• 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:
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,
Click to expand...

Except that IS an irrational stance to take. For a lot of reasons (not the least of which is that stance eliminates attorney client privilege, but I am assuming you would make an exception there).
 
bojanglefunk said:
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.
Click to expand...

It can be proved that he did kill the person. If his only defense is "believe me" sand his action in this case show he can't be believed how is that dangerous?
 
bojanglefunk said:
Except that IS an irrational stance to take. For a lot of reasons (not the least of which is that stance eliminates attorney client privilege, but I am assuming you would make an exception there).
Click to expand...

I specifically exclude attorney client communications.

Had Zimmeramn not lied to the Judge about both his passport and his financial wherewithal saying his story should be believed would have more logic. But when someone is so brazen with his lies to the Judge, how do you believe anything he says?

Again, I'm not saying in every case or in any other case. I am talking about one person's actions in one case.
 
RJKarl said:
It can be proved that he did kill the person. If his only defense is "believe me" sand his action in this case show he can't be believed how is that dangerous?
Click to expand...

I have no idea how to reply to this other than to quote myself again. His defense IS NOT "believe me." His defense is "I killed in self defense." Period. End of discussion. NOW the prosecution has to prove (the burden is on them, not Zimmerman), that he didn't. Beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how the system works.

Trust me, in 99% of cases you will agree with this. Without this all of the racial injustice and poor people injustice and whatever else injustice you holler about all the time would be a lot worse. However, when it is a white man on trial for killing a black person you become all indignant that EVERYTHING anyone says related to a case has to come in ALL the time.

Sheesh I even think Zimmerman was in the wrong here and probably murdered the kid, but lets not eviscerate the efficacy of a competent judicial system to hang a man.
 
RJKarl said:
I specifically exclude attorney client communications.

Had Zimmeramn not lied to the Judge about both his passport and his financial wherewithal saying his story should be believed would have more logic. But when someone is so brazen with his lies to the Judge, how do you believe anything he says?

Again, I'm not saying in every case or in any other case. I am talking about one person's actions in one case.
Click to expand...

RJ, please explain to me how lying to a judge about a passport and financial situation makes it more or less likely that someone acted in self defense. Not whether the person should be believed, but whether the action that he acted in self defense or the action that he did not act in self defense is more or less likely.
 
bojanglefunk said:
I have no idea how to reply to this other than to quote myself again. His defense IS NOT "believe me." His defense is "I killed in self defense." Period. End of discussion. NOW the prosecution has to prove (the burden is on them, not Zimmerman), that he didn't. Beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how the system works.
Click to expand...

RJ, please explain to me how lying to a judge about a passport and financial situation makes it more or less likely that someone acted in self defense. Not whether the person should be believed, but whether the action that he acted in self defense or the action that he did not act in self defense is more or less likely.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
bojanglefunk said:
RJ, please explain to me how lying to a judge about a passport and financial situation makes it more or less likely that someone acted in self defense. Not whether the person should be believed, but whether the action that he acted in self defense or the action that he did not act in self defense is more or less likely.
Click to expand...

If the only "evidence" of self-defense is one's word. If that person lies to the same judge about issues regarding his freedom, his credibility any issue in front of that judge has to be questioned.
 
Lying to the judge is never good, RJ. You can take some comfort in the fact that he didn't help his chances of beating the wrap.
 
bojanglefunk said:
I have no idea how to reply to this other than to quote myself again. His defense IS NOT "believe me." His defense is "I killed in self defense." Period. End of discussion. NOW the prosecution has to prove (the burden is on them, not Zimmerman), that he didn't. Beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how the system works.

Trust me, in 99% of cases you will agree with this. Without this all of the racial injustice and poor people injustice and whatever else injustice you holler about all the time would be a lot worse. However, when it is a white man on trial for killing a black person you become all indignant that EVERYTHING anyone says related to a case has to come in ALL the time.

Sheesh I even think Zimmerman was in the wrong here and probably murdered the kid, but lets not eviscerate the efficacy of a competent judicial system to hang a man.
Click to expand...

I may not agree with what you are saying, but I have been totally respectful to you. Saying this is highly offensive and unfairly insulting:
"you holler about all the time would be a lot worse. However, when it is a white man on trial for killing a black person you become all indignant that EVERYTHING anyone says related to a case has to come in ALL the time."

