Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BootinUp

(47,143 posts)
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:13 PM Apr 2012

So as Trayvon was screaming for help in those last seconds

obviously because he did not have the advantage in the altercation at that point, how is it that Zimmerman is fearing for his life? I mean he WAS the only one armed with a deadly weapon. Just wondering how any judge can interpret that differently.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So as Trayvon was screaming for help in those last seconds (Original Post) BootinUp Apr 2012 OP
Zim's lawyers SteveABG Apr 2012 #1
Guns are not experimental! seattleblah Apr 2012 #2
No, that particular voice analysis will never see the light of day in court slackmaster Apr 2012 #4
true SteveABG Apr 2012 #6
SYG: it doesn't matter. Warren Stupidity Apr 2012 #3
I think at this point there will be a ton of circumstantial evidence auburngrad82 Apr 2012 #5
INAL, but I don't belive... -..__... Apr 2012 #8
I doubt if Zimmerman's prior acts of violence COLGATE4 Apr 2012 #9
Zimmerman wasn't fearing for his life . EmeraldCityGrl Apr 2012 #7

SteveABG

(134 posts)
1. Zim's lawyers
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:17 PM
Apr 2012

Will try to attack the analysis, and call it "experimental technology" or something along those lines.

Whether they will succeed in that argument or not remains to be seen.

 

slackmaster

(60,567 posts)
4. No, that particular voice analysis will never see the light of day in court
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:26 PM
Apr 2012

It was the product of a newspaper "investigation."

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
3. SYG: it doesn't matter.
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 02:22 PM
Apr 2012

These laws are just an open invitation for murder. Zimmerman "felt threatened". His defense need only establish enough plausibility to convince one or more jurors to not convict, and that is assuming he ever gets arrested and his case goes to trial. So far there has been no arrest.

auburngrad82

(5,029 posts)
5. I think at this point there will be a ton of circumstantial evidence
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 03:37 PM
Apr 2012

If the prosecutor can find more examples of Zimmerman going ballistic on people, like he did at the underage drinking party a few years ago where he threw the young woman down and injured her because he "snapped", the prosecutor might be able to convince the jury that the man is unstable and that he lost control when he shot Trayvon.

We have several cases of Zimmerman snapping:

Domestic abuse charges against his girlfriend
assaulting an undercover police officer
throwing the woman to the ground at the party

If they can pile these on, and combine them with the video evidence debunking his broken nose and bashed head, and the eyewitness accounts saying that Trayvon was not attacking him, maybe there will be justice.

On the other hand, if his granddad is a former CIA agent who may have pulled strings to keep Georgie out of jail we might never know why they might let a killer off the hook.

Only time will tell, I guess.

 

-..__...

(7,776 posts)
8. INAL, but I don't belive...
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 05:07 PM
Apr 2012

prior confrontations with the law, arrests or convictions can be brought up during trial.

Prior convictions can be taking into consideration at sentencing.


Domestic abuse charges against his girlfriend
assaulting an undercover police officer
throwing the woman to the ground at the party

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
9. I doubt if Zimmerman's prior acts of violence
Sun Apr 1, 2012, 05:49 PM
Apr 2012

will ever see the light of day in court. The Prosecution is prohibited from introducing them, unless the Defense really f---s up and makes Z's character an issue (which any decent lawyer won't do). Prior bad acts from a Defendant are generally inadmissible unless they can be shown to be part of a 'pattern' (which requires that the previous bad acts be more than substantially similar to the act in question). Z's don't, so don't hang your hat on this fact to help put Z away.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So as Trayvon was screami...