Zimmerman

[Glocktogo]

True, but her story is evidence and dead people tell no tales. Or testify.

You always have to question the defendant's story because they have a powerful motive to lie.
That's something a few people here don't seem to want to do.

Unquestionably. The problem is, you appear to be infusing his acts with malice aforethought and disregarding his version entirely. The physical evidence simply doesn't support that, despite your belief that it does. The circumstantial evidence falls far short of beyond a reasonable doubt. The technical witnesses fell as much in favor of the defense as they did the prosecution.

Had all the available circumstantial evidence been allowed by the judge, it would've been even worse for the prosecution's case. And while it's practically boilerplate to request a lesser charge inclusion of manslaughter after the fact when the prosecution case is weak, requesting child abuse be thrown in is a Hail Mary move. When you have to trick the jury into such an obvious overbroad interpretation because they wouldn't know it carried such a high sentence, the smell of desperation is palpable.

We already know this judge is going to sentence Zimmerman to the max if convicted. The heat is just too high. I just hope the jury recognizes the stakes here and that it's all or nothing. This isn't a civil case where a preponderance of evidence is all that's required. Beyond a reasonable doubt should weigh even more heavily in this case, where so many people with no skin in the game have so much riding on the outcome.

 

[0311]

When we say "it's common knowledge" that's white people talk for "I have no evidence to back this up so I will pose the statement as if it's a proven fact".

I put in parenthesis, (Hearsay). But the possibility was never even brought up. What is a teen male supposed to think if a middle aged male is following him in his vehicle, then on foot? He may have thought Zimmerman was a chicken hawk...There are a lot of teens who would take affront at the interests of a middle aged man, who did not ID himself as the neighborhood watch.

 

[Hobbes]

Unquestionably. The problem is, you appear to be infusing his acts with malice aforethought and disregarding his version entirely. The physical evidence simply doesn't support that, despite your belief that it does. The circumstantial evidence falls far short of beyond a reasonable doubt. The technical witnesses fell as much in favor of the defense as they did the prosecution.

Had all the available circumstantial evidence been allowed by the judge, it would've been even worse for the prosecution's case. And while it's practically boilerplate to request a lesser charge inclusion of manslaughter after the fact when the prosecution case is weak, requesting child abuse be thrown in is a Hail Mary move. When you have to trick the jury into such an obvious overbroad interpretation because they wouldn't know it carried such a high sentence, the smell of desperation is palpable.

We already know this judge is going to sentence Zimmerman to the max if convicted. The heat is just too high. I just hope the jury recognizes the stakes here and that it's all or nothing. This isn't a civil case where a preponderance of evidence is all that's required. Beyond a reasonable doubt should weigh even more heavily in this case, where so many people with no skin in the game have so much riding on the outcome.

And others here are infusing TM acts with malice as well but that's different somehow.

I agree that it's likely he gets off.
It's the same state where Casey Anthony was acquitted and if they will acquit her they will acquit anyone.
Less the jury hangs.

 

[Hobbes]

I put in parenthesis, (Hearsay). But the possibility was never even brought up. What is a teen male supposed to think if a middle aged male is following him in his vehicle, then on foot? He may have thought Zimmerman was a chicken hawk...There are a lot of teens who would take affront at the interests of a middle aged man, who did not ID himself as the neighborhood watch.

That's not what I would think if a 28yr old male was following me in the rain at night but if it works for you then go for it.

 

[n2sooners]

There is also the possibility that at one point in the struggle TM was on top and a witness saw that.
At a later point in the struggle GZ gained the upper hand and a second witness saw that.

You are correct that eye witness testimony is often unreliable so maybe the jury will throw both of them out.

Yes, it is possible they rolled, I just listed a witness being wrong as another possibility. The only thing we know for sure from the physical evidence is that Martin was on top at some point.

 

[BIG_MIKE2005]

Unquestionably. The problem is, you appear to be infusing his acts with malice aforethought and disregarding his version entirely. The physical evidence simply doesn't support that, despite your belief that it does. The circumstantial evidence falls far short of beyond a reasonable doubt. The technical witnesses fell as much in favor of the defense as they did the prosecution.

Had all the available circumstantial evidence been allowed by the judge, it would've been even worse for the prosecution's case. And while it's practically boilerplate to request a lesser charge inclusion of manslaughter after the fact when the prosecution case is weak, requesting child abuse be thrown in is a Hail Mary move. When you have to trick the jury into such an obvious overbroad interpretation because they wouldn't know it carried such a high sentence, the smell of desperation is palpable.

We already know this judge is going to sentence Zimmerman to the max if convicted. The heat is just too high. I just hope the jury recognizes the stakes here and that it's all or nothing. This isn't a civil case where a preponderance of evidence is all that's required. Beyond a reasonable doubt should weigh even more heavily in this case, where so many people with no skin in the game have so much riding on the outcome.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Glocktogo]

All I'm saying is we don't KNOW what happened.
All we have is the stories the defendant are telling and those aren't facts so don't argue them as facts.
They are one side of the story and nothing more.

And what do you do in a trial when you don't know? What's the standard of proof in a criminal trial???

 

[0311]

That's not what I would think if a 28yr old male was following me in the rain at night but if it works for you then go for it.

But you are not 17 years old.

 

[Hobbes]

And what do you do in a trial when you don't know? What's the standard of proof in a criminal trial???

I just told you I thought they would acquit more likely than not.
Maybe a 20% chance the jury hangs.

 

[0311]

I just told you I thought they would acquit more likely than not.
Maybe a 20% chance the jury hangs.

They aint gonna acquit. Verdict very well could be reached in moments.