George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #14 Friday July 12

[sorrell skye]

I think Mr. O'Mara is doing something very important here: He's cautioning the jurors to not make assumptions, to not say "what if' or "could have been". He's reminding them to look at the evidence and to not presume things that aren't in evidence to try to fill in the gaps.

 

[?noanswer]

yes i submit it is better than BDLR's very loud closing. IMO it's fine to use loud voices to emphasize certain points, but to use it constantly as BDLR used yesterday takes away the importance of any point BDLR was trying to make. MOM is a breath of fresh air to me, IMO...

I'm glad he's now calling the state out on their closing yesterday and the words they used yesterday such as "maybe, what if, i hope so, could have been, you figure it out" IMO.

Just thinking that in CA's trial, the defense was more like the prosecution and the prosecution was more like the defense in the way they are presenting information.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

yes i submit it is better than BDLR's very loud closing. IMO it's fine to use loud voices to emphasize certain points, but to use it constantly as BDLR used yesterday takes away the importance of any point BDLR was trying to make. MOM is a breath of fresh air to me, IMO...

I'm glad he's now calling the state out on their closing yesterday and the words they used yesterday such as "maybe, what if, i hope so, could have been, you figure it out" IMO.

Yes, Though Juan hammered at witnesses, when he addressed the jury he emphasized but did not yell at them.

He spoke to them, Lead them.

I think people want to ignore a lot of facts to get to a guilty verdict and you can not. The fact is that TM beat up on GZ and GZ had a right to shoot to protect himself.

That is the facts under the law.

 

[cityslick]

Anybody else's feed going out?

Yes, it's annoying.

 

[Perthgirl62]

Not the facts in the case. TM was not shot for having skittles. He was not shot because he was walking home. He was shot because he was beating on a man in the dark and he shot him to defend his person.

The shopping at 7-11, the walking, the skittles have nothing what to do with the fact that TM is dead.

The facts are, He beat on GZ, and GZ shot him after being beaten up in the dark backed down on the sidewalked, No way to get away.

Those facts of yours are merely heresy based on GZs testimony. There is actually no evidence to confirm that TM was the original aggressor and he could in fact have been defending himself.

 

[cityslick]

Just thinking that in CA's trial, the defense was more like the prosecution and the prosecution was more like the defense in the way they are presenting information.

JMO

This whole trial has been like that. The roles have been reversed in ways I've never seen before.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If I were on this jury, he would aggravate me worse than the prosecution. He should state that everything they hear is not necessarily the truth. THEN, he should present his version of the TRUTH. He needs to quit going into the psyche of the jury. Right now I would like to swat him.

This case has a LOT of evidence, give it. THEN, go into the spheel of don't believe everything you hear, and blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, is saying less than the prosecutor did, and that takes a lot.

Ah, the first thing I heard of ANY value, "the burden is on the state". KEEP THAT UP. Tyvm.

My opinion only

He is doing his job. He needs to explain clearly what reasonable doubt is. I am listening as a juror. I find it helpful for me making my decision.

 

[Trident]

Maybe he should have STARTED with "living the Constitution"?

IMO, he should have.

 

[lisasalinger]

He NEEDS to get to the point, to make a memorable statement. What I'm hearing is a lot of nothing. GET ON WITH IT, to the point, these people aren't stupid.

I understand how you feel, but cases live and die on reasonable doubt. Most jurors really do not understand how that concept works. It's dry stuff, but I think he's done ok getting thru some of it... I think he's worked off the jitters and getting in to it now.

IMO, MOM is one of the calmest and most respectful defense attorneys that I've ever watched.

IMO

 

[cityslick]

Those facts of yours are merely heresy based on GZs testimony. There is actually no evidence to confirm that TM was the original aggressor and he could in fact have been defending himself.

The facts/evidence of this case has not disproved GZ's version of events IMO.

 

[Wolfpack Fan]

I was watching some program last night and the host listed the things that the prosecution had to prove to show 2nd-degree murder and manslaughter. For BOTH, the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman did NOT shoot in self-defense. If he shot because he was in fear for his life or in fear of great bodily harm, the jury has to acquit him.

 

[rose222]

Those facts of yours are merely heresy based on GZs testimony. There is actually no evidence to confirm that TM was the original aggressor and he could in fact have been defending himself.

You don't convict a man of murder based on ' could have's....

 

[cityslick]

Getting to the evidence now.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Those facts of yours are merely heresy based on GZs testimony. There is actually no evidence to confirm that TM was the original aggressor and he could in fact have been defending himself.

No. The facts are that TM beat on GZ. The facts as per witness testimony is that GZ got up bloodied and bruised after he shot TM. He was seen under TM by a neighbor with TM over him on the ground.

That is facts in evidence.

There is nothing from the state that proves anything else. To me that is the core.

GZ was on the ground being pummeled and bloodied. He shot him to save himself from more harm. His right under self defense laws in FL.

OMO

 

[marlap]

Those facts of yours are merely heresy based on GZs testimony. There is actually no evidence to confirm that TM was the original aggressor and he could in fact have been defending himself.

That's right. There is no eye/ear witness who witnessed everything that happened. There is zero proof that TM started the physical altercation.

Even if TM threw the first punch, if it was because GZ was grabbing his arm trying to detain him or because GZ showed his weapon...TM was justified in throwing the first punch.

That to me is much more logical than TM trying to get away from GZ and suddenly going back to hit him for no reason.

Unfortunately, there is not hard evidence for that scenario either.

But IMO, there is definitely NO evidence that TM hit GZ for no reason, unprovoked...

 

[JeannaT]

i think this is so clear. Unless you think, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he didn't act in self-defense, not guilty.

I have no doubt, the state has absolutely convinced me, he didn't act in self-defense is the standard. Clear as glass. I hope they truly grasp this, because it's not human nature. Human nature dictates that we decide what's most likely and go with that. Or that we give the benefit of the doubt to the deceased, and not the accused.



And THANK YOU, MOM, for sticking up for cops, whose motto is "protect and serve".

 

[BiggNewt]

Those charts are going to leave an image in the jurors head. Very good job by MOM so far...OMO

 

[Snoods]

Anybody else's feed going out?

I'm watching it on WFTV live stream and mine has been fine so far.

 

[NancyGracesBangs]

Good morning everyone

 

[lisasalinger]

Yes, it's annoying.

In my opinion... WESH seems to be fine here, lol... although, don't all go there now and screw up my feed

IMO