• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

George Zimmerman

RJKarl said:
Nice link...I'd have to pay $163 to read it.

I'm torn about propensity evidence.

However what I said was very narrow. If you lie to the court you are in front of about something that might help you in this case, I see no reason it shouldn't be admissible.

Let me say this again, it's not about whether he lies 24/7 about everything from money to sex, it's about lying to this court about this case.
Click to expand...

That's a lot less than I paid to understand evidence.
 
Some people really just have a hard-on to see Zimmerman fry. I am distressed at how many people seem so positive that their version of events absolutely happened, and much of it is not coincidentally rooted in anti-gun rhetoric and beliefs. There are assumptions that Zimmerman is some kind of gun-toting wannabe with an itchy trigger finger.

My question for RJ and others is given what we know at this point. would you be able to vote guilty if you were on the jury, and what would be your reasons for doing so if you could?
 
bobknightfan said:
This thread is a good example of why our legal system is so screwed up. The idea of getting the truth about what really happened isn't even on the radar of what is important, based upon the posts in this thread. What is evidently important are all kinds of legal minutiae about different ways that sharp attorneys can circumvent having to be concerned about finding out the truth about what actually happened. The guy is either guilty or he is not guilty....but his guilt or innocence shouldn't....and doesn't, really....depend upon who has the better attorney.
Click to expand...


I agree. Allowing into evidence the fact that Zimmerman lied about an unrelated issue has nothing to with getting to the truth of the matter of whether or not he was legally justified in killing Trayvon Martin.

Also, there's nothing being discussed on here that enables "sharp attorneys" to circumvent the system. What we're talking about is Evidence 101. Assuming all the players involved have actually sat through at least one criminal trial, they know this stuff doesnt come into evidence. Zimmerman's lawyer wont be pulling a fast one on the prosecution here. I'm confident the state attorneys in this case have the basic understanding to know to not even tread down this path that would surely result in a mistrial.
 
RJKarl said:
If his entire case is "believe me", if he lies to the court in something that has to do with his participation in the case, it should be fair game.

This is quite different than if he lied to a girl in HS or cheated on his wife. He lied to benefit his situation regarding this case.
Click to expand...

What's the distinction?

Say Zimmerman's lied about a bunch of stuff to benefit him in life. Maybe he cheated on tests when he was in high school. Maybe he lied on college admission papers. Maybe he lied on his resume. Maybe he lied to his boss. Cheated on his wife. Lied to the judge about his finances. All these things go to prove that Zimmerman is a liar and will do what it takes to help himself in a tight spot. None of it means he lied to the police about what happened the night in question. If the State has evidence that disproves Zimmerman's story, then the burden is on them to put it on and show the jury Zimmerman's a liar. Maybe the wounds dont match up, maybe there's an eye witness, maybe the angle of the bullet trajectory. All of that can show Zimmerman is lying about the murder. Every other bad thing he's ever done in his life does nothing to show Zimmerman lied on the night in question.

He lied to the judge. I agree that's serious. That's why we have the crime of perjury in our country. If they want to charge him they can, and then all those statements are highly relevant to prove that crime. It does nothing to show he's lying about the murder other than to ask the jury to jump to conclusions, speculate and make assumptions. Thankfully, our criminal justice system requires hard evidence to convict.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Some people really just have a hard-on to see Zimmerman fry. I am distressed at how many people seem so positive that their version of events absolutely happened, and much of it is not coincidentally rooted in anti-gun rhetoric and beliefs. There are assumptions that Zimmerman is some kind of gun-toting wannabe with an itchy trigger finger.

My question for RJ and others is given what we know at this point. would you be able to vote guilty if you were on the jury, and what would be your reasons for doing so if you could?
Click to expand...

I would vote guilty.

Reasons:

No credibility
Went against the rules of the neighborhood watch
Went against the 911 operator
Clearly stalked him said "I lost him" to 911 operator
Trayvon's GF phone call that happened contemporaneously
If he'll lie to the judge twice, there's no reason anything he says
 
Les Grossman said:
What's the distinction?

Say Zimmerman's lied about a bunch of stuff to benefit him in life. Maybe he cheated on tests when he was in high school. Maybe he lied on college admission papers. Maybe he lied on his resume. Maybe he lied to his boss. Cheated on his wife. Lied to the judge about his finances. All these things go to prove that Zimmerman is a liar and will do what it takes to help himself in a tight spot. None of it means he lied to the police about what happened the night in question. If the State has evidence that disproves Zimmerman's story, then the burden is on them to put it on and show the jury Zimmerman's a liar. Maybe the wounds dont match up, maybe there's an eye witness, maybe the angle of the bullet trajectory. All of that can show Zimmerman is lying about the murder. Every other bad thing he's ever done in his life does nothing to show Zimmerman lied on the night in question.

