Weed, fights and guns: Trayvon Martin’s text messages released

[RobertNashville]

Are there places that do it some other way? Do some places give both sides one shot, and maybe flip a coin who goes first? I recollected that most tv and movie courtroom dramas do it thataway (prosecution gets two shots at it). It seems somehow wrong but had assumed it is fairly standard?

The two criminal trials I've been a juror it was defense, prosecution in that order with each having one bite at the apple. But it was in OH, and WA, not FL

Edited July 12, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Didn't realize that. Thought standard procedure was to give each one shot in criminal trials, with defense going last, with theory being that prosecution must have convinced jury beyond a reasonable doubt from the gitgo.

 

Maybe the better theory is that the prosecution (the state/county/city) is paying for the thing, so they get double emphasis? :)

 

- OS

 

I really don't know what is customary, which is why I was asking. Somebody has to go last, and would presumably have the advantage of going last. Shows like "law and order" usually go prosecution, defense, prosecution, but dunno nothin about it.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The two criminal trials I've been a juror it was defense, prosecution in that order with each having one bite at the apple. But it was in OH, and WA, not FL

 

I did jury duty in a couple of TN trials, but its been so long, can't recall that detail.

[TMF]

You are absolutely correct. And that doubt must be in favor of Zimmerman.

I agree and have never once said anything to the contrary.

[tnhawk]

So what does evidence have to do with this political show trial?  This fiasco has been tainted and pushed from the beginning by the race baiters, upto and including the current resident in the WH, that the chances of GZ being set free are slim to none.  Jury isn't stupid, we hope, but even a brain dead zombie could have seen the writing on the wall before being picked to sit on this jury. 

Evidence?  Lets not use facts to distort this case.

[RobertNashville]

Evidence?  Lets not use facts to distort this case.

Well, I hope the six jurors are able to do their job and render a decision based on the evidence...I don't care whether people "feel" Zimmerman is guilty or not, he at least deserves an honest jury and possibly sending a man to prison for a significant part of his life (assuming he even lives through prison) is not something that should ever be done based on feelings or emotions or sympathy for the "child" Trayvon.

[mikegideon]

All it really takes is one. If the jury is hung, I doubt that there will be a new trial. 

[billyscott]

Looks like MSNBC televised photos of Trayvon's body today. Throwing gas on the fire?

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3042170/posts

[RobertNashville]

Of course...nothing says "news" like people looting and burning down a town.

[bubbiesdad]

I venture that if Martin had killed Zimmerman there would be no issue with the prosecution getting the last word.

 

I venture that if Martin had killed Zimmerman, no one outside of Sanford FL, except for family, would know the names of the involved.

[mikegideon]

Of course...nothing says "news" like people looting and burning down a town.

 

I'm not gonna get all paranoid about this, but I will uncap a few PMAGS. I'm not ready to be on the receiving end of that crap.

[RobertNashville]

I'm not gonna get all paranoid about this, but I will uncap a few PMAGS. I'm not ready to be on the receiving end of that crap.

I'm not really thinking we'll see any rioting in TN; then again...there's always Memphis!  :)

[mikegideon]

I'm not just worried about all-out riots.

[JAB]

Unfortunately, as far as I know, being a dumb-ass ain't against the law. The prosecution has a hard job to prove beyond shadow of a doubt that Z really is criminally stupid, rather than a mere garden-variety f-up.

 

Classic!  This has kind of been what I was getting at all along.  I do NOT believe that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, manslaughter, etc.  I do believe that the actual act of shooting Martin was done in legal self defense.  I simply believe that Zimmerman exhibited poor judgement and made some pretty unintelligent decisions which ultimately contributed to putting him in that position.

 

 

I think if you are going to say that Zman "should" have stayed in his car, then you can absolutely say that TM "should" have ran home.  Fact is, Zman "could" have stayed in his car and this may have been averted <OR> TM "could" have ran home and this may have been averted.  Fact is, neither of them did what they "could" or "should" have.  They both have equal blame on that front.  In the end it doesn't matter what they could or should have done.  There was an altercation, Zman was fearful for his life (I do believe this although it could be argued and that is why there is the case) and ultimately he killed TM.  No matter who could have, should have, or would have done anything, I don't believe the prosecution has proven any other scenario than what Zman has consistently said, which was self-defense.

 

I agree with 99.9% of what you said.  The only part with which I disagree is the statement that, "In the end it doesn't matter what they could or should have done." 

 

The reason I disagree with that, particular statement is that it is the difference of whether others learn a lesson from this case or not.  Further, it is important because it points out the reason why Zimmerman should NOT be treated like the poster boy for responsible handgun carry.  As a person who carries a firearm for self defense, I both hope that Zimmerman is found not guilty (if only to avoid setting a possible precedent that could impact even those whose use of a firearm in SD wasn't preceeded by dumbass decisions) and want to dissuade any comparison of Zimmerman to the majority of legal handgun carriers as much as possible.

