Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Let Me Explain Why I Don’t Think The Zimmerman Case Is Merely A Distraction
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.rightwingnews.com/column ... -case-is-merely-a-distraction/
Published: Jul 20, 2013
Author: Jaz McKay
Post Date: 2013-07-20 23:58:43 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 58888
Comments: 95
Those of you who think the Zimmerman case is a distraction are wrong. Dead wrong. It’s all a part of the plan, the agenda and has been so from day one. Obama knew, Holder knew, they all know there was no case. They knew that there wouldn’t be a conviction. That was all a part of their plan. Obama’s DoJ sends a bunch of rabble rousers to Sanford, Florida in March of 2012 to stoke the flames of a small local story in an attempt to stir up the useful idiots of the black community to take to the streets to demand that Zimmerman be arrested and tried for murder. There were no grounds for an arrest let alone a trial. The DoJ staged march’s, rally’s and townhall meetings to further the Obama agenda that America is a racist nation that would not even seek justice for the shooting of a poor little black baby boy by an evil, gun toting white man. (Who happened to be half Hispanic.) Then the pressure is on the DA and local police. When the Chief of police refuses to arrest Zimmerman what happens? The operatives of the Obama DoJ pressure the city to fire Bill Lee. They fold and they do just that. With a new police chief in place, and an Obama selected State Attorney to call for a special prosecutor the case then moves forward. All along they knew they had no case. They knew they would loose. They knew that Zimmerman would walk but that was OK. That didn’t matter; in fact that was what they wanted. Because if Zimmerman had been convicted how could they then tell the idiots that justice was not equal for a young black child? How could they advance the agenda of a racist America if it appeared that justice had prevailed and the evil white – Hispanic killer was going to jail? So when Zimmerman is acquitted this works perfectly into the hands of Obama and his Alinsky style followers. This way he can decry to the masses as he did Friday afternoon that the system just didn’t work. That it’s now legal to shoot young black babies in the streets of America. Oh I know he said “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works.” But what was he really saying? “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works. But maybe we need to change that system.” That is what he meant, and that’s what the useful idiots heard. Believe you me. So Friday Obama takes to the stage to further fan the flames of hatred and division in America by declaring that this was a case based solely on racial profiling and a racist system of justice. Not to mention the “stand your ground law” and CCW permit holders. I’m telling you that this is a very important story! Not a red herring to distract you away from the IRS, NSA or Benghazi scandals. No this case is equally as important as all of those. In fact this is just the latest in a LONG list of scandals involving Obama. The most dangerous man in America.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-16) not displayed.
.
.
.
#17. To: A K A Stone (#8)
This goes a bit far claiming a near complete lack of evidence. There was overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman committed all the elements of manslaughter. The only question in the case concerned the evidence to support or disprove the Zimmerman claim of self defense. At the time charges were brought, the self defense claim depended almost wholly on the assertions of Zimmerman. This is utterly false. There was iron clad proof of the elements of voluntary manslaughter. The only issue was the Zimmerman claim of self defense. I doubt Governor Scott appointed her because of any purported defense of blacks. Governor Scott desired to ensure there was no possible appearance of state failure to vigorously prosecute the case. For the purpose of saving himself from a potential political headache, Corey was a good choice. I'm not a big fan of the prosecution in this case but it did well serve the political goals of Governor Scott.
So, why do they care? Today, young women are more educated than young men. They also tend to have better careers than men. This is not only true in America, but also in Europe and Japan as well. Young women aren't looking for husbands and providers. They are looking for boy toys -- the dumber the better. If they can f*ck like an animal, they are golden. It's the way the world works today. Nothing about the Zimmerman / Martin circus will repel young women away from the Democrat Party.
The prosecution should be shot. They knew it was self defense. They had the evidence of self defense. They lied. They withheld evidence. The jury concurs.
