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

[OCNewbie]

I don't know .. that white dude goes "We have more to offer than almost any town can and the sad thing is that’s overshadowed by one person’s decision, one night..."

Maybe they will do Zim in for the sake of their town ... I hope that won't be the case .. and they will listen to the evidence ....

Perhaps "we" can hope that he's referring to Trayvon's decision to attack GZ

 

[Darkman]

Yes .. we can only hope ...

I am watching to the Videos currently ... that black lady's dress looks like military unform ... she looks like she is ready for war, lol ...

 

[Darkman]

Good set of photos from yesterday's court ... 20 photos HERE:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...n-trial-stay-hearing-20130528,0,1951849.story

George Zimmerman lawyers: We're 'out of money,' need $120K for trial:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...immerman-trial-money-20130529,0,4804682.story

 

[jstern01]

George Zimmerman lawyers: We're 'out of money,' need $120K for trial:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...immerman-trial-money-20130529,0,4804682.story

Come on folks lets help him out, Georgie needs 120K for more high life living, cause everyone else is working for "free".

 

[Darkman]

EXCLUSIVE

Posted on May 29, 2013 @ 4:04 AM | By jenheger

George Zimmerman Wants To Testify At Trayvon Martin Murder Trial

George Zimmerman, the former Neighborhood Watch Volunteer accused of shooting and killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin wants to testify in his defense at the trial which is scheduled to begin on June 10, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.

Lawyers for Zimmerman are “readily preparing for trial. George is ready and willing to testify,” a source close to the case tells Radar exclusively. “George feels that the jury needs to hear from his own mouth what really happened leading up to the shooting.

“George maintains it was absolutely self-defense. Normally, criminal defense attorneys don’t want to put their client on the stand, but in this case, Mark O’Mara (George’s attorney) feels so strongly in the evidence, and in his innocence, he would be inclined to allow him to testify.

“The decision to put George on the stand won’t come until the prosecution rests their case,” the source close to the case added.

Read more: http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/05/george-zimmerman-testify-trayvon-martin-murder-trial/

 

[Darkman]

Come on folks lets help him out, Georgie needs 120K for more high life living, cause everyone else is working for "free".

LOL ....

He is afraid to come out outside ... some "high life living" ...

 

[Darkman]

EXCLUSIVE

Posted on May 29, 2013 @ 4:04 AM | By jenheger

George Zimmerman Wants To Testify At Trayvon Martin Murder Trial


Read more: http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/05/george-zimmerman-testify-trayvon-martin-murder-trial/

... at the end of the above article it says: "Sound off in the comment section below, do you think George Zimmerman should testify at the trial?"

I am checking it out now ... -- currently, there are 548 comments there already ... with all kind of stuff posted, lol ...

 

[soundforbjt]

LOL ....

He is afraid to come out outside ... some "high life living" ...

He doesn't seem to be afraid of food...:whiste:

 

[Darkman]

HLN's After Dark is on now ... they are "doing" / talking Zimmerman's case ... have some Guests / "Jurors" on .. who are going to "weigh in" on it ...

 

[TerryMathews]

He doesn't seem to be afraid of food...:whiste:

Of course, because the cheapest food is healthiest right? :whistle:

 

[lotus503]

He said, and I QUOTE:



That is what we call a prediction. That isn't a statement that the law dictates a certain result 100% of the time. I can tell you right now there is zero chance that DVC, as a former prosecutor, is unaware that there are exceptions. He just doesn't think they're applicable here and hence he predicts the evidence will not be admitted.

I think you and Humble do not understand that the rules are subject to interpretation by the court and you cannot usually know how they will rule. You can only predict based on 1) the rules, 2) the facts of the case at hand, and 3) experience with how judges rules on these kinds of issues.

Perhaps because his prediction was strongly worded you think he was describing a 100% bright-line rule. Maybe he should have said "probably" but I think his experience warrants a strongly worded prediction. It's how I would have stated it. Judges rarely ever permit prior act evidence and I don't see the arguments being all that much more compelling for it in this case versus any other. I've read Humble's arguments for it and I doubt many judges would agree.

You have more patience that I do that's for sure. It's getting downright fucking weird in here.