 

Likewise, I am not a Martin 'supporter'.  I believe this case ultimately involved two people who made dumbass decisions.  Maybe Zimmerman thought he was following Martin for the 'right' reasons but that doesn't make doing so any less of a bad decision.  Maybe Martin, as a 17 year old boy, thought that it was somehow his 'duty' to 'man up' and confront Zimmerman.  I and others have said that we might not take too kindly or feel too comfortable about having someone following us when we are just walking along, doing nothing illegal and minding our own business and I stand by that statement.  Going directly to violence and attacking Zimmerman with no apparent verbal interchange, however, was both wrong and stupid on Martin's part.  Mostly, I think this case involved a couple of would-be swingin' dicks who both made stupid decisions which put them in the other's path.  Being a dumbass earned Martin a dirt nap.  Being a dumbass has also probably ruined Zimmerman's life as it was those questionable decisions which likely opened the door for this farce of a trial to begin with.

 

I don't think Zimmerman is 'innocent' in this whole thing - he wasn't just out for a stroll when he got unexpectedly jumped and his bad decisions are partly to blame for him being in a position to have to use his firearm in self defense.   That said, I certainly believe that he is 'not guilty' in a criminal manner since, as Lester stated, "being a dumb-ass ain't against the law."

Edited July 12, 2013 by JAB

[RobertNashville]

I'm not just worried about all-out riots.

Humm...maybe I should load up a couple of E-mags myself. ;)

[Guest nra37922]

... "being a dumb-ass ain't against the law."...

No they just write them

[TripleDigitRide]

Shortly after 4:30 p.m., -- just over two hours after deliberations began -- the judge said that the jury requested an inventory of the evidence.

 

[Chucktshoes]

... "being a dumb-ass ain't against the law."...

No they just write them

Truf!

[Worriedman]

I'm not really thinking we'll see any rioting in TN; then again...there's always Memphis!  :)

And Little Memphis, Jackson...remember it is the home of Van Jones.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Worriedman

[DaveS]

Well, I don't believe him because he has shown himself to be a liar. I have no reason to believe him. There are lots of people on the Internet that are full of sh*t and don't believe. Do I need to justify all my reasons for not believing someone? Once again, I'm not on the jury. Jurors decide based on evidence and testimony backed by evidence or other testimony. It doesn't matter how trustworthy Zimmerman is or not for them. For me, I don't believe him. Is that okay with you?

 

Well, I don't believe him because he has shown himself to be a liar. I have no reason to believe him. There are lots of people on the Internet that are full of sh*t and don't believe. Do I need to justify all my reasons for not believing someone? Once again, I'm not on the jury. Jurors decide based on evidence and testimony backed by evidence or other testimony. It doesn't matter how trustworthy Zimmerman is or not for them. For me, I don't believe him. Is that okay with you?

I believe very little that comes out of "Cracka's" mouth!

[DaveS]

Justice For Trayvon!!   I believe the Jury will do right!

 

Dave

[Guest Lester Weevils]

This has kind of been what I was getting at all along.  I do NOT believe that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, manslaughter, etc.  I do believe that the actual act of shooting Martin was done in legal self defense.  I simply believe that Zimmerman exhibited poor judgement and made some pretty unintelligent decisions which ultimately contributed to putting him in that position.

 

In some parts of today's defense closing arguments-- Maybe by now youtubers have broken it down into little quotable pieces-- Some of the lawyer's comments seemed to basically say, "Ladies of the jury, my client is an idiot but he isn't a murderer."

 

In mocking the prosecution contention that Z coldly lied about events because he was "smart enough to know the buzzwords what to say" to avoid prosecution-- The defense lawyer said, "If Z was so smart then why didn't he know about Miranda?" And further explained if the lawyer had his druthers, Z would have called him immediately after the shooting, and talked to no one, explained his story to no one, except the defense lawyer. Let the lawyer do the talking.

 

So I don't know whether Z lied about events "before the first punch in the nose". Or after the first punch as far as that goes. It seems credible to me that Z MAY have been lying his azz off but am unaware of good evidence one way or t'other. He MAY have done things deserving of the charge, but hard evidence seems lacking.

 

Considering the defense lawyer's opinion of Z's errors in judgement after the shooting-- Of course the defense lawyer can't ethically comment on Z's errors in judgement before the shooting. I'd love to know whether the defense lawyer thinks Z "shoulda stayed in the truck". :)

Edited July 12, 2013 by Lester Weevils

[TripleDigitRide]

Justice For Trayvon!!   I believe the Jury will do right!

 

Dave

Trayvon is exactly where God thinks he should be. Zimmerman was only the messenger.

[KKing]

Justice For Trayvon!! I believe the Jury will do right!

Dave

I hope you're not serious with this shit still. I pray you aren't. Justice for Trayvon has already been served, all that remains to be seen is if George will get justice Edited July 12, 2013 by KKing

[mikegideon]

Justice For Trayvon!!   I believe the Jury will do right!

 

Dave

 

Yes we can