I don't seen any reason to believe that one party any sort of monopoly on corruption. They both seem quite proficient at it. It may be what they do best. As for Shellie Zimmerman, no reason is given to claim prosecutorial corruption by continuing her perjury case. Case facts are neither related nor disputed. Orlando Sentinel, February 19, 2013, excerpt: In truth, they were awash in cash, according to the couple's financial records. During the previous two weeks, more than $130,000 had come flooding in from online donors contributing to George Zimmerman's defense. Recorded phone calls at the Seminole County Jail between Zimmerman, who was locked up at the time, and his wife suggest he was directing her about where to deposit the money, and she was following his orders. Shellie Zimmerman Has No Defense to the Perjury Charge Kelly Simms, the attorney who represents Shellie Zimmerman, predicted yesterday that a jury will find her not guilty of perjury. He said, “It’s all about specificity,” he said. I agree that the issue is all about specificity, but I do not agree with his prediction. Keeping in mind that a witness is only required to truthfully answer the question asked and that any ambiguities or uncertainties in the question must be resolved in favor of the witness answering it, let us take a look at the exchange. Here is Mark O’Mara questioning Shellie Zimmerman after she was duly sworn: Are you working presently? S. ZIMMERMAN: No, I’m not. O’MARA: And how do you — what do you do with your time? S. ZIMMERMAN: I am a nursing student. O’MARA: OK. Is that a full-time endeavor presently? S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, it is. O’MARA: OK. How long have you been doing that? S. ZIMMERMAN: Well, I am four weeks away from my graduation. O’MARA: OK. So you’re not earning any income presently? S. ZIMMERMAN: Correct. O’MARA: Do you own the home that you live or lived in? S. ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. O’MARA: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond? S. ZIMMERMAN: None that I know of. O’MARA: I discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not? S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, you have. O’MARA: Are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs? S. ZIMMERMAN: Not that I’m aware of. Shellie Zimmerman transferred money from Paypal into the defendant’s account and then from his account into her account where she parked it for awhile until he bonded out and moved it back into his account. I believe she had $67 K in her account when she answered O’Mara’s question. She cannot credibly deny that she knew she had $67 K in her account because she deposited it into her account. I presume Sims will argue that she regarded that money to be the defendant’s property even though it was in her account. Therefore, she believed that she did not have any assets when she answered the question. Good luck with that, Mr. Simms.
I believe she said she had no income. There is a difference between income and money that you have.
To what evidence do you refer, other than the claims of George Zimmerman? The evidence must show that Zimmerman, at the time of the shooting, held a reasonable belief that he faced imminent death or serious bodily injury. It concerns Zimmerman's state of mind, whether he held a belief and whether that belief was reasonable. None of the eyewitnesses saw the moment of shooting. The testimony of Dr. Vincent DiMaio did not yet exist at the time of charging.
His claims matched all of the evidence. He was guilty until proven innocent. The prosecution is guilty of proprietorial misconduct. They should be tried and hung.
The prosecutions witnesses made the defenses case. They had no evidence zero nada. Can you name one piece of evidence that contradicted Zimmerman's claims? Child Abuse? What the fuck was that all about?
67K appears to be an asset. She was giving sworn statements to support a motion to declare George Zimmerman indigent, unable to pay bail. Here is the relevant part of the transcript again, with the followup question and answer added. The family was having discussion to scrape up anything they possibly could. Possibly they could have scraped up $67K of donated funds that Shellie was playing a shell game with. Her story may have a problem in court. S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, you have. O'MARA: Are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs? S. ZIMMERMAN: Not that I'm aware of. O'MARA: I understand that you do have other family members present with you and I'll ask them questions of them but have you had discussions with them of at least trying to pool together some funds to accomplish a bond? S. ZIMMERMAN: We have discussed that, trying to pull together the numbers of the family to scrape up anything that we possibly can.
[A K A Stone] His claims matched all of the evidence. What evidence? You still have not identified it. The self defense claim is posited on the state of mind of George Zimmerman at the moment of shooting. What evidence of Zimmerman's state of mind existed at the time of charging? His story was full of doubtful claims about other things. Had the jury found the credibility of Zimmerman lacking to a sufficient extent to disregard all of his assertions, it may have found against his claim of self defense.