 

[Darkman]

So they are going to have 6 jurors, by the looks of it ...

How many alternate jurors will they have then ... 3 or 6 .. or?

 

[HumblePie]

No, you don't appear to understand the difference between what he said initially and what he said later. He first made a prediction that none of the evidence would be admissible. He didn't comment on the law. He never said it was impossible under the statute. When he did comment on the law, he said there were exception. 404 contradictions not found here.

No. He originally used absolutes. The first time I merely corrected him upon. If he had said, "You are right about there being exemptions Humblepie, I didn't mean for my post to say there wasn't the slimmest possible chance for the evidence to be admissible, but in my professional opinion I don't think anything from that evidence dump would be readily admissible by the defense"

If he had done THAT with his second post response to me we wouldn't be having this issue. Instead he reinforced his absolute, without stating it was an "opinion" or likely or any other quantifier being used, and THEN did so in a snide way with insults. THAT is the crap I was making it a point to show he was wrong on. He LATER, after I had to cite many precedents, posted that there were exemptions and exceptions to the 404 rule. All without showing a lick of humility in that he was WRONG with his initial asinine post with the snide remarks.

It's his OPINION that none of the evidence will be admissible. He's certainly entitled to that and he may be right on that opinion. I have the opinion that some will be admissible. I pointed out which pieces in my opinion would be and how those pieces I think meet the standards of the exceptions/exemptions to the 404 rule. Instead of him, or anyone being an intelligent debater and arguing on the merits of the opinions of why or why not.... They all put their fingers in their ears and did "nahhh nahh nahh... I'm a lawyer and you aren't so you are wrong." Which was the logic fallacy I was talking about.

I'm not sure how you can't see that directly in the posts I bolded and you even reiterated with re-quoting but failing to understand the exchange of dialog that happened over this.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Agree completely.

 

[fskimospy]

No. He originally used absolutes. The first time I merely corrected him upon. If he had said, "You are right about there being exemptions Humblepie, I didn't mean for my post to say there wasn't the slimmest possible chance for the evidence to me admissible, but in my professional opinion I don't think anything from that evidence dump would be readily admissible by the defense"

If he had done THAT with his second post response to me we wouldn't be having this issue. Instead he reinforced his absolute, without stating it was an "opinion" or likely or any other quantifier being used, and THEN did so in a snide way with insults. THAT is the crap I was making it a point to show he was wrong on. He LATER, after I had to cite many precedents, posted that there were exemptions and exceptions to the 404 rule. All without showing a lick of humility in that he was WRONG with his initial asinine post with the snide remarks.

It's his OPINION that none of the evidence will be admissible. He's certainly entitled to that and he may be right on that opinion. I have the opinion that some will be admissible. I pointed out which pieces in my opinion would be and how those pieces I think meet the standards of the exceptions/exemptions to the 404 rule. Instead of him, or anyone being an intelligent debater and arguing on the merits of the opinions of why or why not.... They all put their fingers in their ears and did "nahhh nahh nahh... I'm a lawyer and you aren't so you are wrong." Which was the logic fallacy I was talking about.

I'm not sure how you can't see that directly in the posts I bolded and you even reiterated with re-quoting but failing to understand the exchange of dialog that happened over this.

Considering how many people are 'failing to understand', and considering at least two of them are professional lawyers, have you entertained for any amount of time that maybe the failure of understanding is with you?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Considering how many people are 'failing to understand', and considering at least two of them are professional lawyers, have you entertained for any amount of time that maybe the failure of understanding is with you?

The only people who are disagreeing with him are lotus, emp, and yourself. You're not exactly hanging with superstars here.

Who is the other lawyer in this thread?

 

[Darkman]

Good YouTube video from yesterday:

Mark O'Mara on FOX 35 May 29 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NewwdZv_Zko&feature=player_embedded

 

[Darkman]

Saw DiwataMan post this at Random Topics not long ago:

Looking at that photo of Trayvon and seeing talk of papa it reminded me to get this comparison up finally. I'm rarely motivated to deal with anything coming from that side of things but regardless I think the photo alone speaks for itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFfNeM4dyM8

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I spoke with friend at the shooting range yesterday who happens to be a criminal defense lawyer in Texas. She said that she gives less than a 5% chance of any of the recent evidence released about TM being admissible in this case. She said if the defense could prove via witnesses that witnessed TM fighting it could be admissible to show he had a propensity for fighting. Texts, pot plants photos, gun photos will be considered hearsay and never make it in front of a jury.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

That picture of trayvon with hoodie pulled down in deep cover is chilling.