He lied to the judge. I agree that's serious. That's why we have the crime of perjury in our country. If they want to charge him they can, and then all those statements are highly relevant to prove that crime. It does nothing to show he's lying about the murder other than to ask the jury to jump to conclusions, speculate and make assumptions. Thankfully, our criminal justice system requires hard evidence to convict.
Click to expand...

Tremendous distinction.

Once you are arrested anything and everything you tell a court official, opposing lawyer, member of the PD (after being read your rights) or anyone else directly involved in the case (obviously other than your lawyer)should be considered part of the case and admissible
 
DeaconCav06 said:
Are you a parody?

The system is designed for him to get a fair trial. Whether or not he lied to the court has fuck all to do with what happened on that night. You're talking about a guy that was getting death threats. There's any number of reasons why he might have lied to the court. That has nothing to do with whether or not his shooting of Trayvon was justified. There is no reason to introduce that evidence. You can introduce that in his trial for perjury, since I'm 99% sure he was under oath when he told the court about his finances.
Click to expand...

No, the system is fucked up because knee-jerk assholes like yourself fall in like like it's a Rorshach test.

Trayvon is not a "stereotypical black teen" ...no, no you fucking dim wit...he is an Individual Human Being who was going down the path of petty thievery,vandalism and to all that it leads to.

You have him in your head that Trayvon was some kind of iconic figure. He wasn't. He was a kid stealing shit from peoples houses and he put himself in the position he wound up in that night.
 
Lectro said:
No, the system is fucked up because knee-jerk assholes like yourself fall in like like it's a Rorshach test.

Trayvon is not a "stereotypical black teen" ...no, no you fucking dim wit...he is an Individual Human Being who was going down the path of petty thievery,vandalism and to all that it leads to.

You have him in your head that Trayvon was some kind of iconic figure. He wasn't. He was a kid stealing shit from peoples houses and he put himself in the position he wound up in that night.
Click to expand...

This is the worst part about how our process works. You need actual evidence to convict Zimmerman, but don't need any evidence to "convict" Trayvon.
 
Lectro said:
No, the system is fucked up because knee-jerk assholes like yourself fall in like like it's a Rorshach test.

Trayvon is not a "stereotypical black teen" ...no, no you fucking dim wit...he is an Individual Human Being who was going down the path of petty thievery,vandalism and to all that it leads to.

ou have him in your head that Trayvon was some kind of iconic figure. He wasn't. He was a kid stealing shit from peoples houses and he put himself in the position he wound up in that night.
Click to expand...

You have no evidence of this whatsoever.

If you say it 1000 times it will never make it true.
 
Oh no you fucking don't, Larry. You bring in every manner of"conjecture" and opinion about Zimmerman but allow nothing of Trayvon's past? In this, a court of public opinion?



Trayvon ain't Steven Biko.
 
Yea I do asshole. He was suspended from school for having the implement and goods of a small time thief casing houses.

Fact: Bag of jewels and tool for burglary
 
So lectro, what do you think about Zimmerman hiding his donated money and hiding a second passport that he applied for AFTER the crime?
 
I think he was scared for his life...what do you think?

Has he appeared a "flight risk" to you?

Looked to me like the guy was unsure and afraid.
 
Applying for a new passport after the crime is a pretty clear definition of a flight risk. Just because I don't think he could get his shit together enough to actually get out of the country doesn't mean he wouldn't try.
 
Absolutely...and if I'd felt threatened I'd apply for one too.

No shit
 
Lectro said:
Yea I do asshole. He was suspended from school for having the implement and goods of a small time thief casing houses.

Fact: Bag of jewels and tool for burglary
Click to expand...

LIE: He had no jewels!

He had NEVER convicted of theft.
 
RJKarl said:
Tremendous distinction.

Once you are arrested anything and everything you tell a court official, opposing lawyer, member of the PD (after being read your rights) or anyone else directly involved in the case (obviously other than your lawyer)should be considered part of the case and admissible
Click to expand...

With no regard to what's relevant? I'm sorry, but that's just absurd.

First of all, anything Zimmerman has ever said during his life is potentially admissible under the hearsay exception of statement by party opponent. Of course, it only comes in subject to a relevancy analysis. Even if during the bond hearing, Zimmerman said by the way, I had sex with a prostitute 5 years ago (or something similarly inflammatory)...should that come into evidence? Of course not. Again, the jury is there to answer one question. Was Zimmerman justified in killing Trayvon. State must prove he was not. Anything he said or did that does not directly go towards answering that question, should not come in.
 
Last edited:
You are full of shit.

Trayvon Martin was suspended from school for having a bag of jewels (12 or so pieces) and a long handled flat screw driver. Young man casing houses. Period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top