He said he was beat up. He had injuries to back it up. He said he dropped his flash light. They found it where he said it was. He said he was yelling for help. S Several people heard him. He called the police ahead of time as someone on the neighborhood watch would. He said he was on his back. The injuries are to the back of his head and his back was wet. Trayvons knees were wet. The bullet was at close range. You don't walk up on someone with a gun you want to be further away so you can get good shot and not worry about being grabbed, stopped or whatever. He cooperated with the police fully without a lawyer. They had to fire the original police chief because he wouldn't go along with their bullshit. They withheld evidence and fired the guy who exposed them. It was prosecutorial misconduct and the prosecution should be shot. After a trial for attempted kidnapping. With 6 people on the jury that Zimmerman gets to pick after reading their NSA info. The list goes on and on. They are corrupt.
They tried and are trying to get Zimmerman murdered. The prosecution should be locked up. The charges should be attempted murder, perjury, attempted kidnapping and much more. www.sodahead.com/united-s...32501&link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s Zimmerman Prosecutor Blatantly Lies During Closing Arguments. The state has no other option but to lie . True or False Zimmerman Prosecutor Blatantly Lies During Closing Arguments. The state has no other option but to lie . True or False by CAPISCE Posted July 11, 2013 Related Topics: Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, Trial, Police, Guilty, Sat, Facts +10 Rave 10 Share Embed 57 votes Read all 116 opinions Lightning Report View Results and Demographics TRUE, they have no evidence....Zimmerman is not guilty TRUE, they have no evidence....Zimmerman is not guilty False---they didn't need to lie False---they didn't need to lie You! Join the discussion. Share your opinion with millions! Gretawire: This is important because this case is largely about credibility: is George Zimmerman a liar or not? Trayvon Martin can’t testify so the focus is on the credibility of the defendant. In the closing argument today the prosecutor called George Zimmerman a liar about a statement at the police station and the prosecutor was just plain wrong. Zimmerman did not lie about it. The prosecutor exaggerated or mislead the jury (intentionally or inadvertently.) The prosecutor told the jury that Zimmerman lied when he acted surprised that night, at the police station, when Officer Singleton told Zimmerman that Trayvon Martin died because, per the prosecutor, Zimmerman already knew Martin was dead. The prosecutor – at about 2:40 pm in his closing – falsely or incorrectly told the jury that Zimmerman told neighbor Manalo at the scene that he killed Martin. In other words, that Zimmerman was a liar to Officer Singleton and trying to cover his tracks. Below is what Zimmerman told Manalo per Manalo — that he “shot” someone. He did not say “killed.” The prosecutor – at about 2:40 pm in his closing – falsely or incorrectly told the jury that Zimmerman told neighbor Manalo at the scene that he killed Martin. In other words, that Zimmerman was a liar to Officer Singleton and trying to cover his tracks.
Florida Stat 782.07(1) There was proof that George Zimmerman killed another human being by the act of shooting his gun while aiming it at Trayvon Martin's chest. I was unaware that the defense even tried to deny it. There was a dead body. There was the weapon used in the killing on the person of George Zimmerman, registered to George Zimmerman. That is not zero, nada. The only thing remaining is the question of lawful justification, claimed by George Zimmerman as self defense. The prosecution did not find Zimmerman credible on the question of whether he had fear which was reasonable, of loss of life or serious bodily injury. Initially, two jurors found manslaughter and one found murder two. The others apparently persuaded them that proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had not acted out of self defense was lacking, requiring a finding of lawful justification. This provides a useful defense for gang bangers. I feared that if I didn't shoot him, he would shoot me. It is a reasonable belief and legalizes gang banger shootings.
They need to go to planned parenthood. They will find them in the act. They should send the swat team with guns drawn. If the butcher has his hands on a cutting instrument. He should be shot dead. It is the police's job. Why aren't they doing it? Oh back to Zimmerman. The evidence was self defense. Zimmerman had no bruises on his hands. The prosecution had that evidence too. They ignored it and prosecuted an obviously innocent man. Because abortion candidate Al Sharpton opened his mouth and everone smelled his bad breath.
