Zimmerman Trial

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Do you feel that in no case should a defendant be convicted because the other person isn't alive to tell their side?

No but there at least should be evidence to prove it. Right now, evidence shows he isn't guilty. Weather that's incorrect or the investigation was total crap is another.

[alturic]

No but there at least should be evidence to prove it. Right now, evidence shows he isn't guilty. Weather that's incorrect or the investigation was total crap is another.

After seeing all the evidence being against martin, I really wish there was a video somewhere because I'd be really curious to know how the evidence could be against martin but yet show zimmerman starting it.

[Lumocolor]

And now we all wait, with all our opinions and such.

[belfpala]

Isn't that what evidence/testimony is for? That is supposed to be "your side" of the story, as shitty as it might seem. If there evidence/testimony isn't on your side (the dead one) it's unfortunate but what do you expect?

So... like.... some guy breaks into my house and shoots me dead. He can just tell the cops something like he was an invited guest and shooting me was a complete accident when we were geeking out looking at his gun? I mean, seems like that's where you're going.

I know, absolutely different facts, but I'm just trying to see where your limits are?

[NYC17]

Man, can you imagine being an alternate this entire time? That would suck.

[alturic]

So... like.... some guy breaks into my house and shoots me dead. He can just tell the cops something like he was an invited guest and shooting me was a complete accident when we were geeking out looking at his gun? I mean, seems like that's where you're going.

I know absolutely different facts, but I'm just trying to see where your limits are?

Well... truthfully... what possible evidence would there be to refute his claims? I mean, it sounds like you would rather throw him in jail BECAUSE there's no evidence to prove he didn't do it instead?

Trust me, I'd never want to be on a jury where a persons life was in my hands, but in all reality, you have to go what's "there".

[Lumocolor]

Man, can you imagine being an alternate this entire time? That would suck.

Now they can start getting paid to appear on FOX, CNN and other shows telling the world what they'd vote.

[Vyxn]

Women think and act differently than men. Duh. There is a whole industry of books that talk about this basic fact of reality. It is undeniable, and to imply otherwise is foolishness. Women/females primarily judge and weigh matters using a more emotional and empathic set of metrics, while males primarily use logic and facts. This is not to say that women ENTIRELY disregard facts, or that man ENTIRELY have no emotions. It is simply that the two groups are different and think about things different ways.

The prosecution is clearly targeting their emotions, and are almost entirely ignoring facts, reason, logic, and even basic reality. They're fabricating things out of pure imagination, throwing them at the jury, and then PLEADING for them to find Zimmerman guilty not because they have things like "videos, transcripts, and evidence" - but because of "common sense". And they are banking on the fact that an all-female jury is going to be far more susceptible to this kind of bullcrap approach than if it was a bunch of men. If this was an all MALE jury, the defense wouldn't be doing this approach. They wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because they know an all-male jury would react to it entirely with contempt because it is such a naked appeal to their emotions coupled with such an incompetent lack of actual evidence.

But a woman jury? Such an approach might actually work with an all female jury because they are far more likely to base their thoughts, reasoning, and evaluations on emotional appeals. Don't believe it? The Menendez trial. Remember that? I do. A woman on the first failed jury fought to acquit the Menendez brothers because "they'd be growing up without a mother now..." The fact that these were full grown men who had shotgunned that mother to death themselves didn't matter to that woman. All that mattered was that in her head she was "sad" that these "boys" no longer had a mommy. That is how women evaluate and measure reality sometimes. That's just how it is. And the Prosecution in this case knows that and is COUNTING on it as their primary tactic. It's pretty much their only shot at any sort of conviction.

but when women have the duty to put emotion aside like in this instance i have enough faith in them that they will

[Tinykong]

well, now it's time to head over to FARK for all the memes, videos, shoops and other humor that can't be posted here.

Looking forward to returning to this thread and reading the back pedaling or boasting, depending on the verdict.

[alturic]

but when women have the duty to put emotion aside like in this instance i have enough faith in them that they will

Even if a prosecutor tells you "forget the evidence, use your heart"? I'm not saying all women would listen to him, but there's a chance one might. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't almost pray one listened to him so they could retry him and (depending on how trying someone a second time works) hopefully get a better handle on the evidence taking into account what didn't work the first time, etc.

[Kalyyn]

well, now it's time to head over to FARK for all the memes, videos, shoops and other humor that can't be posted here.

Looking forward to returning to this thread and reading the back pedaling or boasting, depending on the verdict.

Oh, I doubt we'll see any backpedaling on this one. Just gloating and rage.

[belfpala]

Well... truthfully... what possible evidence would there be to refute his claims? I mean, it sounds like you would rather throw him in jail BECAUSE there's no evidence to backup his claims instead?

Trust me, I'd never want to be on a jury where a persons life was in my hands, but in all reality, you have to go what's "there".

I don't know, that's going to be case specific. In my example, what if there was evidence the door had been kicked in? Defendant: "oh yeah, we were goofing around on the porch and I fell into the door and it broke" and so on.

There does not need to be another side to the story. All the surrounding evidence may, or may not, be enough.

