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.
O'Meara said to the judge that if zimmerman was a lawyer he would have jumped up and let the court know that his wife was lying (so dramatic!).
The judge countered with "...he could have just tugged your sleeve.."
hehe
go judge.
Not really.
The legal system is more complicated than any one person can reasonably deal with, which is why defendants often have teams of lawyers. If Zimmerman's attorney was not aware of the funds during the bond hearing, it's not that unremarkable that this mistake slipped through.
My understanding was that George himself brought it up to his attorney who then notified the judge after the hearing. That doesn't exactly fit with this "conspiracy by silence" angle.
He also had $40.00 and a lighter. I know, I know, everyone carries a lighter with them on a walk to the store for skittles and watermelon juice. Nothing at all just a wee, teensy bit odd about that.
SO WHAT?
What does what he had in his pockets have to do with the fact that he was followed by a lunatic with a gun?
Why is anyone focusing so much on what Trayvon was doing and what he was thinking that night? We have people on this thread insist they *know* what was going on in Trayvon's mind that night, and because they are convinced he was up to no good or that he was thinking impure thoughts, that makes Zimmerman not guilty for setting the wheels in motion that caused Trayvon's death?
You know what? If I were to find out that Trayvon had a freakin' switchblade in his pocket, it wouldn't change my mind one iota. The facts as we know them is that Zimmerman is a crackpot with a gun and that he initiated the contact with Trayvon that night and that he has been less than truthful and that his story about what happened that night just doesn't add up.
There is ZERO evidence that Trayvon had anything else on his mind other than killing a little time walking back from the store while he talked to a friend on his cell phone. I have a teenage son, who is, at this very moment, the exact same age Trayvon was when he died (he turned 17 three weeks ago) and sometimes I want to just SCREAM because he is never in a hurry to do anything - he just kind of saunters along, taking his time, looking around.
I don't know why anyone thinks that what Trayvon had in his pockets ($40.00? Seriously?), or why it took him so long to get back to his father's girlfriend's house, has anything to do with the tragic events of that night - events that were set up by Zimmerman and Zimmerman alone.
What does what he had in his pockets have to do with the fact that he was followed by a lunatic with a gun?
Why is anyone focusing so much on what Trayvon was doing and what he was thinking that night? We have people on this thread insist they *know* what was going on in Trayvon's mind that night, and because they are convinced he was up to no good or that he was thinking impure thoughts, that makes Zimmerman not guilty for setting the wheels in motion that caused Trayvon's death?
You know what? If I were to find out that Trayvon had a freakin' switchblade in his pocket, it wouldn't change my mind one iota. The facts as we know them is that Zimmerman is a crackpot with a gun and that he initiated the contact with Trayvon that night and that he has been less than truthful and that his story about what happened that night just doesn't add up.
There is ZERO evidence that Trayvon had anything else on his mind other than killing a little time walking back from the store while he talked to a friend on his cell phone. I have a teenage son, who is, at this very moment, the exact same age Trayvon was when he died (he turned 17 three weeks ago) and sometimes I want to just SCREAM because he is never in a hurry to do anything - he just kind of saunters along, taking his time, looking around.
I don't know why anyone thinks that what Trayvon had in his pockets ($40.00? Seriously?), or why it took him so long to get back to his father's girlfriend's house, has anything to do with the tragic events of that night - events that were set up by Zimmerman and Zimmerman alone.
Good post. People are bringing in irrelevant information to derail the whole thing. There are only a few facts known, and some speculation on each side. My main beef with Zimmerman is that he has already lied in court, and therefore his testimonies cannot be accepted as fact.
O'Mara is an experienced attorney; I'm shocked he would even suggest such a thing. I think probably George was insistent that O'Mara make the request. And I'm not surprised that Z would try to use his wife again with no concern for what might happen to her. This guy is just digging in deeper and deeper. I have been trying to think of what the defense could use in their case that might be effective, and, based on what we know now (which is not everything the defense knows of course) and I can't come up with anything, other than just focusing on Zimmerman's claimed fear during the moments of the struggle. Of course, that goes back to credibility and would almost surely require Z to take the stand. And we all know that Zimmerman has a huge credibility problem.
Not really.
The hyper-critical nitpicking about inconsistencies among George's statements are misplaced. Most if the inconsistencies are over innocuous details and the supposed "lies" wouldn't even benefit George.
The overwhelming weight of the evidence is in George's favor. Calling the non-emergency dispatch and calmly relaying info is not evidence of guilty mind. He has never once fled from the authorities. He willingly spoke to cops without an attorney (very stupid, but very non-guilty behavior).
We now know from eyewitnesses and the injuries that George was indeed getting the crap beat out of him. Getting beat for a minute and unable to escape is prima facie proof of a fear of imminent bodily injury.
The only ground for a manslaughter conviction (forget murder 2 - that just isn't there even under the most favorable interpretation to prosecution) is that George provoked the fight. Dee's testimony is too ambiguous on this point to overcome reasonable doubt. No reasonable juror could say they believe beyond a reasonable doubt he provoked it by physically assaulting Martin or by brandishing his firearm.
Good post. People are bringing in irrelevant information to derail the whole thing. There are only a few facts known, and some speculation on each side. My main beef with Zimmerman is that he has already lied in court, and therefore his testimonies cannot be accepted as fact.
It's not irrelevant. It goes to martin's motive in assaulting George, and why George thought he was suspicious.
The legal system is more complicated than any one person can reasonably deal with, which is why defendants often have teams of lawyers. If Zimmerman's attorney was not aware of the funds during the bond hearing, it's not that unremarkable that this mistake slipped through.
My understanding was that George himself brought it up to his attorney who then notified the judge after the hearing. That doesn't exactly fit with this "conspiracy by silence" angle.
George was aware, though.
George brought up to his attorney after he was found out.
Not too noble...
At any rate, his culpability is mitigated by the fact that George was under extreme duress at the time this happened, owing to the fact there was a bounty on his head and he had received hundreds of threats against his life.
Apparently you haven't read the telephone transcripts between Mr. and Mrs. Zimmerman. While I agree that Zimmerman, unlike his attorney, has not obligation to disclose a false statement given by another on his behalf, trying to pawn off Zimmeran as being under "extreme duress" in light of his blatant attempt to hide his assets is risible.
No reasonable juror could say they believe beyond a reasonable doubt he provoked it by physically assaulting Martin or by brandishing his firearm.
A juror doesn't have to believe that. A juror simply has to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's use of lethal force was unjustified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by needTXinfo
The only ground for a manslaughter conviction (forget murder 2 - that just isn't there even under the most favorable interpretation to prosecution) is that George provoked the fight.
You must have gone to one of those T-4 law schools. You need to go back and review these:
Last edited by BajanYankee; 06-29-2012 at 12:52 PM..
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.
