The court is no longer impartial when the court is bringing in witnesses to offer testimony. Expert witnesses are fine. Being paid to give technical expertise doesn't mean they are lying and regardless, the other side can still go after them and destroy them and call in their own rebuttal witnesses.

I don't believe it would make the court impartial at all.

The government has experts on everything, and the court system is part of the government. They can put out a request for an expert in a certain field, interview him (her) on their qualififications only, and if both sides agree both sides would split the costs. The courts would not decide, only create a list of potential experts, and then allow the both sides to decide. Neither side would be able to interview them or question them on their thoughts on the evidence before the jury trial.

And while we all mock our government and their so called "experts", keep in mind that this doctor worked his entire life for the government in one form or another.

I do not know if it was officially admitted as evidence; I can't imagine it wasn't. Why wouldn't it be? It's an audio recording of Zimmerman contradicting himself.

No matter what was entered in as evidence, we have an audio tape of Zimmerman saying he walked towards Martin and confronted him as well as a video tape of Zimmerman saying Martin was "hiding in the bushes and surprised him from behind".

This is the problem, you are confusing your opinions on everything with fact and the letter of the law and what is reasonable in the eyes of everyone and the judicial system.... not just yourself.

The funny thing about you saying these things is that if you were on trial for murder and a 3rd party was telling you "we'll provide witnesses for your defense... good luck", you would object to that for a multitude of obvious reasons.

You honestly can't see that? Do you want the most conservative, right leaning and religious judge in the nation trying to appoint witnesses to testify in a gay love triangle murder... and then are seriously going to argue that was a fair and unbiased process?

Furthermore, i fail to see how its not glaringly obvious how this is a conflict of interest, how it affects the impartiality of the court, since the quality/qualifications of the witness are subjective opinions and so on and so on and so on.

If its not evidence... then it can't be considered because there is clearly a problem with it, or its been argued to be irrelevant.

:2 cents:

you were there?

for someone who likes talking facts and opinions :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Well, I just hope that the "George Zimmerman is slam-dunk not guilty" folks will behave with more respect for our system of justice than the "Casey Anthony is slam-dunk guilty" people did when that verdict was announced. I'm not trying to predict anything, but I'm remembering how people were such utter cocksuckers after that one didn't "go their way."

Just remember that even with TV, you were not in that courtroom, you were not on that jury, you did not partake in their deliberations and you should respect their verdict one way or the other without calling them stupid or somehow bought or brain-washed.

SANFORD, FL?Claiming that his second-degree murder trial has ?dragged on for way too long,? sources confirmed Thursday that former neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman offered to just plead guilty and pay the fine or whatever. ?Look, I?m sick of having to deal with this, so just let me pay the 100 bucks or whatever it is and I?ll be on my way,? said Zimmerman, noting that he has already wasted three weeks in court fighting his murder charge in the February 2012 shooting death of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. ?At this point, I don?t even care anymore. I?ll take the slap on the wrist if it means I can get back to my life. And if I have to do community service or something then, fine, I?ll do that too.? Zimmerman added that he really needed to wrap things up by tomorrow at the latest, since he has ?already missed way too many days of work for this stupid thing.?

And put emotion aside. All that matters here is did the state prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.


.

LMAO that can't be real but it's pretty damn funny!

Of course. That's up to the 6 women on the jury is my point, and to NOBODY else on the planet.

The girl that Martin was talking to on the phone testified to that. She had told Martin to run home. He told her no. She testified that he confronted Zimmerman not the other way around.

You have no idea what was said; you have only listened to bits and pieces of the evidence. :2 cents:
Irrelevant what you or I believe.

The actual recording is evidence; not the edited version you presented (and the prosecution used in closing arguments.

The Onion

The conflicting accounts given by Zimmerman are EXACTLY why you are not supposed to say anything to the cops or your friends, or anybody. You are supposed to get an attorney and shut your mouth.

GZ wasn't being charged with anything and felt free to not only talk to the cops, but go back the next day and record a video for the cops.

I'm sure his defense attorneys wish he had been arrested that night and read his rights and not said anything to anybody.

Instead...he was running around for weeks telling friends the story, going on television to tell the story, etc.

And of course...he's hispanic (sorry for the profiling)...and Latins tend to have a "macho" sensibility. It's part of their culture.
So with every telling of the story...it got changed.

I don't find anything weird about that. Latin people exaggerate everything.

That's why attorneys will tell you to shut the fuck up and don't say ANYTHING.

That's the only thing in this case that the prosecution has to work with really. Zimmerman's differing accounts. That allows them to say he's a liar.

Yep. He's a liar. Don't know if that makes him guilty...but it sure don't help him when the jury deliberates.

Saw a "jury expert" today on CNN...the guys who are professional jury selectors. And he said that even though we don't want to believe it, most jurors have their minds made up the first day.

If that is true, then they will find Zimmerman guilty. The media convicted him over a year ago.

If they go by the burden of proof that leaves no room for "reasonable doubt" then they would have to acquit because the prosecution has no case other than Zimmerman lying to make himself look good and emotional heartstring tugging.

I'm inclined to agree with the pro juror selection guy...they all had their minds made up in the beginning. Zimmerman will be found guilty.

The furor will die down.

A year or so later he will go to court again on appeal and go free.

That's the best prediction I can come up with.