(aside: I don't think enough in Zimmerman's case, I'm just testing how far you want to go with your line of thought).

[Aeluron Lightsong]

So... like.... some guy breaks into my house and shoots me dead. He can just tell the cops something like he was an invited guest and shooting me was a complete accident when we were geeking out looking at his gun? I mean, seems like that's where you're going.

I know, absolutely different facts, but I'm just trying to see where your limits are?

You seem to want to convict the guy because there is no evidence to say he is innocent. However there isn't any evidence that he is guilty either. They have to go by what they have. Or would you like to be convicted based on nothing?

I mean by your example, there would be some type of evidence of break in and not you guys *geeking around* with a gun.

[Deleted]

You seem to want to convict the guy because there is no evidence to say he is innocent. However there isn't any evidence that he is guilty either. They have to go by what they have. Or would you like to be convicted based on nothing?

I mean by your example, there would be some type of evidence of break in and not you guys *geeking around* with a gun.

Nah, GUILTY TILL PROVEN INNOCENT I SAY!

[The Riddler]

but when women have the duty to put emotion aside like in this instance i have enough faith in them that they will

That is always the hope. However, sad history proves that sometimes they do not. In any case, it is telling a specific demographic of people to stop thinking the way that they normally do, and think the way MEN do. Some have the capacity to do this. Others do not. Only time will tell what happens in this particular case.

However, one thing is undeniably clear... In the trial of George Zimmerman, the prosecution's case was entirely void of facts, logic, and evidence - and their argument/appeal to the jury was entirely based on emotional manipulation. The defense's case was based on facts, logic, and evidence, and had very little in the way of emotional appeals - and their closing argument was almost entirely fact-driven and logic based.

If GZ is found guilty even of manslaughter, it will be because the jury decided the issue based on their emotions. If they find him not guilty, it will be because they made their decision based on the law and the facts. That's really the only way to look at it.

[belfpala]

You seem to want to convict the guy because there is no evidence to say he is innocent...

I don't. See my post just above yours.

[alturic]

I don't know, that's going to be case specific. In my example, what if there was evidence the door had been kicked in? Defendant: "oh yeah, we were goofing around on the porch and I fell into the door and it broke" and so on.

There does not need to be another side to the story. All the surrounding evidence may, or may not, be enough.

(aside: I don't think enough in Zimmerman's case, I'm just testing how far you want to go with your line of thought).

Realistically I'd hope real detectives can distinguish a door being kicked in and someone falling through a door, etc.

If there was no evidence suggesting he murdered you, and almost all evidence backing up his claims (more than refuting his claims), using an extremely simple example, it would be almost impossible to give a "what i'd vote" answer, but it definitely doesn't sound like he murdered you.

- - - Updated - - -

That is always the hope. However, sad history proves that sometimes they do not. In any case, it is telling a specific demographic of people to stop thinking the way that they normally do, and think the way MEN do. Some have the capacity to do this. Others do not. Only time will tell what happens in this particular case.

However, one thing is undeniably clear... In the trial of George Zimmerman, the prosecution's case was entirely void of facts, logic, and evidence - and their argument/appeal to the jury was entirely based on emotional manipulation. The defense's case was based on facts, logic, and evidence, and had very little in the way of emotional appeals - and their closing argument was almost entirely fact-driven and logic based.

If GZ is found guilty even of manslaughter, it will be because the jury decided the issue based on their emotions. If they find him not guilty, it will be because they made their decision based on the law and the facts. That's really the only way to look at it.

I don't know what others felt, and I know it was giving the "reasonings for being able to do so" but it sounded so odd to hear a judge recite "killing someone is legal and lawful if..."

[Ateista]

if zimmerman walks scott free, i'll be very surprised, because i honestly believe the jury's verdict will be manslaughter.

at any rate, i hope ya'll are ready for the riots.

[belfpala]

I don't know what others felt, and I know it was giving the "reasonings for being able to do so" but it sounded so odd to hear a judge recite "killing someone is legal and lawful if..."

Florida has some of the most generous self defense laws out there.

[alturic]

if zimmerman walks scott free, i'll be very surprised, because i honestly believe the jury's verdict will be manslaughter.

at any rate, i hope ya'll are ready for the riots.

I also feel they'll convict him of SOMETHING and it's truly a disgusting piss in the face of the legal system if they do. I'm am ready for riots thought, and then potential shootings during the riots and then no reporting of them because a white hispanic didn't shoot the person.

- - - Updated - - -

Florida has some of the most generous self defense laws out there.

Correct, but I also know I have no duty to retreat in my home, and apparently "recent legislation extends Castle Doctrine to occupied vehicles and the work place. Stand-your-ground rights extended to any place the defender has a right to be with specified exceptions; notably, the attacker must brandish a lethal weapon".

So is this saying if I'm in my home, vehicle, work-place or anywhere I have the "right" to be I can defend myself with deadly force as long as they brandish a lethal weapon? So if I'm in a bar and someone pulls a knife or gun I can kill them or are they using the word "right" as in personal property type "right"?