On 6/29/13 10:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Hank©" wrote in message
b.com...

On 6/28/2013 3:22 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...



The witness who testified this morning (Cook) said he was of the
opinion that the screams for help came from Zimmerman .... who was
on
his back with Martin on top. He admitted he can't be 100 percent
sure, but that was his impression.

He wasn't an audio expert, he was a neighbor clearly taking sides.


--------------------------------------------

Neighbor? Neighbor of whom? He testified he didn't know either
one
of the people involved. Who's *side* would he take?

So, in your mind, a witness to the altercation who is a stranger to
both parties, testifies under oath in a court room with
"embellishments" to favor the prosecution?

Are you so convinced that Zimmerman is guilty that the facts just
don't
matter?

He may still be found guilty. The prosecution is now focusing on
making a case that he (Zimmerman) was not in any "immediate danger".
That's why they are trying to show that his injuries did not cause
him
to be confused or incapacitated.


All Zimm needs to do is state that he perceived himself to be in
danger.
The extent of his injuries is irrelevant but do make a plausible case
for him being concerned for his safety.

--------------------------------------------

Yup, your right. I remember our safety instructor for the gun
classes telling us to never concede that you felt anything less than
in immanent danger of great bodily harm or death.

This is a very interesting and well conducted trial so far, IMO.
Both sides are doing their jobs and are seeking the truth. So far the
only major contradiction to what happened was by Martin's girlfriend
who's only access to what was going on was via a cell phone. She
wasn't there.



Not what the law experts on TV are saying this morning, but I'm sure
that rec.boats FOX watchers know more than they do! It IS interesting,
that's for sure. But Zimmerman needs to persuade the jury (if that is
the direction this is going) that he was in life-threatening danger. He
also needs to prove that he was NOT the aggressor, which may be pretty
hard seeing how he was following Martin to the point of Martin asking
him what and why he was doing what he was doing. Everyone seems to avoid
or not realize the fact that Martin had the right to defend himself in
when he perceived he was in danger as well!!!

--------------------------------------

You have it backwards. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. The
prosecution does and has to do so "beyond any reasonable doubt".

Have you read the transcripts of Zimmerman's interview with the police
following the incident? He may be lying .... or he may be telling the
truth.

In summary, here's Zimmerman's account of what happened as contained in
the first police interview:

In the interview, Zimmerman wasn't "following" anyone. He was in his
car, heading for the grocery store when he noticed Martin walking down a
street, appearing to be looking at the townhouses. Zimmerman pulled
over to the side of the road but remained sitting in his car and
witnessed Martin going between two of the townhouses.

Zimmerman called the non-emergency number at the police station to
report this. As he was doing so, Martin re-appeared and circled
Zimmerman's car. He then disappeared again between the townhouses. The
dispatcher asked Zimmerman for the street name and address and where
Martin went.
Zimmerman didn't know the address, so he exited his car to read a street
sign and to see if he could determine where Martin went. This is when
the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that" and told Zimmerman
that an officer was on his way. Zimmerman said, "Ok" and started to
return to his car. Martin suddenly appeared from some bushes and
challenged Zimmerman, asking him "What's your problem, homie?"
Zimmerman replied, "No problem" but was suddenly hit in the nose by
Martin, which knocked him down. Martin then proceeded to get on top of
Zimmerman and started to hit him in the face and bang his head on a
concrete walkway. At one point Zimmerman felt that Martin was going
for his gun and that's when he shot him.

It's not up to Zimmerman to prove that this is what happened. It's up
to the prosecution to prove that it didn't happen that way.





I wonder if Z will take the stand. Interesting that a neighborhood watch
guy in a very small neighborhood would not know the names of the streets
in that very small neighborhood.

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 6/29/13 10:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

Not what the law experts on TV are saying this morning, but I'm sure
that rec.boats FOX watchers know more than they do! It IS
interesting,
that's for sure. But Zimmerman needs to persuade the jury (if that
is
the direction this is going) that he was in life-threatening danger.
He
also needs to prove that he was NOT the aggressor, which may be
pretty
hard seeing how he was following Martin to the point of Martin
asking
him what and why he was doing what he was doing. Everyone seems to
avoid
or not realize the fact that Martin had the right to defend himself
in
when he perceived he was in danger as well!!!

--------------------------------------

You have it backwards. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything.
The
prosecution does and has to do so "beyond any reasonable doubt".

Have you read the transcripts of Zimmerman's interview with the
police
following the incident? He may be lying .... or he may be telling
the
truth.

In summary, here's Zimmerman's account of what happened as contained
in
the first police interview:

In the interview, Zimmerman wasn't "following" anyone. He was in
his
car, heading for the grocery store when he noticed Martin walking
down a
street, appearing to be looking at the townhouses. Zimmerman pulled
over to the side of the road but remained sitting in his car and
witnessed Martin going between two of the townhouses.