That young man walked out of the gas station looking to vent some of his anger, to cause an innocent upstanding citizen to bleed as much as possible.


Keep this in mind as you're going on a stroll in your quiet neighborhood. These thugs are out to get you. They will jump at any opportunity to rob and harm innocent people for their own benefit. They often prowl other nicer neighborhoods looking for an easy target. Don't be that easy target.

Also make sure you don't fight back. Just like in this trayvon/zimmerman situation, if zimmerman had fought back AT ALL there would be huge arguments as to who started what.

But, the very moment your life is in danger, be prepared to shoot them right in their thug heart. The law supports it, and society supports it.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I spoke with friend at the shooting range yesterday who happens to be a criminal defense lawyer in Texas. She said that she gives less than a 5% chance of any of the recent evidence released about TM being admissible in this case. She said if the defense could prove via witnesses that witnessed TM fighting it could be admissible to show he had a propensity for fighting. Texts, pot plants photos, gun photos will be considered hearsay and never make it in front of a jury.

This is not a situation you can place some chance value on.

If a witness slips up and says even one positive thing about the thug, and this happens ALL the time, the evidence could easily end up being admitted.


I agree, it is unlikely, but it's a definite possibility.

 

[emperus]

No. He originally used absolutes. The first time I merely corrected him upon. If he had said, "You are right about there being exemptions Humblepie, I didn't mean for my post to say there wasn't the slimmest possible chance for the evidence to me admissible, but in my professional opinion I don't think anything from that evidence dump would be readily admissible by the defense"

If he had done THAT with his second post response to me we wouldn't be having this issue. Instead he reinforced his absolute, without stating it was an "opinion" or likely or any other quantifier being used, and THEN did so in a snide way with insults. THAT is the crap I was making it a point to show he was wrong on. He LATER, after I had to cite many precedents, posted that there were exemptions and exceptions to the 404 rule. All without showing a lick of humility in that he was WRONG with his initial asinine post with the snide remarks.

It's his OPINION that none of the evidence will be admissible. He's certainly entitled to that and he may be right on that opinion. I have the opinion that some will be admissible. I pointed out which pieces in my opinion would be and how those pieces I think meet the standards of the exceptions/exemptions to the 404 rule. Instead of him, or anyone being an intelligent debater and arguing on the merits of the opinions of why or why not.... They all put their fingers in their ears and did "nahhh nahh nahh... I'm a lawyer and you aren't so you are wrong." Which was the logic fallacy I was talking about.

I'm not sure how you can't see that directly in the posts I bolded and you even reiterated with re-quoting but failing to understand the exchange of dialog that happened over this.

Humble, this is your original post that started this ball rolling.

The character evidence will be used for TM. It has already been permitted so long as the evidence for the character can show direct reflections upon TM's actions that night. TM's past propensity for fighting, violence, and theft all go towards a character trait that will allow the defense to show Trayvon is the type of person to attack an innocent person first. That his past actions define a character that made GZ initially suspect his behavior upon first sight. Those are character traits that past actions can be used as evidence to prove motivations and actions Trayvon did that night. Not that additional evidence is needed to prove self defense in light of the fact that the prosecution has ZERO evidence that GZ in anyway provoked, sought out, or instigated in any way a physical altercation with TM. That lack of evidence was the main reason GZ was originally not charged. It's the main evidence that supports self defense. But GZ's claim that TM attacked him first is backed up by the character trait evidence of TM's past actions. Specific character evidence can and will be allowed to be entered by the defense into evidence. Not all of his past will be used, but enough to support GZ's claim will be.

I'm not sure how the rest of what you wrote is even consistent with what you are arguing now or consistent with the exception in 404a.

Here is an outline describing the pertinent parts of 404a and how character is proved.

