• 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

This is what I think happened....Zimmie notices a kid walking thru his neighborhood and decides to follow him just to get a closer look. (he is in a car and has a gun so he is feeling a tad superior) Trayvon notices the car following him and begins to get upset.( teenager attitude that we all had at one time) Martin turns around and calls out Zimmerman....I/e " what the fu% do you want!?" Zimmie stops the car and gets out to exchange unpleasantries. Words turn to a physical assault and in result Zimmerman pulls the gun and fires. This is what we call murder!!!!
 
How about to impeach his credibility?

"Mr. Zimmerman, this case is about you telling the truth. Do you always tell the truth to the authorities?"

Objection. Your honor this issue in this case is whether or not Mr. Zimmerman was telling the truth to the police on that night. If the prosecution has any evidence that he was not doing so on THAT night they should feel free to present it. Any other instance in which Mr. Zimmerman may have misled authorities is outside of the scope of the issue at hand and would only prejudice the jury.
 
Your honor, it goes to the heart of his defense which is being credible.

Mr. Zimmerman you didn't follow instruction from the 911 operator. You told her you'd listen. You didn't are there any other times in this case where you didn't follow the instructions of the authorities or misled them?
 
Objection sustained.

Also, I don't think Zimmerman has to testify. The defense has the 911 tape with somebody shouting for help. They will call somebody he'll say that the voice was Zimmerman. They can get his previous statements to the police about acting in self-defense in through cross-examination of the investigating officers. They can get evidence of his injuries to his body in by calling his doctor. They have evidence that the shot was at very close range, consistent with George's account. That is more than enough to argue self-defense.
 
Obama's policy about counting civilian casualties with a drone strike is that any adult male in the area of an attack is considered a terrorist for civilian casualty purposes even when they know nothing about the man. Reminds me of this case. Being an adult male is enough to put a gun on somebody if not kill them according to "American Values". Also reminds me of the Wikileaks "shouldn't have brought kids" incident. America's actions as of late are anti individual and dehumanizing to the point deaths are just numbers and paperwork. This is our true moral collapse, not birth control and single family households.

Obama illegally plays God with drone strokes just like Zimmerman played God as an illegally armed neighborhood watchman. Both kill innocent children and violate laws. They both took morality into their own hands to make sure things were done right instead of risking it with legal authorities, and all witnesses to say they did the wrong thing are dead or unreliable. Game, set, precedent.
 
Last edited:
RJ: stop arguing this point. It's not even a close call. If they had this selection on the bar exam, it would be the laughable multiple choice selection you don't even consider. No judge ever lets it in. And if it did come in, it's a guaranteed reversal on appeal.
 
Problem is that Zimmerman applied for the second passport two weeks after shooting Travon. Wonder why he would need a passport then? Hard to argue he's not a flight risk given the timing.

oh damn. sorry, none of the articles i had read said anything about the timing. that is definitely bad then. forget my comment.
 
Are you all saying that if Zimmerman took the stand and put on E of his good character/trustworthiness or otherwise "opened the door," that the State could not impeach him by asking about his lies to the court?
 
Member of the Bar, are you saying if Zimmerman takes the stand his character/veracity can be impeached by the prosecution?

According to others on this thread that's not allowed.
 
Are you all saying that if Zimmerman took the stand and put on E of his good character/trustworthiness or otherwise "opened the door," that the State could not impeach him by asking about his lies to the court?

If the defense is dumb enough to elicit testimony from Zimmerman that he never lies and always tells the truth, then, yes, there is potential that the door is opened for that kind of cross examination.

That's not happening, though.
 
If the defense is dumb enough to elicit testimony from Zimmerman that he never lies and always tells the truth, then, yes, there is potential that the door is opened for that kind of cross examination.

That's not happening, though.

Would it not be enough to elicit testimony that he was telling the truth about what happened that night?
 
Are you all saying that if Zimmerman took the stand and put on E of his good character/trustworthiness or otherwise "opened the door," that the State could not impeach him by asking about his lies to the court?

Assuming Florida's evidence rules generally track the FRE...Zimmerman can't put on evidence of his character or reputation for truthfulness unless his character or reputation for truthfulness is first attacked (all of which presupposes that he testifies at all), so opening the door isn't the issue. If he testifies, and subject to 403 probative/prejudicial exclusion, the state can inquire as to Zimmerman's reputation, but will not be able to admit extrinsic evidence of specific examples of Zimmerman not be truthful. They could ask him "you had a paypal account that you didn't disclose at your bail hearing, right?" But the are stuck with his answer and are not going to be able to admit evidence of the paypal account.
 
Back
Top