• 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

Rj, you're getting your ass kicked nine ways to Sunday. You are incredibly wrong. You can say the same shit another 50 times and you will still be wrong.

Repeat after me - the burden of proof is on the prosecution.
 
Last edited:
KitchinDeac said:
You don't have to believe the self-defense claim. The state still has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of second degree murder.

Second degree murder in Florida has three elements that have to be met; it’s an unlawful killing that:

is characterized by “an act or series of acts that: (1) a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and (2) is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent, and (3) is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252, 255-56 (Fla. 2010).
Click to expand...
He doesn't even need the stand your ground law to get out of that. The state will have a hard time proving 2/3rds of those.
 
This is a tough case for the state because Zimmerman killed the other key witnes. I suspect he walks, despite my believe that Zimmerman went looking for a fight with TM.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
So lectro, what do you think about Zimmerman hiding his donated money and hiding a second passport that he applied for AFTER the crime?
Click to expand...

BeachBumDeac said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but according to the reports I've read this is completely false. Per CNN, he reported his passport stolen way back in 2004 and then applied for a new one shortly thereafter. I've not read anything about a passport applied for after the crime was committed (and even if there were such it would make a heck of a big difference whether it was applied for before or after he was charged - remember there was a substantial period of time where the legal authorities were content not to press charges, but the public was out for blood). According to what his attorneys said in court last week, Zimmerman gave them both passports and they neglected to turn over both. Contrary to public opinion, attorneys aren't in the business of lying to the court.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-bond-revoked/story?id=16476183#.T84QHrD2bIc


In the conversations, prosecutors said, Zimmerman and his wife also cryptically talk about his second passport in a safety deposit box they shared.

Although one of his passports was due to expire in May, prosecutors said today, Zimmerman applied for a second passport, informing the State Department that the original had been lost or stolen.
 
FuckmouthedRube said:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmermans-bond-revoked/story?id=16476183#.T84QHrD2bIc


In the conversations, prosecutors said, Zimmerman and his wife also cryptically talk about his second passport in a safety deposit box they shared.

Although one of his passports was due to expire in May, prosecutors said today, Zimmerman applied for a second passport, informing the State Department that the original had been lost or stolen.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he did that in 2004. Link.
 
Why withhold the second passport and speak of it cryptically if he had nothing to hide or wasn't a flight risk? Presumedly the State Department would notice that Zimmerman was attempting to renew a passport he'd already reported as stolen after they'd issued a new passport. Zimmerman is neither brilliant nor squeaky clean.
 
Questions for the lawyers:

If while out on bail, Zimmerman didn't show up for a hearing he was required to, would that be admissible?

What if he didn't show up for one day of the trial (without being excused) while on bond would that be admissible?
 
RJKarl said:
Questions for the lawyers:

If while out on bail, Zimmerman didn't show up for a hearing he was required to, would that be admissible?

What if he didn't show up for one day of the trial (without being excused) while on bond would that be admissible?
Click to expand...


Again....any "other bad act" unrelated to issues in the case are inadmissible.
 
ITK said:
"Bag of jewels"? WTF? Did he rob the Tower of London?
Click to expand...

Agreed. Lectro and RJ are like equal-parts radical on this issue from completely different sides of the absurdity spectrum.
 
how is absurd to think how one acts in the case should be included?

How is absurd to use Zimmerman's lack of credulity against his only defense being his credibility?
 
RJKarl said:
how is absurd to think how one acts in the case should be included?

How is absurd to use Zimmerman's lack of credulity against his only defense being his credibility?
Click to expand...

You can't turn in a guilty verdict on the basis that a guy isn't reliable... I'm sorry, man. It's just not the way the system works as is and shouldn't be the way that it works regardless! The State will have to prove that it wasn't in self-defense. That will be hard to do as the FL law, perhaps more so than @ssholes like Zimmerman are the problem with this case as it goes to trial.
 
