Zimmerman verdict - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

t walgamuth · #31 07-14-2013, 01:10 PM

I don't buy that Zimmerman thought his life was in jeapordy. I will buy that he might have thought he was being whupped and did not want to lose.

P.C. · #32 07-14-2013, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I am not asking who will prevail.

I saw a clip of the Z attorney sitting on top of a foam dummy shaking it so its head hit the floor. The dummy Must have weighed three pounds.

I'd like to see a demonstration of an average 5' 11 seventeen year old weighing 158# shaking a mature man weighing (what do you guess?) 230#. If I had been the prosecutor I would have been on that like ugly on ape.

I am still not buying that the kid could have killed Z that way....not even if their physical sizes had been reversed.

Could he have lifted Zimmerman's upper body (not just his head) and pushed it back with enough force to cause a life-threatening injury? I guess it's not impossible, but one would have to assume that Zimmerman was offering zero resistance to those efforts. If Zimmerman was physically resisting the movement.? No way.

elchivito · #33 07-14-2013, 01:27 PM

I want to know what brand those two bandaids on Z's head were. If they saved his life Ima get me some.

P.C. · #34 07-14-2013, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spdrun

I like the "not proven" verdict in Scottish law. It's basically a "not guilty" verdict with the same protections, but it says "this person might be guilty, but the prosecution didn't prove its case."

As far as a civil suit, I heard that it was difficult to impossible to sue for wrongful death in Fla. if the defendant was acquitted of criminal responsibility for the death. Maybe a suit on a Federal level would work, who knows?

A few questions come to mind regarding the viability of a civil suit in the wake of criminal proceedings. Are the rules of evidence materially different in civil court as compared to those in effect at the criminal trial? Would some evidence that would be disallowed in a criminal trial be allowed in a civil proceedings, and vice-versa? I have a very faint recollection that such a question was material in the OJ trial.

MTUpower · #35 07-14-2013, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

This is the first I have heard why they could not identify it.

... and you are not the only one who missed much of the important facts of the case. If you are predisposed to favor the black minority in this case and you missed much of the facts of the case then you are more likely to shout, yell, burn cars, smash windows and otherwise riot and cause needless destruction and civil unrest- all because you are ignorant of the facts of the case.

cmac2012 · #36 07-14-2013, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JB3

My view is that if he was aquitted by a jury of his peers, then I will stand by their decision in judging him not guilty, no matter what my opinion prior was.

Cases like this are always a media circus, and its difficult for third party spectators like ourselves to really be sure what's hype, what's fact, and what's media milking of guranteed story.

In terms of him not being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I too will respect their decision. However, I do not accord GZ 'pure as the driven snow' status. His paranoia and vindictiveness moved him to see a problem where there wasn't one. He was the author of this drama, even if TM did possibly end up bringing part of it on himself.

GZ was a wanna-be tough guy, I always figured that he had been no much for a skinny young athlete. His mma trainer affirmed what I had thought about him, that is, a wimp and a wuss.

This event will dog him all his days. He'll be a bit like Rodney King, that is, every misstep of his in future will be widely broadcast.

P.C. · #37 07-14-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

... and you are not the only one who missed much of the important facts of the case. If you are predisposed to favor the black minority in this case and you missed much of the facts of the case then you are more likely to shout, yell, burn cars, smash windows and otherwise riot and cause needless destruction and civil unrest- all because you are ignorant of the facts of the case.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, do you need an unanimous verdict from a Florida jury in a civil trial?

spdrun · #38 07-14-2013, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by P.C.

A few questions come to mind regarding the viability of a civil suit in the wake of criminal proceedings. Are the rules of evidence materially different in civil court as compared to those in effect at the criminal trial? Would some evidence that would be disallowed in a criminal trial be allowed in a civil proceedings, and vice-versa? I have a very faint recollection that such a question was material in the OJ trial.

Yes, civil suits require a "preponderance of proof" rather than lack of a reasonable doubt ... but, I think that Florida law actually severely restricts the initiation of wrongful-death suits if the accused was acquitted of the death in criminal court. (so it would never get to the civil trial stage)

cmac2012 · #39 07-14-2013, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

... and you are not the only one who missed much of the important facts of the case. If you are predisposed to favor the black minority in this case and you missed much of the facts of the case then you are more likely to shout, yell, burn cars, smash windows and otherwise riot and cause needless destruction and civil unrest- all because you are ignorant of the facts of the case.

Oh please. THE FACTS were difficult to discern. Most of the important facts reside(d) in the heads of GZ and TM.

MTUpower · #40 07-14-2013, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I don't buy that Zimmerman thought his life was in jeapordy. I will buy that he might have thought he was being whupped and did not want to lose.

What evidence do you have which supports this conclusion?

Witnesses (called by the prosecution no less) testified that TM was on straddling on top (called a full mount- the most effective position to inflict maximum damage in the shortest amount of time in a fight) of GZ pummeling his head on a concrete. Did you miss that testimony as well as the impartial expert on voice recognition?

MTUpower · #41 07-14-2013, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Oh please. THE FACTS were difficult to discern. Most of the important facts reside(d) in the heads of GZ and TM.

TW said he did not know about the impartial voice recognition expert testimony. That is a fact. The fact is that this expert could not identify the voice. Do you dispute those facts?

cmac2012 · #42 07-14-2013, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

TW said he did not know about the impartial voice recognition expert testimony. That is a fact. The fact is that this expert could not identify the voice. Do you dispute those facts?

Oh boy, an expert saying he had no relevant info is a fact but it is not a fact that tells us too much.

GZ is a wimp and a wuss. He was getting his ass kicked by a skinny kid and thought his life was in danger. He was a wimp when he was in better shape (according to his MMA trainer) and now he's a pudge and a wimp. F the puke, he turns my stomach.

Air&Road · #43 07-14-2013, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

What evidence do you have which supports this conclusion?

Witnesses (called by the prosecution no less) testified that TM was on straddling on top (called a full mount- the most effective position to inflict maximum damage in the shortest amount of time in a fight) of GZ pummeling his head on a concrete. Did you miss that testimony as well as the impartial expert on voice recognition?

Not only that, but the forensic expert with 40 years of experience pointed out that the powder burns were consistent with martins shirt being a few inches away form skin as it would be if he were leaning over as opposed to him being underneath with his shirt being right on the skin.

Of course this is simply another FACT that those not following the case or blinded by their own political correctness would not be aware of. One of numerous such facts that came out in the trial.

Fortunately the jury was analytic, honest and not bullied by the threat of civil disturbance.

Air&Road · #44 07-14-2013, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Oh boy, an expert saying he had no relevant info is a fact but it is not a fact that tells us too much.

GZ is a wimp and a wuss. He was getting his ass kicked by a skinny kid and thought his life was in danger. He was a wimp when he was in better shape (according to his MMA trainer) and now he's a pudge and a wimp. F the puke, he turns my stomach.

So he deserved to go to jail for most of the rest of us life because he is a wimp?

cmac2012 · #45 07-14-2013, 03:06 PM

I will accept the very real possibility that TM was on GZ's chest and giving him an ass-whooping. GZ was a wanna-be toughguy whereas TM was an athlete and had likely cut his teeth on more intense scuffling with his buddies than had GZ. Ever notice how with puppies and kittens, play is pretend fighting? We too are mammals, and the amount of rigorous play of this sort that children get has a lot to do with their physical capabilities as an adult.

This absolutely does not change the fact that GZ clearly initiated the confrontation and did so because of his irrational and out of control fear. Crime is real and criminals do exist. But the odds of picking such a person out from a few details seen in short order on the street are slim.