|
Zimm trial
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... Zimmerman never referred to any specific race in all the interviews I've heard or read so far. I took the "those guys" term as referencing the group of people he claims have conducted burglaries and/or home invasions in the area in the past. Do you really believe that he was talking about burglers? ---------------------------------------- It doesn't matter what I think. The fact is that there is no evidence he has specifically identified blacks as being the "burglars". To assume otherwise, regardless of how strongly you feel is racist in it's own right. Everybody has an opinion on this. In fact, in testimony today the prosecution was trying to paint Zimmerman as having a "thing" for blacks. But nowhere in any of his statements to police has he indicated that, a point that the defense lawyers pointed out. Of course, they are lawyers! ------------------------------------------ The whole point of the court process is to separate truth from fiction and produce justice. To that end, even the prosecution's primary responsibility is to expose the truth, even if it doesn't help their case. My lawyer friend (who was originally licensed and remains so in Florida) has been lecturing me a bit on this trial and the objectives of both the prosecution and defense. I would never have made a good lawyer. I didn't do well in Business Law 101. As an engineer, I am often too logical in my thought process to understand some of the court system nuances. Actually the whole point is to ATTEMPT to separate truth from fiction. In actuality, it only matters what the jury perceives to be the truth. |
Zimm trial
|
Zimm trial
On 7/2/2013 12:05 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... Everybody has an opinion on this. In fact, in testimony today the prosecution was trying to paint Zimmerman as having a "thing" for blacks. But nowhere in any of his statements to police has he indicated that, a point that the defense lawyers pointed out. Of course, they are lawyers! ------------------------------------------ The whole point of the court process is to separate truth from fiction and produce justice. To that end, even the prosecution's primary responsibility is to expose the truth, even if it doesn't help their case. My lawyer friend (who was originally licensed and remains so in Florida) has been lecturing me a bit on this trial and the objectives of both the prosecution and defense. I would never have made a good lawyer. I didn't do well in Business Law 101. As an engineer, I am often too logical in my thought process to understand some of the court system nuances. Actually the whole point is to ATTEMPT to separate truth from fiction. In actuality, it only matters what the jury perceives to be the truth. -------------------------------- Of course. But an attempt to instill an image in the jurys' minds (such as having a "thing" for blacks ) when there is no evidence presented so far to support that contention is wrong. People do it all the time in their lives however. It's called prejudice and it flows both ways. I'm surprised the prosecutor hasn't called their star witness, Harry Krause. He has a unique talent for projecting "*things*"., ;-) |
Zimm trial
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... Everybody has an opinion on this. In fact, in testimony today the prosecution was trying to paint Zimmerman as having a "thing" for blacks. But nowhere in any of his statements to police has he indicated that, a point that the defense lawyers pointed out. Of course, they are lawyers! ------------------------------------------ The whole point of the court process is to separate truth from fiction and produce justice. To that end, even the prosecution's primary responsibility is to expose the truth, even if it doesn't help their case. My lawyer friend (who was originally licensed and remains so in Florida) has been lecturing me a bit on this trial and the objectives of both the prosecution and defense. I would never have made a good lawyer. I didn't do well in Business Law 101. As an engineer, I am often too logical in my thought process to understand some of the court system nuances. Actually the whole point is to ATTEMPT to separate truth from fiction. In actuality, it only matters what the jury perceives to be the truth. -------------------------------- Of course. But an attempt to instill an image in the jurys' minds (such as having a "thing" for blacks ) when there is no evidence presented so far to support that contention is wrong. People do it all the time in their lives however. It's called prejudice and it flows both ways. It's no more wrong to try to persuade the jury of that with no evidence than it is to try to persuade the jury that Zimmerman is a great humanitarian that was just trying to help better his neighborhood. |
Zimm trial
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... Everybody has an opinion on this. In fact, in testimony today the prosecution was trying to paint Zimmerman as having a "thing" for blacks. But nowhere in any of his statements to police has he indicated that, a point that the defense lawyers pointed out. Of course, they are lawyers! ------------------------------------------ The whole point of the court process is to separate truth from fiction and produce justice. To that end, even the prosecution's primary responsibility is to expose the truth, even if it doesn't help their case. My lawyer friend (who was originally licensed and remains so in Florida) has been lecturing me a bit on this trial and the objectives of both the prosecution and defense. I would never have made a good lawyer. I didn't do well in Business Law 101. As an engineer, I am often too logical in my thought process to understand some of the court system nuances. Actually the whole point is to ATTEMPT to separate truth from fiction. In actuality, it only matters what the jury perceives to be the truth. -------------------------------- Of course. But an attempt to instill an image in the jurys' minds (such as having a "thing" for blacks ) when there is no evidence presented so far to support that contention is wrong. People do it all the time in their lives however. It's called prejudice and it flows both ways. It's no more wrong to try to persuade the jury of that with no evidence than it is to try to persuade the jury that Zimmerman is a great humanitarian that was just trying to help better his neighborhood. ------------------------------------------ Sorry to say, but you have a very prejudiced interpretation of the actual testimony and evidence to date. Any implied "evidence" by either side that doesn't exist would immediately prompt an objection from the other side and would be tossed by the judge. Are you actually *watching* the trial or are you just getting opinions from the media? |
