How? The guy with the gun is getting his ass beat and says "take my gun?"
Does he think giving his gun to the guy assaulting him will make it stop? That makes no sense.
George Zimmerman (killer of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin) found not guilty
- Thread starter Dude Abides
- Start date
- Status
How? The guy with the gun is getting his ass beat and says "take my gun?"
Does he think giving his gun to the guy assaulting him will make it stop? That makes no sense.
Why would anyone getting assaulted want to further arm their assailant? It sounds more suicidal than placating
Sounds like a younger voice in my opinion. Although if you believe your life is being threatened , I probably couldn't even tell you what I would sound like in this scenario.
anarckitty
Member
Alright dude. Done arguing. I was simply saying that I could see a situation like that happening in my head.
I can't wait until this trial is over. Off to other lighthearted threads.
I can't wait until this trial is over. Off to other lighthearted threads.
So is the current witness.
We will have to see how the prosecution cross examines the defense witnesses as well. They get to do that correct?
What side of the house does the neighborhood put house numbers on?
soundscream
Member
All these Zimmerman will walk post are a bit premature.
I would probably be shocked if he walked honestly. He still should get some time for killing someone that was walking home with skittles and ice tea. If there is any justice left in this country at least... lol
mercenar1e
Member
the defense is ripping the prosecution on every level lol Zimmerman will walk or get a light slap on the wrist
closing arguments will remind the Jury of the fuck ups that occurred in trial... nobody will forget Rachels testimony
closing arguments will remind the Jury of the fuck ups that occurred in trial... nobody will forget Rachels testimony
Killing_Joke
Member
So instead of walking around a bush that's right in front of him, he walks 50-100 feet to look at another address? Doesn't seem logical.
soundscream
Member
The fact that Zimmerman will likely not testify will work against him, since he is the only other person directly involved in the shooting.
PotatoeMasher
Member
It'd be much easier to prove manslaughter than second-degree, IMO.
And with the ego he has, I don't think he'll give up his chance to get on the stand. This case is far from over.
mercenar1e
Member
Zimmerman testifying will hurt the defense, every fuck up said so far can be undone lol he doesn't need to do anything at this point
Hari Seldon
Member
I was a juror in a double murder trial, and having the defendant testify was the worst mistake ever. However I found out later that his lawyer begged him not to do it, but apparently he wanted to testify lol.
Huh? The defendant should almost never testify in case like this. It does them no good at all and only hurts them.
soundscream
Member
Dont know the specifics of the case you were on, but in this situation I would want to hear his account of the events of the night.
mercenar1e
Member
what you want to hear and what's good for the defense are two different things, they brought up witnesses and evidence and it was all shat on by the defense, Zimmerman testifying will only hurt his case
Hari Seldon
Member
The problem for the defendant in my case was when the DA ripped his story to shreds in the cross.
soundscream
Member
It being "shat on" is a mater of opinion.
TunaMarshmallow
Member
If I were a juror in this case and Zimmerman didn't testify, I'd feel very frustrated. I'm supposed to decide what did and didn't happen that night and the only dude who could give us a precise play-by-play (and the very same dude whose fate is in our hands) doesn't explain his side of things? I'm not feeling that.
soundscream
Member
Exactly.
CrimsonCommie
Member
What's the point in questioning without the jury?
Absolutely. And they'll win easily.
Dude Abides
Banned
There's no real evidence to support his self defense claim if he doesn't testify. His lawyer's opening statements aren't evidence.
So after admitting you haven't been following the trial, you are frustrated that a jury system carefully crafted over centuries to optimize legal results finds that Zimmerman might not be in the wrong and therefore shouldn't be imprisoned because we don't like putting innocent people in jail. And this frustrates you because by NOT watching the trial, you know--better than the jury--that there is no reasonable doubt that he fulfills all the elements of second-degree murder and was not acting in self defense? Or maybe you're frustrated because you don't believe in the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard, and would rather send more innocent people to prison to catch more bad guys who might have gotten away?
I mean, I'm not claiming he's not guilty. I'm claiming it's a pretty difficult case with plenty of room for reasonable doubt, and we shouldn't take up our torches when our legal system is working the way it's supposed to.
EDIT: That's also not to say juries have never made poor decisions. But people in this very thread can see the discreditation of the prosecution's case. Most are showing it through disappointment, because they've aligned themselves with a party, but it's pretty obvious that the people watching it can see the holes. They can see the reasonable doubt. Whether the jury will find it to be enough reasonable doubt is up to them, but at this point, I wouldn't begrudge the jury either way.
Zoe
Member
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
Unless your own testimony is vital to the case or you are a very sympathetic, it's generally not something your lawyer will even allow.
That being said, this is a self-defense case. He probably has to testify to his own state of mind. I don't know how he'd do that otherwise.
PotatoeMasher
Member
He doesn't have to prove he's innocent. The state has to prove he is guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
CrimsonCommie
Member
Yea the defense had a big smile on his face when that happened.
mercenar1e
Member
the prosecution tried to bring in the twitter evidence to disprove her in front of a jury because her testimony doesn't help them! LOL
There's a Twitter account with her name and pic that follows Zimmerman.
No signs of Zimmerman on her FB, but she is friends with Frank Taaffe.
Killing_Joke
Member
I'm positive he won't testify. Every time he told his story it was full of convenient "i don't know" and "i don't remember". And the lawyers seem smart enough.
mercenar1e
Member
other way around she has a twitter profile with followers including zimmermans brother but shes not following them
Hari Seldon
Member
Yeah I know what you mean. A couple of the other jurors in my case felt the same. But from my personal anecdotal experience, if I was a defense attorney in a murder trial I'd only recommend my defendant take the stand if he/she was a Mister Rogers-esque old person, or a young hot chick that could act very scared in front of a majority male jury lol.
In my trial, some of the jurors seemed to think they were supposed to psycho-analyze everyone like they were professional psychiatrists. My trial was similar to this one in that a lot of the witnesses seemed very un-credible and un-educated. It got real heated in the deliberations until me and another dude (both engineers) decided to take charge and just stick to the facts in the case and convinced everyone to look at the case logically and unemotionally.
Being a juror was an interesting experience. I'd recommend to gaf to not try to weasel out of it if you get called, it is a good life experience to have.
beastworship
Neo Member
nothing like dinosaurs attempting to understand technology. is it true there is no police testifying on behalf of the prosecution? and what does that mean, they don't think zimmerman is guilty? would seem cops love to get attention, unless they've been told not to so they don't come off as the next mark fuhrman
The jury was not in the room. For a reason.
OrangeYouGlad
Banned
Weren't the police scrutinized for how they handled the investigation?
- Status