Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[Londo_Jowo]

The problem with DeeDee is that she offered to lie during the interview if that is what was wanted to be said.

We also have no idea how much coaching she received from Crump which could rework her testimony.

We also have no clue how much her story will vary when questioned by O'Mara prior to the evidentiary hearing.

 

[EagleKeeper]

We also have no clue how much her story will vary when questioned by O'Mara prior to the evidentiary hearing.

She will have to be rock solid.

Any cracks and MOM will be on it like a jack hammer. If she cracks and admits coaching, all bets are off.

If she is telling the truth as she heard it. Good.

 

[Fern]

This is a fairly absurd theory, since, if it were true, Mr. Crump would be not only suborning perjury and obstructing justice, he would be relying on a teenage girl as the messenger for his story, and thus staking not only his license and professional reputation, but potentially his freedom, on her following his directions and not ratting him out. He would be doing all this in order to win one case, despite his having won many million-dollar-plus judgments. Why would he be so stupid and short-sighted?
-snip-

Crump has already amply demonstrated that is: (1) incompetent or (2) willing to lie/deceive. maybe a combination of the two.

His initial presentation contained factual errors, conjecture and deceit.

I don't pretend to know how far he would go, but his past actions do not put him above suspicion.

And his previously won cases in no way overcome his behavior in this case. No one here knows how he conducted himself in those cases, or that he has any money left (you seem to be implying he is rich and has no need to engage in questionable activity in the pursuit of more money. But if you want to push that logic you might be consistent and bring it up in Romney threads too.)

Fern

 

[airdata]

We also have no clue how much her story will vary when questioned by O'Mara prior to the evidentiary hearing.

Do you not think this is the case w\ Zimmerman as well? Zimmerman's word is the ONLY thing keeping it from being a clear cut murder.

We've already seen instances of him lying and giving different accounts of what happened that night. How many more twists would he come up with if he were man enough to take the stand?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Do you not think this is the case w\ Zimmerman as well? Zimmerman's word is the ONLY thing keeping it from being a clear cut murder.

We've already seen instances of him lying and giving different accounts of what happened that night. How many more twists would he come up with if he were man enough to take the stand?

He does not need to take the stand.

Should the prosecutor team put up DeeDee testimony; she is fair game for O'Mara

 

[spidey07]

Do you not think this is the case w\ Zimmerman as well? Zimmerman's word is the ONLY thing keeping it from being a clear cut murder.

We've already seen instances of him lying and giving different accounts of what happened that night. How many more twists would he come up with if he were man enough to take the stand?

Actually, it is the eye witness accounts of martin on top and beating zimmerman right before he was shot that PROVE it's not murder. Zimmerman doesn't need to say anything, that seals it right there and PROVES self defense no matter what happened before hand.

 

[airdata]

He does not need to take the stand.

Should the prosecutor team put up DeeDee testimony; she is fair game for O'Mara

In order to unanimously declare his innocence he does. Not taking the stand or pleading the fifth is tantamount to admitting guilt.

As many of you have said with other circumstances, an innocent person should have nothing to hide.

 

[airdata]

Actually, it is the eye witness accounts of martin on top and beating zimmerman right before he was shot that PROVE it's not murder. Zimmerman doesn't need to say anything, that seals it right there and PROVES self defense no matter what happened before hand.

Well, after he chased down that fucking punk to make sure that asshole didn't get away, he realized he bit off more than he could chew... he then shot the unarmed child and proceeded to lie about how the altercation came to pass because he knew he was in deep shit and facing possible prison time.

 

[TerryMathews]

In order to unanimously declare his innocence he does. Not taking the stand or pleading the fifth is tantamount to admitting guilt.

As many of you have said with other circumstances, an innocent person should have nothing to hide.

Only in your eyes. In the law, which is what counts, taking the fifth cannot be considered as a sign or admission of guilt.

 

[spidey07]

Well, after he chased down that fucking punk to make sure that asshole didn't get away, he realized he bit off more than he could chew... he then shot the unarmed child and proceeded to lie about how the altercation came to pass because he knew he was in deep shit and facing possible prison time.