My personal scenario of what happened is that Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin. He got out of his car and followed him to make sure he didn't let him out of his site and let him "get away" before the cops got there. Trayvon got pissed off at being followed. Started kicking Zimmerman's ass. GZ screamed like a bitch (you can hear those girlie-man screams on the tape...no way that TM is kicking GZ's ass and screaming like that, that's the screams of a guy who is a pussy getting his ass whipped). Got scared and shot Trayvon dead.

And that's what he should of told the cops. He would have walked away. Self defense. I'd put a hole in anybody jumping me too if I was carrying a gun. So would the cops.

But instead...GZ panics and starts telling a long-winded dumb ass story that he kept changing.
And that's what got the black community up in arms and could end him up in prison.

You never know what a jury is gonna do.

My mind says it's 50/50
But after listening to the jury expert talk about them making up their minds from the start...I'd say guilty will be the verdict.

Not really, because I wouldn't want the other side also cherry picking an expert to say the direct opposite of what my expert is saying.

I understand this is a trial and it has to be legal, and that people have rights, but instead of looking for the truth both sides are cherry picking experts that will tell their side of the story.

Zimmerman also said in the 9/11 call that Martin ran away from him.

That is fucking insane and was a huge mistake on his part... Zimmerman thought this was a minor incident and that he would be going back to work the following day. He didn't seem understand that he just killed a seventeen year old kid.

You know... I had no idea what Zimmerman did for a living....

"At the time of the shooting, he was employed as an insurance underwriter and was in his final semester at Seminole State College for an associate degree in Criminal Justice."

I thought he had "taken some courses" related to criminal justice. I had no idea he was in his final semester in getting a college degree in criminal justice. LOL.

He REALLY should have known better than to be giving statements without an attorney.

Nope.

He'll be found not guilty

Nice one!

so you're moving off your position that he will be acquitted?

He was not arrested until the usual shit disturbers and the media put pressure on the Governor to do something...so the Governor told his State Attorney Gerneral to do something. That was when he was arrested and overcharged.

That is why the prosecutions case was so weak during trial and actually helped the defense more than the prosecution case because they really did not have a case.

Say what?

At one point in time he had his own insurance business. He wanted to become an attorney and then a prosecutor.

I wonder if you ever tell the truth.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/geo...y-and-p,33087/

The jury will come back with a not guilty verdict.

For Rochard and others, it's very clear. If there is reason to doubt whether or not Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force, then they must find him not guilty. Nothing was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. All that was proven was that two jack offs cross patches, had a horrible misunderstanding and it escalated. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed 2nd Degree Murder. In fact, the prosecution hasn't really proven anything other than to cast a shadow on Zimmermans account of events... That however does not prove another specific version of events beyond a reasonable doubt.

just messing with squealer. :winkwink:

although, i think there some (a?) technicalities that can come into play (not in this case) that would make an acquittal unique from not guilty. i think i recall that from somewhere, could be wrong. just yappin out loud.

:2 cents:

Some things stand out to me in the case.

Most of them were out of Georges own mouth. One of them was when he said that Trayvon said "You got a problem?" and George said his reply was "No I don't have a problem".

"Yes, do you live here?". "I'm neighborhood watch", "What are you doing walking in the rain around here?", "We've had someone with your description robbing the place", "My name is George, do you need help with something?", "Stay there, police are on the way"..

What the fuck, George? You're mister neighborhood watchman and NEVER.. ONCE.. said so. Go ahead and say "he didn't have to".. but lead detective Serino and other officers have already testified that 1) if they'd been patrolling that night, seen Trayvon doing EXACTLY what Zimmerman described they would not have thought it suspicious and would NOT even have stopped to ask him anything and 2) said that they were completely puzzled by WHY George never said who he was and why he was "following". Again, What the fuck, Georgie boy?

That's just one of the problems I have with mister my story changes as the questions keep coming but the victim is dead so no prob.

And at one point in time he applied to be a police officer.

Don't tell me he wanted to be an attorney or a prosecutor; Zimmerman was trolling in the dark in the rain stalking a suspect armed with a handgun and two flashlights.

This was mishandled from the beginning. At point Martin had circled his car - Why didn't Zimmerman roll down the window a crack and say "I"m with the neighborhood watch". In fact, he followed Martin for seventeen minutes and never said that once.

He was looking for a fight.

Can't get nothing by you.

:1orglaugh

For me it's always been clear. Three weeks of a trial did nothing to change my mind.

A twenty-nine year old wannabe police office working on getting his degree in criminal justice was trolling in the dark armed with a handgun and two flash flights and stalked an innocent kid for seventeen minutes without ever saying he was part of the neighborhood watch. The kid ran from Martin trying to avoid confrontation. Then we have Zimmerman saying "I walked towards him".

Yes he applied to be a police officer years ago and was denied because he had a bad credit record.

It is not me telling you that he wanted to be an attorney and then a prosecutor it is his professors at college that are telling you.

Protestors gathering already.

If one tells the police the same identical story time after time they believe that is a sign that you are lying. A truthful person...usually...will not tell a story the same way each time it is told.

The irony is that if you go to trial the prosecutor will jump all over any inconsistencies in the multiple times you have told your story as proof that you are lying.

It is a definite truth that on ant serious matter one should never answer any questions asked of you by the police without having an attorney present.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2...ce5785209b.jpg

:stoned

ADG

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audi...ford-pd-audio/

Nope actually listened to it all