No, if the person has admitted to killing someone and his only defense is "believe me", it's very logical to say if you can't believe him he is guilty. his entire case is based upon trusting his statement. If there is evidence that he ca't be trusted than his defense holds no water.

It's 180 degrees from proving beyond a reasonable doubt that someone did something.

To equate my position to Lectro's is ludicrous. I have used Zimmerman's actual documented actions from night that night and to this court. His is pure conjecture and totally irrational.
 
RJKarl said:
No, if the person has admitted to killing someone and his only defense is "believe me", it's very logical to say if you can't believe him he is guilty. his entire case is based upon trusting his statement. If there is evidence that he ca't be trusted than his defense holds no water.

It's 180 degrees from proving beyond a reasonable doubt that someone did something.

To equate my position to Lectro's is ludicrous. I have used Zimmerman's actual documented actions from night that night and to this court. His is pure conjecture and totally irrational.
Click to expand...

He's not on trial for killing someone. He's guilty of killing someone. It's "fact" that he killed someone. He's on trial for killing someone in self-defense. That's what you have to believe, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that he did NOT do. That's what's going to be really hard to prove in this case and why the FL law is such a load.

You and Lectro are being just as unwaveringly absurd in this conversation.
 
comparing my stance, which is not histrionic in any way, shape or form, to his is insulting. You can disagree with me, but comparing the way I have acted is more absurd than your current position.
 
RJKarl said:
comparing my stance, which is not histrionic in any way, shape or form, to his is insulting. You can disagree with me, but comparing the way I have acted is more absurd than your current position.
Click to expand...

What about my position is absurd?

I'll retract the comparison if you admit that your guilty verdict that you spoke of a few pages back was horribly misinformed.
 
I don't what you are talking about. My position is his lack of credibility throughout this event shows his self-defense position cannot be believed. He has proven he cannot be believed on many issues.

I'm using his own words and actions. Unlike Lectro who is projecting BS from false accusations.

There is no comparison between he and I.
 
RJKarl said:
I don't what you are talking about. My position is his lack of credibility throughout this event shows his self-defense position cannot be believed. He has proven he cannot be believed on many issues.
Click to expand...

But you've been told by many posters that you cannot prove that he did not act in self defense on the basis that he is unreliable because you cannot prove that he cannot be believed. You've been "proving that you're right" by saying "believe me" or "trust me" or "it's a fact."

How do you not see the inherent irony?

I compared you to Lectro because of your inflexibility despite pretty rational appeals from your fellow posters that you may not be as right as you think you are... Whether or not you're technically comparable to Lectro in the way you conduct yourself doesn't change the fact that you're being unflexible and, frankly, unreasonable in your assertion of "being right."
 
RJKarl said:
No, if the person has admitted to killing someone and his only defense is "believe me", it's very logical to say if you can't believe him he is guilty. his entire case is based upon trusting his statement. If there is evidence that he ca't be trusted than his defense holds no water.

It's 180 degrees from proving beyond a reasonable doubt that someone did something.

To equate my position to Lectro's is ludicrous. I have used Zimmerman's actual documented actions from night that night and to this court. His is pure conjecture and totally irrational.
Click to expand...

His only defense isn't "believe me." His defense is "I killed him in self defense." Period. Now the onus is on the prosecution to prove that he did not.

The bolded position is so dangerous it is absurd. I truly hope you never serve on a jury in which another person's life hangs in the balance. Whether or not he is trust worthy has absolutely ZERO bearing on whether or not he acted in self defense or not. He could be Bernie Madoff combined with Nixon and a little William Thompson thrown in and his propensity to lie does not impact, in any way shape or form, whether or not he acted in self defense or not.
 
What I said is I believe him to be guilty for these reasons. The reasons I state are not guessing or projecting. They are real. Thus not at all like Lectro.

I'm not saying he will be found guilty.

I have said I think the system should be changed to include all interactions between parties in a case. Again not irrational, not over the top not Lectro,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top