And even your scenario it's still clearly self defense. You are allowed to legally shoot in self defense when you are on your back after being beaten or still in the process of being beaten when your assailant is on top of you restraining you as you scream for your life even IF you are initial aggressor. So far there is ZERO evidence he was initial aggressor.

That's what makes it so clearly, obviously, provable, beyond any shadow of doubt, proven by all the evidence, justifiable homocide. There can be no questioning this fact.

 

[airdata]

Only in your eyes. In the law, which is what counts, taking the fifth cannot be considered as a sign or admission of guilt.

Do we need to have this discussion again?

Only in my eyes?


I don't care if you view this as an infallible part of the constitution, bill of rights... whatever.

If a person pleads the fifth, they do so under the clear implication that they have the capability to prove their guilt, and therefore they're guilty.

You can explain that to a first grader and they'd have no problem drawing the same conclusion.

 

[airdata]

And even your scenario it's still clearly self defense. You are allowed to legally shoot in self defense when you are on your back after being beaten or still in the process of being beaten when your assailant is on top of you restraining you as you scream for your life even IF you are initial aggressor. So far there is ZERO evidence he was initial aggressor.

That's what makes it so clearly, obviously, provable, beyond any shadow of doubt, proven by all the evidence, justifiable homocide. There can be no questioning this fact.

Zimmerman's poor judgement, lying, and other morally bankrupt behavior make self defense a completely moot claim.

 

[EagleKeeper]

In order to unanimously declare his innocence he does. Not taking the stand or pleading the fifth is tantamount to admitting guilt.

As many of you have said with other circumstances, an innocent person should have nothing to hide.

The law states otherwise. Taking the fith can not be used as an assumption of guilt.

He does not need to unanimously declare his innocence.

His plea of not guilty does that.

It is now up to the prosecutor to proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the charges against him.

 

[spidey07]

Do we need to have this discussion again?

Only in my eyes?


I don't care if you view this as an infallible part of the constitution, bill of rights... whatever.

If a person pleads the fifth, they do so under the clear implication that they have the capability to prove their guilt, and therefore they're guilty.

You can explain that to a first grader and they'd have no problem drawing the same conclusion.

Back with the one must prove their innocence schtick again I see. What is it with team skittles and this belief?

Not testifying against yourself now means you're guilty?

 

[Genx87]

Do we need to have this discussion again?

Only in my eyes?


I don't care if you view this as an infallible part of the constitution, bill of rights... whatever.

If a person pleads the fifth, they do so under the clear implication that they have the capability to prove their guilt, and therefore they're guilty.

You can explain that to a first grader and they'd have no problem drawing the same conclusion.

Interesting you bring up first grader. Because somebody with that mental age would take that stance. In this country we run under a presumption of innocence. Taking the fifth amendment does not equal guilt. Do you need to be reminded of another Florida case recently where the defendent took the fifth and was acquitted?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Do you not think this is the case w\ Zimmerman as well? Zimmerman's word is the ONLY thing keeping it from being a clear cut murder.

We've already seen instances of him lying and giving different accounts of what happened that night. How many more twists would he come up with if he were man enough to take the stand?

He has two witnesses that corroborates his story that TM was on top of him just prior to the shot being fired. Though the one witness did back off of the MMA style punches he still stay firm that TM was on top possibly still striking or restraining GZ and GZ was struggling to get free. This is the most important event that took place that night and shows that he could have reasonably feared for his life and shot TM in self defense.

As for taking the stand he has Constitutional rights that says he doesn't have to testify and the judge must instruct the jury that they can't use that against him should he choose not to testify.

You should read this and try to comprehend what it says as this is what instructions the jury will receive should this case go to trial.

http://frederickleatherman.wordpres...ns-for-second-degree-murder-and-self-defense/

You are in an upper level graduate school course so you know this part by heart:

The defendant, George Zimmerman, is presumed innocent and remains innocent unless the jury unanimously finds him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant has no burden to produce any evidence or to testify in this case. He has a constitutional right to not testify and the jury may not assume anything regarding his silence.

The State has the burden of proving each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since the defendant admits killing Trayvon Martin, but claims he was legally justified to do so in self-defense, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense.

A reasonable doubt is a doubt for which a reason exists. It is such a doubt as would exist in the mind of a reasonable person after fully, fairly and carefully considering all of the evidence or lack of evidence.

