Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Zimmerman will balance on the right jury. He might be better off to not have the trial moved from his area. Some problems he does have....his fascination with law enforcement. Wanna be cop....
This will be an interesting trial....but as I see it, "not guilty". The law is too ambiguous. It was legal for him to have a gun. He felt threatened. He shot Trayvon.
He can't not testify to this scenario. If he stays silent....that may be a problem....maybe not, if they focus on the law aspect.
Zimmerman will balance on the right jury. He might be better off to not have the trial moved from his area. Some problems he does have....his fascination with law enforcement. Wanna be cop....
This will be an interesting trial....but as I see it, "not guilty". The law is too ambiguous. It was legal for him to have a gun. He felt threatened. He shot Trayvon.
He can't not testify to this scenario. If he stays silent....that may be a problem....maybe not, if they focus on the law aspect.
If he testifies, which he will have to do, IMO, he will be subject to cross examination. The state may at that point test his credibility with any contradictory and inconsistent statements he has made as well as past evidence of deceptiveness. The jury does not have to "blindly" believe his statement that he was in fear for his life. Like every other witness, his credibility is an issue.
Because he has asserted self defense, can't see any way that he does not testify. Also, with SYG, he is saying he was in fear for his life. I think he would have to testify.
If this goes to an immunity hearing, it will stay in that county. If it goes to a trial I simply cannot imagine O'Mara or the State, one or the other, not moving for a change of venue.
Common sense for an adult, maybe, but not necessarily for a teenager. In fact, it may just be that reason kids would want to wear the hoodie up because they're told not to....the rebellious part of their nature. Even for a "black teen from Miami."
Your link seems to be anecdotal.
What would you like, a poll of % of black parents who have 'the talk' with their children. Don't believe it's common, don't, or if the subject interests you look it up. With profiling, stereotyping, and racism, a parent who didn't have the talk is an idiot. As one man said, 'You are made conscious of your blackness early, many times, from our parents out of responsibility and protection.'
The fact that teens rebel doesn't negate the consequences, like perceived as suspicious in a store or eyeballed by a cop.
Zimmerman will balance on the right jury. He might be better off to not have the trial moved from his area. Some problems he does have....his fascination with law enforcement. Wanna be cop....
This will be an interesting trial....but as I see it, "not guilty". The law is too ambiguous. It was legal for him to have a gun. He felt threatened. He shot Trayvon.
He can't not testify to this scenario. If he stays silent....that may be a problem....maybe not, if they focus on the law aspect.
Why would someone wanting to be an officer have a problem.
Their job is to serve and protect and to uphold the laws. If that were something either Trayvon or George wanted to do it would be considered admirable IMO.
The Prosecutor is up for election, they also wanted to put some time between possible riots and a trial.
Plus just buy charging him the state opened civil prosecution possibilities and those can be devestating to anyone and even come out with guilty for the innocent (OJ excluded of course).
Zimmerman will balance on the right jury. He might be better off to not have the trial moved from his area. Some problems he does have....his fascination with law enforcement. Wanna be cop....
This will be an interesting trial....but as I see it, "not guilty". The law is too ambiguous. It was legal for him to have a gun. He felt threatened. He shot Trayvon.
He can't not testify to this scenario. If he stays silent....that may be a problem....maybe not, if they focus on the law aspect.
He apparently gave multiple statements to the cops. Unless something in those statements absolutely destroys the self defense claim, I don't think he'll testify.
He apparently gave multiple statements to the cops. Unless something in those statements absolutely destroys the self defense claim, I don't think he'll testify.
Guilty.
If he goes to trial, he has to put on evidence because he has asserted self defense (that assertion requires him to put on evidence). What evidence would he put on of self defense that would not include his own statement? Seriously. I'm just not getting this.
So you think that everyone that wears a hoodie is a gang member? Most of the country wears them. I am sorry but I do think that you are the naive one if you think that only gang members wear hoodies. Go look in the mall, at schools and even people walking their dogs.
Naive? Wear one and walk into a government building lol
If he goes to trial, he has to put on evidence because he has asserted self defense (that assertion requires him to put on evidence). What evidence would he put on of self defense that would not include his own statement? Seriously. I'm just not getting this.
If he didn't give statements, I agree he'd have to testify.
His statements May cover anything he'd offer on direct exam. Why would he risk crossx if the statements themselves speak to the events, his frame of mind. He should testify only if the alleged inconsistencies or other info in his statements are damning to his self defense claim.
If he didn't give statements, I agree he'd have to testify.
His statements May cover anything he'd offer on direct exam. Why would he risk crossx if the statements themselves speak to the events, his frame of mind. He should testify only if the alleged inconsistencies or other info in his statements are damning to his self defense claim.
Okay. I see. But can his sworn statments be submitted as Exhibits for an effective self defense claim? Wouldn't they be considered self-serving (since he can't be cross examined regarding them), and how would a jury perceive his refusal to take the stand? See, this is part of the strategy of the case which I find enormously interesting.
Naive? Wear one and walk into a government building lol
Oh, come on. There are many government buildings you can't get into without identification, among other things. You can't walk into many government buildings with a sharp fingernail file either. That doesn't mean that people who carry fingernail files around are dangerous.
You're grasping at straws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