Zimm trial
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... Everybody has an opinion on this. In fact, in testimony today the prosecution was trying to paint Zimmerman as having a "thing" for blacks. But nowhere in any of his statements to police has he indicated that, a point that the defense lawyers pointed out. Of course, they are lawyers! ------------------------------------------ The whole point of the court process is to separate truth from fiction and produce justice. To that end, even the prosecution's primary responsibility is to expose the truth, even if it doesn't help their case. My lawyer friend (who was originally licensed and remains so in Florida) has been lecturing me a bit on this trial and the objectives of both the prosecution and defense. I would never have made a good lawyer. I didn't do well in Business Law 101. As an engineer, I am often too logical in my thought process to understand some of the court system nuances. Actually the whole point is to ATTEMPT to separate truth from fiction. In actuality, it only matters what the jury perceives to be the truth. -------------------------------- Of course. But an attempt to instill an image in the jurys' minds (such as having a "thing" for blacks ) when there is no evidence presented so far to support that contention is wrong. People do it all the time in their lives however. It's called prejudice and it flows both ways. It's no more wrong to try to persuade the jury of that with no evidence than it is to try to persuade the jury that Zimmerman is a great humanitarian that was just trying to help better his neighborhood. ------------------------------------------ Sorry to say, but you have a very prejudiced interpretation of the actual testimony and evidence to date. How so, I've not ever said he was guilty or not guilty. Any implied "evidence" by either side that doesn't exist would immediately prompt an objection from the other side and would be tossed by the judge. Are you actually *watching* the trial or are you just getting opinions from the media? Doesn't matter, whether or not there is an objection, the seed is planted many times. And yes, I'm watching it, delayed every evening. I'm surely not letting it control my day. |
Zimm trial
On 7/2/2013 8:50 AM, Eisboch wrote:
The whole point of the court process is to separate truth from fiction and produce justice. To that end, even the prosecution's primary responsibility is to expose the truth, even if it doesn't help their case. Sadly I see little evidence of that principle being common practice. They are quite career oriented and thrive on a high conviction rate regardless of justice or honesty. |
Zimm trial
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/1/13 7:14 PM, Eisboch wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:25:51 -0400, Hank© wrote: The state is winning the case................... For Zimmerman. ==== In the interest of social stability post-trial, it is important for *everyone* to realize just how flimsy the murder evidence was. Otherwise it will be viewed as just another lynching when Zimmerman is acquited. The prosecution would have had much better chances with a manslaughter charge in my opinion. ------------------------------------------ The lead investigator recommended a charge of manslaughter instead of 2nd degree murder. Technically the jury is not supposed to know that and it can't be allowed as evidence in the trial. Flipped MSNBC on briefly just as the Rev. Al's show was coming on. "Breaking News" on his show's banner. What was the "breaking news"? Zimmerman used the term "those guys" on more that one occasion during the series of police interviews. As usual, the Rev. automatically jumps to the race angle. Zimmerman never referred to any specific race in all the interviews I've heard or read so far. I took the "those guys" term as referencing the group of people he claims have conducted burglaries and/or home invasions in the area in the past. The Rev. Al is capable of causing social unrest .... and *will*. I heard that, too, and I assumed Zimmerman meant blacks by his "those guys" comment. I still have not heard evidence as to why Zimmerman was chasing down Martin. If Martin actually punched Zimmerman, perhaps Martin was simply standing his ground after being stalked by a white guy brandishing a firearm, and Zimmerman said to himself, "Screw this," and shot the kid. --------------------------------------- Who knows? I am not taking sides and don't have a clue if he's telling the truth. I find the trial fascinating though. But I find it interesting that you also automatically assume Zimmerman was referring to blacks with his "those guys" comment. Why? In all the interviews and written statements, he talks about break ins/home invasions and never (to my knowledge) refers to blacks, whites, Latinos, Asians or any specific race as being responsible. He refers to them as "burglars". So, when he says "those guys", I take it as being "those guys" that are committing the burglaries. So why did he get out of his car and start following Martin? Martin have "BURGLAR" printed on the back of his hoodie? Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, reckless endangerment - something - but, according to Florida's definition of 2nd degree murder, not that. Incidentally, immediately after the shooting happened, TV news reported the first detective on the scene wanted to charge him with 2nd degree murder. |
Zimm trial
On 7/2/13 10:00 PM, thumper wrote:
On 7/2/2013 8:50 AM, Eisboch wrote: The whole point of the court process is to separate truth from fiction and produce justice. To that end, even the prosecution's primary responsibility is to expose the truth, even if it doesn't help their case. Sadly I see little evidence of that principle being common practice. They are quite career oriented and thrive on a high conviction rate regardless of justice or honesty. There should be an asterisk after the statement about the "whole point of the court process..." * *, and in many cases, produce justice in a criminal proceeding if you are wealthy enough to afford a team of top-notch private defense lawyers." Most indigent defendants are forced to accept whatever plea bargain their public defenders are able to beg out of the prosecutors. Guilt, innocence and justice often play no role. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:20 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com