If you knew me at all, you'd never say this. you need to apologize.
 
RJKarl said:
I specifically exclude attorney client communications.

Had Zimmeramn not lied to the Judge about both his passport and his financial wherewithal saying his story should be believed would have more logic. But when someone is so brazen with his lies to the Judge, how do you believe anything he says?

Again, I'm not saying in every case or in any other case. I am talking about one person's actions in one case.
Click to expand...

First of all, Zimmerman did not make any statements about his financial wherewithal under oath at the bond hearing. His wife did. Maybe a minor distinction to you but it's a huge distinction legally.

Second, you keep staying that his only defense is self-defense which is totally based on his credibility. That is simply not true. Look at elements of second-degree murder in Florida that I posted several pages back. The state cannot prove those elements based on the evidence, or more specifically lack of evidence, that I've seen. The state has to prove his state of mind. This is an element of the offense and is separate and apart from this defense self-defense. Intent can be inferred from his actions, but there's nobody that witnessed the fatal struggle and shooting to my knowledge. The forensic evidence, the scratches,bruises and cuts on Zimmerman, along with the very close range of the gunshot, generally support Zimmerman's account that shot was fired during the course of a struggle with Martin.

Look, I recognize that it is terribly unfair that the one witness who could offer insight into all these other things, other than Zimmerman, is dead because Zimmerman shot him. That does not mean, however, that we throw out the elements of the offense and the rules of evidence during Zimmerman's prosecution.
 
Last edited:
If ever this picture was appropriate:

monty-python-black-knight.jpg


Absent defendants putting on some evidence of Zimmie's reputation as a truthful guy, the question about whether he lied to the court ain't coming in.
 
And I understand that. All I'm saying is that should be the rule.

Not what someone says ten years ago or on Facebook or says to five hundred people at a bar, only if he lies to people (other than his lawyer) directly involved in the case in which he's involved and those lies can be proven.
 
RJKarl said:
And I understand that. All I'm saying is that should be the rule.

Not what someone says ten years ago or on Facebook or says to five hundred people at a bar, only if he lies to people (other than his lawyer) directly involved in the case in which he's involved and those lies can be proven.
Click to expand...

But the problem is that by doing that you are introducing evidence that has absolutely not relevance as to whether the action that is alleged occurred or not.

Lets say I am accused of killing someone, but I have not done that. Now lets say at the same time I am, in fact, committing insurance fraud and as such I hide assets and lie to the police about money that has been moved around. Lets say that a judge asks me about a monetary issue in a hearing related to the murder I am accused of. I lie. I lie, however, NOT because I murdered someone (I didn't), but instead to cover up the insurance fraud I was committing. Are you saying the fact that I lied about my money should be used to help prove that I murdered someone? I think that this example is a clearer way to look at the unintended consequences your new evidentiary regime would have. In that instance the fact that I lied about my monetary situation has absolutely zero relevance to determining whether or not I took actions that ended another persons life. Unless it is related to motive, intent, preparation, plan, etc. of the murder (which in this case it isn't) the evidence does not factor into whether it is more or less likely I killed the person (i.e. relevance) and is highly prejudicial against me as jurors might punish me for simply being dishonest in another instance.

It seems less clear to you in the Zimmerman case because the entire trial is about whether or not he killed in self defense, not about whether or not he killed.
 
Last edited:
bojanglefunk said:
I have no idea how to reply to this other than to quote myself again. His defense IS NOT "believe me." His defense is "I killed in self defense." Period. End of discussion. NOW the prosecution has to prove (the burden is on them, not Zimmerman), that he didn't. Beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how the system works.

Trust me, in 99% of cases you will agree with this. Without this all of the racial injustice and poor people injustice and whatever else injustice you holler about all the time would be a lot worse. However, when it is a white man on trial for killing a black person you become all indignant that EVERYTHING anyone says related to a case has to come in ALL the time.

Sheesh I even think Zimmerman was in the wrong here and probably murdered the kid, but lets not eviscerate the efficacy of a competent judicial system to hang a man.
Click to expand...


Bojangle killed it with this post.