Zimmerman called the non-emergency number at the police station to
report this. As he was doing so, Martin re-appeared and circled
Zimmerman's car. He then disappeared again between the townhouses.
The
dispatcher asked Zimmerman for the street name and address and where
Martin went.
Zimmerman didn't know the address, so he exited his car to read a
street
sign and to see if he could determine where Martin went. This is
when
the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that" and told
Zimmerman
that an officer was on his way. Zimmerman said, "Ok" and started
to
return to his car. Martin suddenly appeared from some bushes and
challenged Zimmerman, asking him "What's your problem, homie?"
Zimmerman replied, "No problem" but was suddenly hit in the nose by
Martin, which knocked him down. Martin then proceeded to get on top
of
Zimmerman and started to hit him in the face and bang his head on a
concrete walkway. At one point Zimmerman felt that Martin was
going
for his gun and that's when he shot him.

It's not up to Zimmerman to prove that this is what happened. It's
up
to the prosecution to prove that it didn't happen that way.





I wonder if Z will take the stand. Interesting that a neighborhood
watch
guy in a very small neighborhood would not know the names of the
streets
in that very small neighborhood.

--------------------------------------

I wondered about that also but it could be that Zimmerman was trying
to determine the street *address* because at some point he told the
dispatcher he "was near the clubhouse".

Obviously only two people knew what actually happened and one of them
is dead. My point to iBoaterer is that Zimmerman is not required to
*prove* anything. His responsibility is to defend himself from
allegations made by the prosecution. The prosecution is burdened
with proving "proof" of their version of how it all happened.

I hope iBoaterer is never selected as a jury member for a serious
trial.

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"Hank©" wrote in message
b.com...

On 6/28/2013 3:22 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...



The witness who testified this morning (Cook) said he was of the
opinion that the screams for help came from Zimmerman .... who
was
on
his back with Martin on top. He admitted he can't be 100 percent
sure, but that was his impression.

He wasn't an audio expert, he was a neighbor clearly taking sides.


--------------------------------------------

Neighbor? Neighbor of whom? He testified he didn't know
either
one
of the people involved. Who's *side* would he take?

So, in your mind, a witness to the altercation who is a stranger
to
both parties, testifies under oath in a court room with
"embellishments" to favor the prosecution?

Are you so convinced that Zimmerman is guilty that the facts just
don't
matter?

He may still be found guilty. The prosecution is now focusing on
making a case that he (Zimmerman) was not in any "immediate
danger".
That's why they are trying to show that his injuries did not cause
him
to be confused or incapacitated.


All Zimm needs to do is state that he perceived himself to be in
danger.
The extent of his injuries is irrelevant but do make a plausible
case
for him being concerned for his safety.

--------------------------------------------

Yup, your right. I remember our safety instructor for the gun
classes telling us to never concede that you felt anything less than
in immanent danger of great bodily harm or death.

This is a very interesting and well conducted trial so far, IMO.
Both sides are doing their jobs and are seeking the truth. So far
the
only major contradiction to what happened was by Martin's girlfriend
who's only access to what was going on was via a cell phone. She
wasn't there.



Not what the law experts on TV are saying this morning, but I'm sure
that rec.boats FOX watchers know more than they do! It IS interesting,
that's for sure. But Zimmerman needs to persuade the jury (if that is
the direction this is going) that he was in life-threatening danger.
He
also needs to prove that he was NOT the aggressor, which may be pretty
hard seeing how he was following Martin to the point of Martin asking
him what and why he was doing what he was doing. Everyone seems to
avoid
or not realize the fact that Martin had the right to defend himself in
when he perceived he was in danger as well!!!

--------------------------------------

You have it backwards. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. The
prosecution does and has to do so "beyond any reasonable doubt".

He certainly does IF his lawyers choose the self defense route.

Have you read the transcripts of Zimmerman's interview with the police
following the incident? He may be lying .... or he may be telling
the truth.

Yes, I have. But, we don't have an interview from Martin, do we?

In summary, here's Zimmerman's account of what happened as contained
in the first police interview:

In the interview, Zimmerman wasn't "following" anyone. He was in his
car, heading for the grocery store when he noticed Martin walking down
a street, appearing to be looking at the townhouses. Zimmerman pulled
over to the side of the road but remained sitting in his car and
witnessed Martin going between two of the townhouses.

Zimmerman called the non-emergency number at the police station to
report this. As he was doing so, Martin re-appeared and circled
Zimmerman's car. He then disappeared again between the townhouses.
The dispatcher asked Zimmerman for the street name and address and
where Martin went.
Zimmerman didn't know the address, so he exited his car to read a
street sign and to see if he could determine where Martin went. This
is when the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that" and told
Zimmerman that an officer was on his way. Zimmerman said, "Ok" and
started to return to his car. Martin suddenly appeared from some
bushes and challenged Zimmerman, asking him "What's your problem,
homie?" Zimmerman replied, "No problem" but was suddenly hit in the
nose by Martin, which knocked him down. Martin then proceeded to get
on top of Zimmerman and started to hit him in the face and bang his
head on a concrete walkway. At one point Zimmerman felt that Martin
was going for his gun and that's when he shot him.

