Trayvon Martin Case

Of course Zim's not gonna take the stand and give the world his side of the story, because thats what a man does and he's a straight up bitch. its his mo at this point

If he's gets off, Id like to go ahead and go old skool and exile him.

Of course Zim's not gonna take the stand and give the world his side of the story, because thats what a man does and he's a straight up bitch. its his mo at this point

If he's gets off, Id like to go ahead and go old skool and exile him.
I would hesitate to say for certain, but I would be shocked if more than a small percentage of defendants took the stand. One wrong word or wrong appearance might just be enough to sway a juror or jury against you. You pay a lawyer to present your case and the smartest defendants shut the hell up and don't say anything unless their lawyer tells them to.

Of course Zim's not gonna take the stand and give the world his side of the story, because thats what a man does and he's a straight up bitch. its his mo at this point

If he's gets off, Id like to go ahead and go old skool and exile him.Serious question: Why do you think we have the 5th amendment?

So, instead of "lawyering up", GZ meets and cooperates with police when he was under no legal compulsion to do so (at any point, all he has to say is, "I refuse to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me" ), giving multiple statements - including a videotaped moment by moment description - all of which he likely knew could be (and ultimately were) used against him. That counts for nothing.

Exercising your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination at trial? What a wuss.

oh no I agree, lying to cover his ass has worked just fine to this point. "We just gotta make it look like your life was in danger" that's the out in this case. brilliant stuff

Lets give him a gun and send'm back into the neighborhood to get his job as neighbor patrol officer career going again. outstanding country. Anybody let'm patrol their street first? Lets give'm a cape too, he's a super hero by all accounts

Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt.

(1) To me, without something, circumstantial or otherwise, that GZ started the fight, I don't see how anyone can say there is no reasonable doubt on this issue.

(2) Okay, he got out of his truck and followed TM when he shouldn't have then .... what? TM pops him first? He pops TM first? WTF happened??

(3) You're quoting prosecutor's medical expert who never examined GZ but just photos after the fact - not the EMT - on the striking concrete issue. The neutral on site EMT said very, very clearly that someone exibiting Martin's injuries would "probably" be concerned for their medical well being and could very reasonably be concerned with suffering brain or concussive injuries if they were on their back. Does the fact that you were relying on the prosecution's "whore" and not the neutral EMT affect you're conclusion?

So you completely dismiss Good's testimony as creating any reasonable doubt on the issue fo GZ's state of mind? What about the fact he heard him screaming for help? No doubt created by that?


On the jury issue, I agree. Despite my firm belief that the State has failed miserably in meetings its legal burden, I will accept what the jury decides and have no doubt enough was presented to have six people find a manslaughter charge on this issue.


That's where reasonable doubt has a limit. Zimmerman pulled the trigger. The burden is on him to prove his life was in danger. We know he killed
Trayvon, therefore it is up to him to prove he was justified beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution is not trying to prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon. In that case they would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt he killed Trayvon. Burden of proof is on Zimmerman. George has blood on his hands.

That's where reasonable doubt has a limit. Zimmerman pulled the trigger. The burden is on him to prove his life was in danger. We know he killed Trayvon, therefore it is up to him to prove he was justified beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution is not trying to prove Zimmerman killed Trayvon. In that case they would need to prove beyond reasonable doubt he killed Trayvon. Burden of proof is on Zimmerman. George has blood on his hands.

No. You're wrong and you're being intentionally ignorant. Read what the Florida caselaw says.

Also, saden1 ...

The youtube clip is simply the prosecutor's response to GZ's motion for acquittal. In that instance, the standard of review by the judge is just the opposite of that needed for a jury instruction on self defense. In opposing a motion for acquittal the prosecution is the one entitled to having the facts viewed in a light most favorable to them. It's all about generating a question of fact and only tangentially related to the closing. Hell, he argues that in front of the jury, it's a concession speech - Just one example, the prosecutor says forensics concerning the bullet wound "is, at least, as consistent with [the State's] version of the events as it is with the Defendant's". Equally consistent versions comporting with provable forensic evidence? How can that not be reasonable doubt? I am just not getting it.

If there were two plausible stories with TM as the survivor - would you convict him?

Joe, please come to your senses. You are making a mockery of our legal system.

Smith, et al., v. United States | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-8976)

Smith v. United States | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2012/2012_11_8976)

Game...set...match!

Let's just convict on reasonable assumption, not acquit through reasonable doubt. Problem solved.