Putting the "white man" stuff aside that you find insulting, RJ...Bojangle is 100% right here. For someone who normally posts about the wrongly convicted, and the injustice of the system....you are advocating for a completely biased system against the accused. The number of wrongly convicted people would grow exponentially if they changed the rules of evidence to what you're advocating for. Let me give you a simple example...

In almost every jurisdiction that I know about, an individual has to fill out a financial affidavit that is supplied to the court when applying for the public defender. there has to be a showing of indigency before a pd is appointed by the judge. Conservatively, I would say 1 out of 3 people who fill out this affidavit lie about their finances. Conservatively. Especially the drug dealers. No one ever really cares. No one looks into it. It is perjury, however. If the laws were changed to how you want it, I can guarantee you there would be some prosecutor offices who would look much deeper into these affidavits. Imagine if they can show they lied under oath to the court about their finances! What else could they be lying about? Wink wink.

This is just a small example to show how dangerous your ideas are.

Then, on top of that, you keep saying "how can you believe anything Zimmerman says?" Again, an unbelievably dangerous notion. To require Zimmerman to prove any of his actions to a jury goes against the very foundation of our system. As I said in an earlier post, I am very thankful we live in a country where the government has to prove guilt. I would think you would agree.

You are entitled to your opinions, of course. I, obviously, vehemently disagree. This is not a personal attack, but I agree with bojangle. I truly hope you never serve on a criminal jury based upon your opinions of the system.
 
Last edited:
bojanglefunk said:
But the problem is that by doing that you are introducing evidence that has absolutely not relevance as to whether the action that is alleged occurred or not.
Click to expand...

You can talk about this. Why can't you address this?

"I may not agree with what you are saying, but I have been totally respectful to you. Saying this is highly offensive and unfairly insulting:
"you holler about all the time would be a lot worse. However, when it is a white man on trial for killing a black person you become all indignant that EVERYTHING anyone says related to a case has to come in ALL the time."

If you knew me at all, you'd never say this. you need to apologize."
 
"Then, on top of that, you keep saying "how can you believe anything Zimmerman says?" Again, an unbelievably dangerous notion. To require Zimmerman to prove any of his actions to a jury goes against the very foundation of our system. As I said in an earlier post, I am very thankful we live in a country where the government has to prove guilt. I would think you would agree."

I completely agree with this. Of course the burden of proof is on the side of the government.

However when you admit to a crime and are a defense where the only evidence is your word, if your word can proven unreliable then the defense falls apart.

"You are entitled to your opinions, of course. I, obviously, vehemently disagree. This is not a personal attack, but I agree with bojangle. I truly hope you never serve on a criminal jury based upon your opinions of the system."

We basically have one issue of disagreement and it is about a tiny, tiny minority of cases where an affirmative defense is possible and used. It's not about all cases and it's dishonest that it is.

There is one group of cases where I couldn't be on the jury- capital cases. I could never in good conscience vote for the death penalty.
 
RJKarl said:
You can talk about this. Why can't you address this?

"I may not agree with what you are saying, but I have been totally respectful to you. Saying this is highly offensive and unfairly insulting:
"you holler about all the time would be a lot worse. However, when it is a white man on trial for killing a black person you become all indignant that EVERYTHING anyone says related to a case has to come in ALL the time."

If you knew me at all, you'd never say this. you need to apologize."
Click to expand...

Okay I will deal this
Red%2BHerring.gif


I apologize for whatever it is that insulted you, I am assuming the part about the racial makeup in this case. Perhaps I am simply projecting the views of others on this issue, which is probably the case, but I have gotten the impression that a lot of people view this as a white getting away with murder because he is white and that the rules need to be bent to convict him. I projected this on you in no small part because of posts I seem to remember you making that made Zimmerman out to be a racist asshole that needed to burn (I tend to think he profiled, for the record). Combined with your history on injustice (a history I agree with, hence my stance on this issue) I made a leap in logic. Apologies.
 
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...

Get over yourself you whiny drama queen.

If you're going to continue pointing out that Zimmerman's dishonesty at the bond hearing should affect acceptance of his self defense claim, perhaps we should all be able to consider your decade plus of histrionics and hysterics any time you try to proclaim you are the one arguing in a rational manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top