§ 10.03 Methods of Proof [138-40]
Rule 405(a) governs the methods of proof. Generally, only opinion and reputation evidence (not specific acts) are permitted to prove character when a Rule 404(a) exception applies. However, specific instances of conduct may be used during cross-examination of a character witness to test the witness’s qualifications to testify on character.

§ 10.06 Victim’s Character in Self-defense Cases: FRE 404(a)(2)
The accused may offer evidence of a victim's violent character (but only through reputation or opinion evidence) on the first-aggressor issue, in which case the prosecutor may offer rebuttal character evidence. Note that there is a different use of character in self-defense cases – communicated character – on the issue of reasonable fear. Because this is not character-as-proof-of-conduct, Rules 404(a) and 405 do not apply. Instead, Rules 401-403 control.

 

[Darkman]

So they are going to have 6 jurors, by the looks of it ...

How many alternate jurors will they have then ... 3 or 6 .. or?

"In some states as few as 6 if the prosecution is not seeking the death penalty. I had a case like that in Florida. Just 6 jurors with 2 alternates. surprised me since my state all criminal jury trails are 12."

Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101004194650AAZb8d5

----------

"Alternate Jurors. (1) The court may direct that 1 or 2 jurors be impaneled to sit as alternate jurors in addition to the regular panel. Alternate jurors in the order in which they are called shall replace jurors who have become unable or disqualified to perform their duties before the jury retires to consider its verdict. Alternate jurors shall be drawn in the same manner, have the same qualifications, be subject to the same examination, take the same oath, and have the same functions, powers, facilities, and privileges as principal jurors. An alternate juror who does not replace a principal juror shall be discharged when the jury retires to consider the verdict. (2) If alternate jurors are called, each party shall be entitled to one peremptory challenge in the selection of the alternate juror or jurors, but when the number of parties on opposite sides is unequal, the opposing parties shall be entitled to the same aggregate number of peremptory challenges to be determined on the basis of 1 peremptory challenge to each party on the side with the greater number of parties. The additional peremptory challenges allowed pursuant to this subdivision may be used only against the alternate jurors. The peremptory challenges allowed pursuant to subdivision (d) of this rule shall not be used against the alternate jurors."

Source: http://www.juryblog.com/rules-of-procedure/

 

[HumblePie]

I spoke with friend at the shooting range yesterday who happens to be a criminal defense lawyer in Texas. She said that she gives less than a 5% chance of any of the recent evidence released about TM being admissible in this case. She said if the defense could prove via witnesses that witnessed TM fighting it could be admissible to show he had a propensity for fighting. Texts, pot plants photos, gun photos will be considered hearsay and never make it in front of a jury.

Basically what your lawyer friend said it what I was saying. The defense could make some of the evidence admissible, but they needed it to be stronger. Which is part of the reason the prosecution waited this long to give the evidence over to the defense in my opinion. I believe the prosecution waited this long so that the defense would not have enough time to investigate the proper channels to achieve more corroborating evidence to allow it to be admissible. Which, like your lawyer friend's opinion, would be testimony from people that were at scenes of incidents where TM started fights unprovoked. I think if the defense was able to obtain the enough solid evidence it would be admissible and relevant to provide motive to actions claimed of TM during the incident involving this case.

Without that corroborating evidence that part doesn't stand a chance of being admissible in my opinion. The propensity to use drugs and his personality while under the influence in my opinion, as well as MOMs currently, is admissible since TM was found with drug residuals in his blood stream at the time. The defense is going to are through legal experts, that TM was known to use drugs regularly, had used them that night prior to the altercation, and was currently under the influence of MJ enough to change his behavioral pattern.

 

[HumblePie]

Humble, this is your original post that started this ball rolling.



I'm not sure how the rest of what you wrote is even consistent with what you are arguing now or consistent with the exception in 404a.

Here is an outline describing the pertinent parts of 404a and how character is proved.

And I am correct in that post. I fail to see what you are trying to prove. If the defense has actual evidence of TM's propensity to seek violence unprovoked upon others then that meets the exceptions for the 404 rule. I've stated that all along. I never said they definitely had enough evidence for that. Whole different ball of wax. Your assumptions are what are screwing you up here.