Zimmerman Trial

#1,778
#1,778
VOLinthaNATI said:
wtf?
Click to expand...

It's quite confusing. Here is the summation of the prosecution so far:

Remember Jury, the lack of evidence is what is going to prove Murder 2 (he actually said this).

****ING PUNKS! *******s!!!

He got out of his car and followed him so he started it (no crime committed by doing that).

****ING PUNKS! *******s!!!

I'm not going to mention the fight itself.

Hey look there's a piece of grass on his shoe. How did that get there?

****ING PUNKS! *******s!!!

Why is Zimmerman talking in such a calm voice?

****ING PUNKS! *******s!!!

Why did Zimmerman not unload his gun on Martin?

****ING PUNKS! *******s!!!

Remember the absence of evidence equals murder 2.

****ING PUNKS! *******s!!!
 
#1,779
#1,779
hog88 said:
That should be the case but the jury consists of 6 women. Whens the last time 6 women have came to a unanimous decision?

Without a man leading them that is....
Click to expand...

Eh, if it comes down to it we only need one not to be cranal-rectally inverted, right?
 
#1,783
#1,783
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
15-20 mins. Full acquittal.
Click to expand...

The Martin family won't have anyone to blame but themselves if it is. They are the ones that demanded the tapes not be played to them each individually and evidence be publicized amid an investigation which compromised the witnesses.
 
#1,784
#1,784
Honestly, if I were the DA and I'd been handed this crap case, I'd be doing exactly what De La Rionda is doing:

Try to convince the jury that the Defense has to prove self-defense rather than the State having to prove murder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,785
#1,785
vols-1 said:
The Martin family won't have anyone to blame but themselves if it is. They are the ones that demanded the tapes not be played to them each individually and evidence be publicized amid an investigation which compromised the witnesses.
Click to expand...

I was thinking it would be for raising a dopehead thug for a son who thought he was a badass & bit off more than he could chew.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,789
#1,789
tvols75 said:
Sounds like the prosecution is the one trying to create doubt on the other side instead of proving any of their changing theories. So now we have two defenses going against each other.
Click to expand...

Yep. Very odd case they have presented.

It is circular, the state is presenting the anti-defense theory, the defense is presenting the anti-state charge.
 
#1,793
#1,793
BearCat204 said:
You dont think that the parents are at any fault in this or their son being in that situation in the first place?
Click to expand...

I think there are plenty of parents who do everything they can to raise their kids properly and teach them respect only to have said child still act like a defiant, entitled little bastard.

Sure parenting is huge but painting every bad kid as therefore having bad parents is absurd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,796
#1,796
VOLinthaNATI said:
I think there are plenty of parents who do everything they can to raise their kids properly and teach them respect only to have said child still act like a defiant, entitled little bastard.

Sure parenting is huge but painting every bad kid as therefore having bad parents is absurd.
Click to expand...

I agree with this in which case it would make the parents not at fault for anything. In some instances when things happen as you describe then things like this whole ordeal happen. He could have easily continued on his way home or at worst simply ask zimmerman what was up. He chose a different way & it didn't end well.
 
#1,797
#1,797
An absolute downpour of doubt has just been rained down upon the jury thanks to Bernie's closing.

The State presented no theory for what happened that night, rather Bernie went w/ the too good to be true argument in order to prove Zimmerman's guilty of 2nd degree murder. The State's rationale is Zim's self-defense case makes too much sense - so obviously you shouldn't believe him or the evidence that backs up his story. The State is basically hoping to confuse the jury and get them to think Zim's required to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It is bizarre, but I guess you do what you gotta do in order to get that guilty verdict.

I assume the State is waiting for their rebuttal argument before they present what they think actually happened that night. This way the Defense won't get the opportunity to explain to the jury how whatever bizaroo theory they come up with is ridiculous. Fortunately, I bet the theory is so ridiculous on its face that it will need no explanation.

If I'm O'Mara I'd almost consider just standing up and saying, "Seriously jury - I mean seriously, do I even need to say anything. Well anyways, I guess I could show my sweet animation that shows how it happened. Now watch this and you tell me who was the victim." And then just take my seat and stare down the State prosecutors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,798
#1,798
Vol4LifeLCA said:
An absolute downpour of doubt has just been rained down upon the jury thanks to Bernie's closing.

The State presented no theory for what happened that night, rather Bernie went w/ the too good to be true argument in order to prove Zimmerman's guilty of 2nd degree murder. The State's rationale is Zim's self-defense case makes too much sense - so obviously you shouldn't believe him or the evidence that backs up his story. The State is basically hoping to confuse the jury and get them to think Zim's required to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It is bizarre, but I guess you do what you gotta do in order to get that guilty verdict.

I assume the State is waiting for their rebuttal argument before they present what they think actually happened that night. This way the Defense won't get the opportunity to explain to the jury how whatever bizaroo theory they come up with is ridiculous. Fortunately, I bet the theory is so ridiculous on its face that it will need no explanation.

If I'm O'Mara I'd almost consider just standing up and saying, "Seriously jury - I mean seriously, do I even need to say anything. Well anyways, I guess I could show my sweet animation that shows how it happened. Now watch this and you tell me who was the victim." And then just take my seat and stare down the State prosecutors.
Click to expand...

If I were on the jury, I would head back to the room for delibertions, look at everybody, laugh, and walk back out.

This should seriously take less than an hour. Not sure what there is to deliberate.
 
#1,799
#1,799
rjd970 said:
If I were on the jury, I would head back to the room for delibertions, look at everybody, laugh, and walk back out.

This should seriously take less than an hour. Not sure what there is to deliberate.
Click to expand...

You know there will be at least one that wants to review all of the evidence and will vote guilty on the first vote.

Would be surprised if this didn't drag out over the weekend.

Question for the resident barristers, does the jury or the judge decide to adjourn deliberations for the day or weekend.
 
#1,800
#1,800
In my opinion, if the jury takes less than 1 hour, then it is a full acquittal. If the jury takes between 1 hour and 5 hours, then there will be a conviction on a lesser charge. If the jury takes more than 5 hours, then a hung jury will be the result.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top