Justice for Zimmerman

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
We only have Zimmerman's evidence that Trayvon started the physical altercation, with the lack of any other evidence, you cannot draw the opposite inference.
Again, that's not evidence.
Zimmerman claiming that Martin attacked him does not count as "evidence" by any definition of the word.
However, there is just as little evidence to suggest Zimmerman attacked first (which is to say, no evidence at all).
Because we have no evidence either way, we have nothing to charge Zimmerman with. It has never been proven that Martin started the altercation, and everyone who says "it just makes more sense that he did" is making the same mistake that everybody who assumes Zimmerman is racist is making.

If you're trying to say that it doesn't make a difference who attacked first because we can't prove it, I'm with you. But stop giving Zimmerman +1 "evidence points" just for telling his version of the story. If Martin were alive he'd almost certainly have a different version of what went down. Would you consider his version "evidence" too?
 

Adebisi

Clump of Cells
<Silver Donator>
27,680
32,723
Busted face, busted back of head, people seeing TM on top of GM.

NO EVIDENCE!
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
24,498
45,439
Again, that's not evidence.
Zimmerman claiming that Martin attacked him does not count as "evidence" by any definition of the word.
However, there is just as little evidence to suggest Zimmerman attacked first (which is to say, no evidence at all).
Because we have no evidence either way, we have nothing to charge Zimmerman with. It has never been proven that Martin started the altercation, and everyone who says "it just makes more sense that he did" is making the same mistake that everybody who assumes Zimmerman is racist is making.

If you're trying to say that it doesn't make a difference who attacked first because we can't prove it, I'm with you. But stop giving Zimmerman +1 "evidence points" just for telling his version of the story. If Martin were alive he'd almost certainly have a different version of what went down. Would you consider his version "evidence" too?
His testimony absolutely is evidence. What do you think evidence is?
 

Dashel

Blackwing Lair Raider
1,829
2,931
No evidence and I dont think it much matters who was screaming. I think there is evidence TM was on top punching GZ. They were probably both scared at some point. Maybe TM thought I'm gonna beat this creepy ass cracker up a bit for stalking me, the gun comes into play then it's Help Help. Or maybe GM tried to detain TM by himself for the cops and TM panicked and was defending himself. No evidence for anything specific imo.
 

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
24,498
45,439
Evidence is tangible, measurable proof that backs up some version of the story.
Thats your definition. The legal definition of evidence is:

A thing, a document, or the testimony of a person that bears on the truth or falsity of an assertion made in litigation.

You're referring to physical or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is what the people in the witness stand or on videos/recordings say.

Zimmermans testimony is evidence.
 

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
From dictionary.com:

Evidence(definition 3):
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Data presentedin proof of the facts.
Zimmerman is not a "witness" in this case, he's the guy on trial. What he says does not and can not count as "proof" of anything. The cuts on his head are evidence that he had his head hit against pavement. This backs up the part of his story where he said he got his head hit against pavement. We can therefore deduce that there is some truth to that part of the story. As for the part of his story where he says Martin attacked him, there is nothing to back that up. Nothing.

I'm not saying Zimmerman attacked first, as there is also zero evidence of that. But saying "it must have been Martin who attacked because Zimmerman said so and his word is the only 'proof' we have" is freaking ridiculous..
 

Jait

Molten Core Raider
5,035
5,317
I dont think it much matters who was screaming.
This.

And unfortunately most of the peanut gallery disagrees or is biased against the laws of Florida and allow it to spill over as if it fucking matters. It's Florida's laws. The best they could ever hope for is manslaughter, and only if they can prove TM never turned around to initiate a physical confrontation.
 

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
42,501
50,692
From dictionary.com:

Evidence(definition 3):
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Data presentedin proof of the facts.
Zimmerman is not a "witness" in this case, he's the guy on trial. What he says does not and can not count as "proof" of anything. The cuts on his head are evidence that he had his head hit against pavement. This backs up the part of his story where he said he got his head hit against pavement. We can therefore deduce that there is some truth to that part of the story. As for the part of his story where he says Martin attacked him, there is nothing to back that up. Nothing.

I'm not saying Zimmerman attacked first, as there is also zero evidence of that. But saying "it must have been Martin who attacked because Zimmerman said so and his word is the only 'proof' we have" is freaking ridiculous..
Do you work at being this fucking retarded or does it come naturally to you?

For starters, Cad was talking about theLEGAL DEFINITIONof evidence, not the english language definition. There is a very profound difference between the two, because the english language definition is completely meaningless when you're talking about a trial. Once again, here is theLEGAL DEFINITIONof evidence.

A thing, a document, or the testimony of a person that bears on the truth or falsity of an assertion made in litigation.
Second of all, lets go with theLEGAL DEFINITIONof Witness.

Google_sl said:
1) n. a person who testifies under oath in a trial (or a deposition which may be used in a trial if the witness is not available) with first-hand or expert evidence useful in a lawsuit.A party to the lawsuit (plaintiff or defendant) may be a witness.
So you're wrong again. Maybe you should try to familiarize yourself with the difference between legal definition and english language definition before you try to nitpick words with a lawyer.

P.S. Cad is a lawyer.
 

BoldW

Molten Core Raider
2,081
25
So how does it work when a judge instructs a jury on lesser possible convictions - i.e. manslaughter in this case?

Does the judge tell them, so, if you don't see Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt, you can still say he's guilty of manslaughter (wink, wink) basically putting it in their heads? I mean, I doubt it's like that, which is why i'm asking.
 

Siddar

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
6,356
5,898
Judge sure isn't hiding her disdain for the defense when she responds to objections.
She going to go down in history as the judge that oversaw the acquittal of Zimmerman.

She is going fuck me these fucking idiots bringing this weakass case to my court are going to ruin my chances for higher judgeship.
 

B_Mizzle

Golden Baronet of the Realm
7,114
13,796
I guess, but there's no evidence of that.
Yeah but thats the picture the prosecution is trying to paint, which is really really reaching.

On another note, after seeing the parade of defense witnesses this morning, GZ appeared to me to be an outstanding citizen and a good guy. I am a firm believer in the saying, "Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are." TM's friends sure didn't get him any points on the witness stand, GZ's scored him some major points imo.
 

Jait

Molten Core Raider
5,035
5,317
could the defense have called TMs father to testify? assuming he'd choose to not perjure himself.
I wondered that as well. But you'd be labeled the biggest douchebag in history to compel a father to testify against his dead son murder case unless you REALLY need to. It could totally ruin you with the jury.

I think they made their point. It really doesn't matter because no one can agree.
 

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
42,501
50,692
She going to go down in history as the judge that oversaw the acquittal of Zimmerman.

She is going fuck me these fucking idiots bringing this weakass case to my court are going to ruin my chances for higher judgeship.
If anything is going to ruin her chances for advancement, it's her conduct so far in the trial.
 

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Somebody at the statehouse really must not like her very much.

They don't draw these names out of a hat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.