They knew his story was credible. The jury concurred. They had the same evidence. My kids are smarter then they are. We need some hemp rope.
Which is why the proseuction never should have brought the casse. They could charege everyone with some crime that isn't a crime and they will convice 25 percent or more automatically. They over reached and if it was a just world they should swing from rope or receive the sentence they tried to get Zimmerman to serve.
Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved.
They most certainly did not know his story was credible. His conflicting and incredible claims canot be shown to have been believed by the prosecutors. As for the jurors, five of them have said nothing more than "not guilty," except four of them released a statement through the court disclaiming any agreement with the statements of juror B37. Until they speak, if they speak, we cannot know what they agreed to beyond the failure of the prosecution to disprove the claim of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The criminal jury decides on the presence or absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
[AKA Stone] Which is why the proseuction never should have brought the casse. They could charege everyone with some crime that isn't a crime and they will convice 25 percent or more automatically. The prosecution must convince 100% to obtain a conviction. If any juror does not find guilt, the jury cannot return a guilty verdict (except in military trials). There was enough information to let a jury decide. Re B37, here is an interesting comment of said juror: B37: "It did. It made a BIG impression on me." The testimony that B37 says made a BIG impression on her was stricken from the record and the jury was instructed to disregard it. Judge Debra S. Nelson on Tuesday ruled that the opinion-based testimony from the lead police investigator in the death of Trayvon Martin should be stricken from court records. [...] Ultimately, Nelson sided with the state, telling the jury, "That was an improper comment as to truth of veracity of another witness. You are asked to disregard question and answer."
The evidence overwhelmingly supported self defense and it matched up with Zimmermans unwavering and unchanging descriptions of the vents that night. It is not a claim to be proved. You are innocent until proven guilty silly. Is that where your thinking is?
You are still yet to document one inconsistency, conflict or change in what Zimmerman said. Why are you spinning Nolu?
Nonsense. The jurors just said she didn't speak for them. Juror B37 said as much. Irrelevant.
In this whole conversation you haven't been able to show me one piece of evidence of Zimmerman's guilt. You tried to make Zimmerman prove his innocence. That is the bottom line indisputable conclusion drawn from your remarks on this thread.
Are you going to watch this? Robin would pee her pants if this was posted at her site. She doesn't like the truth.
Why didn't the prosecution let in information about the "Lean". The burglary tools that were found on Trayvon and his computer. Because they are corrupt pieces of shit. Why are you spinning for them? Because they didn't want the truth they wanted to lynch Zimmerman.
nolu chan likes fake birth certificates - presidents - evidence too ! 666 must be a skin color reality - logic - agenda - disease !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
666 must be a kin Mark of the Boris !!!
The real boris would ... kick your gay ass - God hating mind all the way back to Hollywood --- where you belong !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
[nc] Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved. [AKA Stone] It is not a claim to be proved. You are innocent until proven guilty silly. Is that where your thinking is? What I said was, "Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved." Obviously, the prosecution task is to disprove the claim. The claim is not evidence. In the face of such evidence as the prosecution may present to show the claim to be without merit, the defense may present evidence that it has merit or has not been disproved. A claim of self defense is not evidence. It is decided by the evidence, or lack thereof, pertaining to the state of mind of the accused. The presence or absence of an actual threat does not determine the outcome. If A pulls out a water pistol and points it at B, there is no real threat. If B perceives a threat and forms a reasonable fear for his life and pulls out a real gun and shoots A dead, no crime was committed as A had the requisite state of mind. The burden is on the prosecution. The jury found they failed to meet their burden.
[A K A Stone] The jurors just said she didn't speak for them. "The opinions of Juror B37, expressed on the Anderson Cooper show were her own, and not in any way representative of the jurors listed below," the statement said. The statements of B37 were "not in any way representative of the jurors listed below."
Wrong. Self defense is an assertion which doesn't have to be proved, it has to be disproved.
