. Zimmerman says Martin saw his gun and said "Ur gonna die tonight". Then Zimmerman held his hand got his gun and shot him. It's a fucking shame but he was protecting himself. The gun was legal and Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch cheif or something. He was trying to help his community not rolling around the streets looking for trouble.
It's too bad a young guy died but there are consequences with your actions; if Zimmerman died I would say the same thing. You risk your life anytime you choose to fight.
If this is the case then Zimmerman will get charged with something because he was told not to follow. He did and as a result someone died. He provoked a fight and killed someone in the process. It could have been avoided.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense