i respect you man. please re-read what i said. i was just speaking my opinion. not the merits of the case or the strength of the prosecution. he might walk. you dont know, neither do i. But if he gets convicted, it will be because the jury does not believe his side of the story. An innocent man would clarify discrepancies not hope the jury just frees him because there was no video tape.

Cool.... so you admit that the defendant had a reasonable fear of grave bodily harm ... particularly after being punched multiple times.

Welcome to the reasonable side of the discussion. We've been waiting for you.

In the real world defendants very seldom take the stand because any good attorney will tell their clients not to take the stand. I don't know the stats but my guess would be that less than ten percent take the stand...and maybe even far less than ten percent.

I'm pretty sure an innocent man would heed the advice of his defense attorney. That is what they get paid for after all.

You can bet your last dollar that if GZ's attorney thought it would be beneficial to his defense, or that it was even remotely necessary, GZ would have testified.

since you impolitely "dismissed" me in another thread you get no respect nor a response from me. you demonstrate closemindedness when you debate. even though you have good points they are eliminated by your self perceived omniscience...your dismissed.

The very fact that you replied to his post is a response, regardless of whether or not you addressed what he said...

Don't look now...but you just provided a response...sport.

correct. if he was factually innocent, GZs attorney would understand the danger of the holes in zims facts & would seek to rectify them with testimony. The truth tends to come out through the examination process. so any truly innocent person corrects the record & tells the jury directly that he was defending himself, & why.

http://media2.abcactionnews.com//pho...18_320_240.JPG

:stoned

ADG

obviously i have to communicate my intentions. its a shame you are so arrogant & rude because i actually agree with most things you write. but you fucked up again & called me sport. so goodbye & i hope you continue to enjoy the GFY community. :)

Geezus, you just don't get the concept behind self defense.

Here, from Findlaw....

What's an affirmative defense?

An affirmative defense is a justification for the defendant having committed the accused crime. It differs from other defenses because the defendant admits that he did, in fact, break the law. He is simply arguing that he has a good reason for having done so, and therefore should be excused from all criminal liability.

In criminal trials, the most common affirmative defenses include self-defense, defense of others and insanity. Duress, entrapment and involuntary intoxication are used less often.

To see how one of these defenses works, let's look at the pending Trayvon Martin trial. George Zimmerman will undoubtedly argue that he acted in self-defense as defined by Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. There's absolutely no question that he killed Martin. If he can successfully prove he acted in self-defense, the law says he cannot be convicted of murder. He will go free.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/201...e-defense.html

Well I have been a member for more than 10 years and have wasted/killed alot of time...but I am retired so I have time to kill.

:rasta

Wrong...he is not using the "Stand Your Ground Law"...for his defense.

i learned from the thread about snowden & breaking an oath vs law thing that you have a set way of thinking, & when you are challenged you denigrate to dismissive comments. you are entitled to your style & i am entitled not to further engage you. it would be interesting to discuss our difference on the wannabe cop thing. but why subject myself to you dismissing whatever i say. i wont persuade you to why i think he is a wannabe, you will just think im wrong. so whatever.

I know I keep saying this over and over...but at the risk of sounding like a broken record:
The REAL cops shoot unarmed citizens every day.

Here in Vegas they have set new records in the last year for shooting and killing unarmed citizens because they FELT threatened. :(

None of them have went to jail. And the Obama administration has refused to send the DOJ in here to investigate the Vegas cops over this.

The point I'm trying to make is: If the REAL cops shoot you dead (and they would have killed Trayvon Martin LONG before he threw that first punch), then why would you think that a guy who took a "law enforcement class" would do a better job than the guys who are the "pros"?

See what I'm saying?

The judge always asks them if it's their decision. They always say "yes".

I JUST watched Mark Geragos 20 minutes ago on Anderson Cooper on CNN. He was explaining that they NEVER let a defendant on the stand. Never.

He said he had one defendant who insisted on it. He said he went into the judges chambers and explained that this was against everything he was telling his client...because everyone knows you NEVER let the defendant on the stand.

Geragos explained that no civilian has the skill set to contend with a prosecuting attorney on the stand.

Anyway, his client took the stand. And was convicted! The jury members were interviewed afterwards and said that they would have never convicted him...UNTIL he took the stand and the prosecuting attorney tore him to shreds and made him look bad.

Geragos said his work in the courtroom of that trial was like this: "I painted a Picasso, and then my client took the stand and pissed all over it"

Dude...you NEVER take the stand as a defendant. Unless you want to go to jail.

:1orglaugh

I give up. :helpme

It is a fact you would have known if you had watched the trial.

You obviously have a rose colored glasses view of what happens in court. Here is the main problem to your suggestion, witnesses are not allowed to give narratives. An innocent man can easily be convicted because he was worked over by a prosecutor. Not everyone is as smart as you. :2 cents:

For example . . . .


Good timing.

Any punch can be life threatening. If hit just right, you could kill a person with the first punch. But that doesn't mean someone can punch you and then you can shoot and kill him.