 

[TerryMathews]

Do we need to have this discussion again?

Only in my eyes?


I don't care if you view this as an infallible part of the constitution, bill of rights... whatever.

If a person pleads the fifth, they do so under the clear implication that they have the capability to prove their guilt, and therefore they're guilty.

You can explain that to a first grader and they'd have no problem drawing the same conclusion.

As I said, you are entitled to your opinion. Zimmerman is being tried in a court of law and the law of the land is that exercising your right is not an admission of guilt. No matter how you feel about it.

Is everyone who uses Miranda guilty? Where do you think your right to remain silent is derived from?

 

[Tom]

Here is the real point about Zimmerman testifying.

There will be a story presented that whatever confrontation took place, Martin was defending himself. There's a good deal of evidence to support this, and no evidence that disproves it. Zimmerman's injuries, who was on top, none of that disproves or even minimizes the likelihood that this is the right story.

Without Zimmerman's testimony, there's no good way to get his story before the jury. With his testimony, his story can be fully developed, but his credibility will be crucial.

The jury or judge will most likely pick one or the other of these stories and if they favor Martin's version as presented by the prosecution, Zimmerman's only chance will be how confident they are in that judgement.

That has nothing to do with presumption of innocence or the 5th Amendment, but its possible he won't win if he doesn't testify.

 

[emperus]

The law states otherwise. Taking the fith can not be used as an assumption of guilt.

He does not need to unanimously declare his innocence.

His plea of not guilty does that.

It is now up to the prosecutor to proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the charges against him.

There is going to be an immunity hearing first. So he is most likely going to take the stand.

 

[spidey07]

Here is the real point about Zimmerman testifying.

There will be a story presented that whatever confrontation took place, Martin was defending himself. There's a good deal of evidence to support this, and no evidence that disproves it. Zimmerman's injuries, who was on top, none of that disproves or even minimizes the likelihood that this is the right story.

Without Zimmerman's testimony, there's no good way to get his story before the jury. With his testimony, his story can be fully developed, but his credibility will be crucial.

The jury or judge will most likely pick one or the other of these stories and if they favor Martin's version as presented by the prosecution, Zimmerman's only chance will be how confident they are in that judgement.

That has nothing to do with presumption of innocence or the 5th Amendment, but its possible he won't win if he doesn't testify.

Even in your what if, the witness who saw martin on top seconds before the shot restraining and beating zimmerman = automatic self defense.

That's what matters in this case and can destroy all the team skittles what if's. There's a witness that actually PROVES it was self defense regardless if martin was defending himself.

The state has to DISPROVE self defense. So far all the evidence actually PROVES self defense beyond any doubt.

You are NOT allowed to mount somebody and beat them as they scream for their life. That is ILLEGAL. That can get you lawfully shot.

 

[spidey07]

There is going to be an immunity hearing first. So he is most likely going to take the stand.

Why would he? He doesn't have to, the preponderance of evidence already proves it was self defense without him saying a word.

 

[emperus]

Why would he? He doesn't have to, the preponderance of evidence already proves it was self defense without him saying a word.

In the immunity the burden shifts to the defense.

 

[spidey07]

In the immunity the burden shifts to the defense.

Right, and all the evidence supports self defense without zimmerman saying anything. It's WAY more than a preponderance of evidence proving self defense which is why he should have never been charged in the first place and if justice is to be served he should be declared immune from criminal prosecution along with civil immunity. No money for crump and co.

 

[Druidx]

Do we need to have this discussion again?

Only in my eyes?


I don't care if you view this as an infallible part of the constitution, bill of rights... whatever.

If a person pleads the fifth, they do so under the clear implication that they have the capability to prove their guilt, and therefore they're guilty.

You can explain that to a first grader and they'd have no problem drawing the same conclusion.

At least you admit you draw the same conclusions as a first graded. The problem is, the adults are talking right now.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

In the immunity the burden shifts to the defense.

Yet, you can bet all MOM will have GZ testify on when he's on the stand will be concerning the altercation/seconds leading up to him firing the weapon and whether he feared his life was in imminent danger. He can only be cross examined on his testimony during the hearing and nothing more.