Because they are corrupt pieces of shit. Why are you spinning for them? I don't know of the "Lean." Only the Court can keep things out. I'm not familiar with what they found on Trayvon's computer, but I fail to see how the judge could let it in. It is not relevant to the incident. You surely can't show that Zimmerman knew about it. It could not have been considered by Zimmerman in forming his state of mind and deciding to shoot. I believe there was a Court finding that the prosecutors committed a Brady violation regarding not turning over potentially exculpatory evidence and ordered it turned over. The matter was held over until the criminal trial was over and I believe a hearing on it is pending to consider sanctions against the prosecution team. I know there were photos involved and they were not entered into evidence because the defense chose not to submit them into evidence. Edit: I just watched the video and now know of "lean." Evidence of lean is speculative and irrelevant. I don't believe the court could allow it into the trial as admissible evidence.
Trayvon Martin's dead body was evidence. The bullet fragments in Trayvon Martin's dead body were evidence. The gun in Zimmerman's possession was evidence. The tests that showed Zimmerman's gun was used to kill Trayvon Martin was evidence. The entire defense case rested on a claim about Zimmerman's state of mind, what he believed at the time of the shooting, and whether said belief was reasonable.
The burden to prove or disprove varies depending on the jurisdiction. http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Criminal-Trials-Who-Has-the-Burden-of-Proof.html Ordinarily, if the defendant raises a defense to the prosecution's proof and there is evidence to support it, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove it. If the defense raised is an affirmative defense (self-defense, entrapment, duress, etc.), the burden is on the defendant to present supporting evidence. An affirmative defense is one that doesn't challenge the facts presented by the prosecution but rather excuses conduct that is otherwise deemed unlawful. The burden of going forward with a case varies in different jurisdictions. For example, in New York, the defendant has to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Compare this with Massachusetts where, after the defendant has satisfactorily raised an affirmative defense, the prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
No, I said there was enough of a case to take it to trial. The court so found.
He made the claim. It matched up with the evidence. You know the head wounds. Wet back. Trayvons wet knees. No evidence Zimmerman threw any punches by lack of bruises on hands. Bruises on Trayvons hands. You know the evidence matched up with Zimmermans claim. Also it is common sense he wouldn't call the cops then attack someone. The cops could have come at any minute. I've seen cops arrive in 10 seconds literally.
That is evidence that Trayvon Martin was shot. It doesn't point to Zimmerman being guilty of anything. When you take into account the events and evidence of that night. Everyone knew it before the juries verdict. They just pointed out the obvious.
No the police and prosecutor originally didn't charge him with anything. Only when professional asshole Sharpton and company came on the scene and started protesting did something happen. They had to fire the original police chief because he knew it was bullshit. They had to get a special prosecutor. Is that even legal. I'm sure you probably have an answer on that one.
It is up to the jury to decide what is relevant per John Jay. It is relevant because he was found in posessoin of 2/3 of the ingredients to make this drug drink called "lean". That drug makes you paranoid. Zimmerman said he was acting weird. So it certainly is relevant.
It provides the elements of manslaughter. Self defense is not an element of the crime. It is an affirmative defense.
That is absolutely incorrect. The jury is the trier of fact. The court says what the law is. It is a court determination of what is, or is not, relevant evidence. Irrelevant evidence is excluded.
Comments (58 - 95) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Angela Corey–and her handpicked minions–were more than willing to ignore an almost complete lack of evidence in the pursuit of those needs.
There is no question she grossly overcharged in the Zimmerman case, in fact, there was virtually no evidence to support any charge, as the jury understood.
But surely Angela Corey is a great defender of blacks?
#18. To: A K A Stone (#14)
(Edited)
Because they see lots of blacks acting stupid.
NSA SEARCH TAG: Tea Party, White House, Constitution, Obama, Allahu Akbar, Air Plane, Pressure Cooker, Ruby Ridge, Waco
#19. To: nolu chan (#17)
This is utterly false. There was iron clad proof of the elements of voluntary manslaughter. The only issue was the Zimmerman claim of self defense.
#20. To: A K A Stone (#8)
One might think that republicans would be less prone to the corruption that became so evident in the prosecution of George Zimmerman–and the continuing prosecution of Shellie Zimmerman–than Democrats.