A few years ago I "tripped and fell" while walking on a sidewalk. (Please, try not to snicker and laugh at me.) One moment I was walking on the sidewalk, the next moment I was in an ambulance on my way to the ER. No one saw what happened; It seems I tripped and fell flat on my face. I tripped and fell on concrete, was knocked unconscious for twenty minutes, was rushed to the ER, and spent the next year in and out of doctor's offices getting fixed up. Zimmerman was "beat down" on concrete and had only two little cuts?

His story just doesn't add up.

yeah man, i hear you. But you do know that cops have different standing under the law then citizens. the law presumes a cop is telling the truth when he testifies. so much that a defendants different story would be discounted by a cops version.

by that token, cops also get a MASSIVE benefit of the doubt when claiming self defense. it is so extreme, the rodney king cops walked. then there is the amadou diallo shooting, where he got shot 41 times by new yorks finest, & they walked. & you cite examples in vegas.

No way on earth a group of citizens shoots amadou diallo 41 times & walks free. or beats rodney king on video & walks free.

whether zim can act like a cop will be decided by a jury in a couple days. :)

i will reply with one of your rhetorical tactics. please name a case where an innocent man went to jail because a prosecutor worked him over.

:winkwink:

Sad isn't it? I'm actually going to take a nice long break from this place. I don't deserve to be subjected to the sheer level of stupidity I read here lol.

Of course, and as such a person on the ground, getting pummeled has a legitimate reason to fear grave bodily harm. You've just again said its a reasonable concern.

You can't argue that getting killed or crippled is a reasonable concern and then simultaneously argue that its not a reasonable concern at the same time.

If it is, he has an argument for a self defense shooting. You don't have to like it or agree with it... that's the law. It's quite bizarre that you keep ignoring that this is exactly what the law is. You don't have to agree with it... but repeating over and over that its not the law does not make it so.

The case is about the law. Plain and simple.

Again, this is where you derail. If the person getting hit has reason to fear grave bodily harm or death, then he can kill the attacker. Making up fantasy scenarios and downplaying Zimmermans injuries etc has nothing to do with the simple fact that if a person feels they are at reasonable risk for grave bodily harm or death, they can shoot.

Again, this is the law man. That's not a disputable fact or opinion, no matter how many times you want to state it as not being true.

It's the law in the State of Florida.

This isn't about anyones feelings on skittles or gun control or losing fights.

This is your opinion. This is also pure speculation and conjecture. This is not something you've managed to demonstrate with fact.

He wasn't charged for so long, precisely because the belief was that his story did add up and was corroborated by eye witnesses, all the phone calls, character witnesses and so on.

the 64,000 dollar question is. if he gets convicted of anything that results in large time. will every poster in this thread, who insists the state has no case, admit they were wrong?

or will you insist the 6 jurors were all wrong & your still right.

:1orglaugh

No one knows what the jury will come back with. I don't think anyone has claimed to.

?Stand Your Ground? broadens the scope of a self-defense argument , either way he is arguing self-defense and must convince the jury he was acting in that capacity.

Your argument is complete lunacy.

What argument might that be?

You need to give me more credit than that: Rick Tabish :upsidedow

No, he does not have to convince the jury of shit. What country do you live in?

As I've said...I don't think from what I've seen, or the opinions of some of the most prominent attorneys in the world on CNN, that the state has proved anything "beyond a reasonable doubt".

But as I said earlier...what the jury will do is another thing.
If I were on that jury, I would be thinking about the repercussions of acquitting him. The possibility of riots and violence. Having that weigh on my head would probably make me find him guilty just out of intimidation and fear that other people could be killed because of my decision.

I think it's a crap shoot. 50/50

Any other case and I think the trial would have already been called off by the judge. The state didn't think they had enough of anything to charge him in the beginning if you remember. Which is why their case was so weak when they presented it in court.

But this one may be decided by the jury worrying about the aftermath.

rick tabish did not testify in his 2000 trial where he was convicted. point was to cite example of a guy who was convicted after testifying & being worked over by prosecution.

http://www.jerrypippin.com/binion-defense.htm

:Oh crap

he testified for two days

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/255852...s-of-testimony

that was the re-trial. after the murder convict was overturned. He did not testify in 2000.

im not gonna troll you on this. my point about my opinion of Zims guilt has been made. we can agree to disagree.

:)

i believe jurors take their job seriously & do not deliberate based on how the public may respond to their decision. if youve been a juror im sure you know how structured the proceeding is.

there is lots of reasonable doubt created by the conflicting facts. The juries job is to decide who is credible. Hence all my drum beating about zims cred. Juries can convict based on circumstantial evidence so its not unreasonable to convict without a video feed of the fight. beyond a reasonable doubt is quite subjective.

& the chief of sanford police resigned (cough cough forced out) due to how his cops handled this case. I would reckon u believe that to be a political decision & maybe that is true. one's predilection to the guilt or innocence tends to color peoples perspective of how the sanford police dept performed.

What i can say is this. when a prosecution witness, who is a lead investigator for the case, tells a jury he thinks zim is telling the truth, that is so backwater stupid its mindboggling. he was testifying for the prosecution!

tomorrow the prosecutors are gonna ask the judge to add manslaughter & AG assault to the case, as they dont think they proved murder 2. kinda obvious the murder rap was overkill. I have my opinion of Zim based on his conduct & i hope justice gets done.

Just IMO.

Touche...