It's not up to Zimmerman to prove that this is what happened. It's
up to the prosecution to prove that it didn't happen that way.

Again, in order for him to use the self defense approach, that puts the
burden of proof on HIM to prove that self defense was the case.

In article ,
says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 6/29/13 10:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

Not what the law experts on TV are saying this morning, but I'm sure
that rec.boats FOX watchers know more than they do! It IS
interesting,
that's for sure. But Zimmerman needs to persuade the jury (if that
is
the direction this is going) that he was in life-threatening danger.
He
also needs to prove that he was NOT the aggressor, which may be
pretty
hard seeing how he was following Martin to the point of Martin
asking
him what and why he was doing what he was doing. Everyone seems to
avoid
or not realize the fact that Martin had the right to defend himself
in
when he perceived he was in danger as well!!!

--------------------------------------

You have it backwards. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything.
The
prosecution does and has to do so "beyond any reasonable doubt".

Have you read the transcripts of Zimmerman's interview with the
police
following the incident? He may be lying .... or he may be telling
the
truth.

In summary, here's Zimmerman's account of what happened as contained
in
the first police interview:

In the interview, Zimmerman wasn't "following" anyone. He was in
his
car, heading for the grocery store when he noticed Martin walking
down a
street, appearing to be looking at the townhouses. Zimmerman pulled
over to the side of the road but remained sitting in his car and
witnessed Martin going between two of the townhouses.

Zimmerman called the non-emergency number at the police station to
report this. As he was doing so, Martin re-appeared and circled
Zimmerman's car. He then disappeared again between the townhouses.
The
dispatcher asked Zimmerman for the street name and address and where
Martin went.
Zimmerman didn't know the address, so he exited his car to read a
street
sign and to see if he could determine where Martin went. This is
when
the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that" and told
Zimmerman
that an officer was on his way. Zimmerman said, "Ok" and started
to
return to his car. Martin suddenly appeared from some bushes and
challenged Zimmerman, asking him "What's your problem, homie?"
Zimmerman replied, "No problem" but was suddenly hit in the nose by
Martin, which knocked him down. Martin then proceeded to get on top
of
Zimmerman and started to hit him in the face and bang his head on a
concrete walkway. At one point Zimmerman felt that Martin was
going
for his gun and that's when he shot him.

It's not up to Zimmerman to prove that this is what happened. It's
up
to the prosecution to prove that it didn't happen that way.





I wonder if Z will take the stand. Interesting that a neighborhood
watch
guy in a very small neighborhood would not know the names of the
streets
in that very small neighborhood.

--------------------------------------

I wondered about that also but it could be that Zimmerman was trying
to determine the street *address* because at some point he told the
dispatcher he "was near the clubhouse".

Obviously only two people knew what actually happened and one of them
is dead. My point to iBoaterer is that Zimmerman is not required to
*prove* anything. His responsibility is to defend himself from
allegations made by the prosecution. The prosecution is burdened
with proving "proof" of their version of how it all happened.

I hope iBoaterer is never selected as a jury member for a serious
trial.

I already have. You are wrong about that, if it turns to "self defense"
he would need to prove that it was warranted. Add to that that self
defense is "reasonable force", which is up to the jury to decide,
therefore he'll have to prove that was the case as opposed to just plain
aggression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...in_English_law

On Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:59:19 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

Again, in order for him to use the self defense approach, that puts the
burden of proof on HIM to prove that self defense was the case.

===

First the prosecution has to prove their murder charge beyond a
reasonable doubt. I think that's going to be difficult.

On 6/28/2013 5:04 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:27:56 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On 6/28/2013 12:34 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


DNA is an entirely different matter than a witness. How did this head
bashing allegedly occur if there was no DNA on Martin's hands?

--------------------------------------------

What makes you think that DNA is automatically transmitted just because
you came in contact with something?
You are basing your whole conclusion on the *lack* of DNA. DNA is
used to either prove contact or to prove the contact wasn't by the
person accused.
Lack of DNA proves nothing.



He watches too much CSI... There are many opinions out there that the
magic done on TV crime shows is causing problems in criminal cases
because of people like Kevin who confuse the TV shows, with reality...

You stupid little twit!!!! Have you EVER heard of "reasonable doubt"???
Lack of DNA can and has done just that in several cases.

The defendant is the only one who benefits from reasonable doubt and
there is plenty in this case


A good jury shouldn't base it's opinion on what's *not* there.

On 6/28/2013 5:07 PM, wrote:

You keep forgetting that


No he doesn't...