According to prosecutors, Shellie Zimmerman lied at her husband's April 20 bond hearing when she testified that the couple had no money.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
If you study carefully the questions she was asked, he said, she answered truthfully.
O’MARA: Another condition or another concern the court would have is a bond amount. I would ask you then realizing that one option is for the court to grant a monetary bond, if you could advise the court of your financial circumstances so I’ll ask you a couple of questions.
#21. To: nolu chan (#20)
According to prosecutors, Shellie Zimmerman lied at her husband's April 20 bond hearing when she testified that the couple had no money.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#19)
They knew it was self defense. They had the evidence of self defense.
#23. To: nolu chan (#22)
To what evidence do you refer, other than the claims of George Zimmerman?
#24. To: nolu chan (#22)
#25. To: A K A Stone (#21)
I believe she said she had no income. There is a difference between income and money that you have.
O'MARA: I discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, declared indigent for cost, have I not?
#26. To: A K A Stone (#23)
[nc] To what evidence do you refer, other than the claims of George Zimmerman?
#27. To: nolu chan (#26)
What evidence? You still have not identified it.
#28. To: nolu chan (#26)
#29. To: A K A Stone (#24)
They had no evidence zero nada.
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
#30. To: nolu chan (#29)
1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
#31. To: nolu chan (#29)
The prosecution did not find Zimmerman credible on the question of whether he had fear which was reasonable,
#32. To: nolu chan (#29)
Initially, two jurors found manslaughter and one found murder two.
#33. To: A K A Stone (#30)
The evidence was self defense.
#34. To: A K A Stone (#31)
They knew his story was credible. The jury concurred.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#32)
[nc] Initially, two jurors found manslaughter and one found murder two.
COOPER: "So, when he testified that George Zimmerman to be, more or less, overall thruthful, did that make an impression on you?"
SANFORD, Fla. -
#36. To: nolu chan (#33)
Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved.
#37. To: nolu chan (#34)
They most certainly did not know his story was credible. His conflicting and incredible
#38. To: nolu chan (#34)
except four of them released a statement through the court disclaiming any agreement with the statements of juror B37.
#39. To: nolu chan (#35)
#40. To: nolu chan (#35)
#41. To: nolu chan (#35)
#42. To: A K A Stone (#41)
#43. To: BorisY (#42)
The D&R crime family hates us because we're free
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#44. To: hondo68 (#43)
#45. To: A K A Stone (#36)
[AKA Stone] The evidence was self defense.
#46. To: A K A Stone (#38)
[nc] four of them released a statement through the court disclaiming any agreement with the statements of juror B37.
#47. To: nolu chan (#33)
Self defense is not evidence. It is a claim to be proved or disproved.
#48. To: A K A Stone (#41)
(Edited)
Why didn't the prosecution let in information about the "Lean". The burglary tools that were found on Trayvon and his computer.
#49. To: A K A Stone (#39)
In this whole conversation you haven't been able to show me one piece of evidence of Zimmerman's guilt.
#50. To: Thunderbird (#47)
Wrong. Self defense is an assertion which doesn't have to be proved, it has to be disproved.
Burden of Proving Defenses
#51. To: A K A Stone (#39)
You tried to make Zimmerman prove his innocence.
#52. To: nolu chan (#45)
The claim is not evidence.
#53. To: nolu chan (#49)
Trayvon Martin's dead body was evidence. The bullet fragments in Trayvon Martin's dead body were evidence. The gun in Zimmerman's possession was evidence. The tests that showed Zimmerman's gun was used to kill Trayvon Martin was evidence.
#54. To: nolu chan (#51)
No, I said there was enough of a case to take it to trial. The court so found.
#55. To: nolu chan (#48)
but I fail to see how the judge could let it in. It is not relevant to the incident.
#56. To: A K A Stone (#53)
It doesn't point to Zimmerman being guilty of anything.
#57. To: A K A Stone (#55)
It is up to the jury to decide what is relevant per John Jay.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]