George Zimmerman makes initial court appearance in Trayvon Martin shooting, will plead not guilty

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwizzleStick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SwizzleStick said:
"Trayvon Martin case: Accused in court

Neighbourhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman has made his first court appearance on a second-degree murder charge in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

During the brief appearance, Zimmerman stood up straight, looked straight ahead and wore a gray prison jumpsuit. He spoke only to answer “Yes, sir,’’ twice after he was asked basic questions about the charge against him and his attorney.”…

Blue excerpt from: nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10798482&ref=rss
Click to expand...
It’s was aired live on tv. I can’t believe New Zealand news is following this. Must be boring down there.
 
catharina said:
Are you claiming I said that?

You brought race into this.
There is no mention of it in my post.
With nearly all posters agreeing that RACE is not
the defining feature in this life/death situation, you
accuse me of making it a relevant factor?

Preposterous - and dishonest at the very least.
Click to expand...
If race isn’t a factor why are you saying Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck? Is he not free to move about his neighborhood?
 
seekerz said:
Do you know her? What’s your basis for that certainty? What does Zimmerman have to go after anyway?
Click to expand...
The perception of a reasonable person. If his own mother thought it was an accident why would/should a jury think otherwise?
 
SamH said:
The perception of a reasonable person. If his own mother thought it was an accident why would/should a jury think otherwise?
Click to expand...
It makes me sad that she retracted her statement. I thought there was some hope for healing when she indicated she thought it was an accident. With the retraction, I wonder if that is possible now.
 
seekerz said:
She can only be a character witness for Trayvon, so I still don’t see the issue; the gun was not Trayvon’s it was George’s.
Click to expand...
Huh? I’m lost. What does the gun have to do with her being called as a witness and being grilled by the defense about her remarks?:confused:
 
St_Francis said:
He wasn’t on the Neighborhood Watch route at the time; he was just running an errand.
Click to expand...
That’s right. I forgot that. Thank you for the reminder. Too much info and I’m trying to stay fair and balanced as I learn new things.
 
St_Francis said:
And they would not lay out their entire case by any means, because then the defense would be able to address their contentions well. Both sides try to keep what they are doing secret to avoid that.
Click to expand...
As a lawyer once told me, real law is not like Perry Mason. Shortly before the trial, they’re required to give copies of all the information they have before the trial. And to answer written questions, during the discovery process, long before the trial.
 
Dawnia said:
I should clarify…if she is brought into court. Her statements would be fair game for the defense. Her statements about it being an accident opens the door for probable cause against a 2nd degree murder conviction.
Click to expand...
If she is a witness for the prosecution, then she would be questioned only on the point she was witnessing too, such as identifying the voice calling for help. The defense cannot ask her about anything outside what the prosecution has her testify about.

The defense will not bring her in for several reasons, among which is that a random statement by a distraught mother isn’t evidence of anything one way or the other. She would say that she misspoke and that would be the end of it. And the the cross by the prosecution would clarify why bringing her in was a mistake by the defense.
 
SamH said:
If race isn’t a factor why are you saying Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck? Is he not free to move about his neighborhood?
Click to expand...
**RACE? RACE?

Z sees a “suspicious” s ranger in his neighborhood.
Z goes after him, against the good advice of 911.
Where is your thinking leading you???

For me, a “SUSPICIOUS” stranger.
That’s it. That’s the ball game.

RACE?

A BLACK MAN?
A problem for YOU?
If you say say so.
A problem for ME? NO.

A “suspicious stranger” to me?
That could be a problem.
Maybe, maybe not.

A BLACK MAN?

It’s in your mind so it’s Your PROBLEM. **
 
SwizzleStick said:
It makes me sad that she retracted her statement. I thought there was some hope for healing when she indicated she thought it was an accident. With the retraction, I wonder if that is possible now.
Click to expand...
Maybe after considering a few more facts, now
she realizes that not even investigator see it as an accident.

That would change my mind in a hurry.
 
St_Francis said:
If she is a witness for the prosecution, then she would be questioned only on the point she was witnessing too, such as identifying the voice calling for help. The defense cannot ask her about anything outside what the prosecution has her testify about.

The defense will not bring her in for several reasons, among which is that a random statement by a distraught mother isn’t evidence of anything one way or the other. She would say that she misspoke and that would be the end of it. And the the cross by the prosecution would clarify why bringing her in was a mistake by the defense.
Click to expand...
I doubt the defense would bring her in, she doesn’t have anything to add to their side.

They can if they aren’t using the information to prove a point in the case (that would be heresay) But her statements can be used regarding credibility of her testimony. Is she willing to say whatever it takes to get the result she wants? But, I would expect the prosecution to bring forth a voice expert as opposed to the mom. Mom’s aren’t exactly experts in voice analysis.

Unless they are going for a sympathy vote, I don’t expect them to put her on the stand. But, I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
 
Dawnia said:
If she’s called as a character witness or in regards to prior events. Such as why he was at his dad’s house, etc. It doesn’t always happen, but it’s a possibility. Especially if the prosecution is trying to get sympathy votes from the jury.
Click to expand...
I doubt she will be called by the prosecution. If she can’t keep her opinions straight in the media, what are the odds she would be clear under cross examination? Besides, she wasn’t witness to anything, so she really wouldn’t add much to the conversation.
 
WARNING

I am about to close this thread and ban this topic if members continue to argue with each other and continue personal attacks.

The rules are to charitably discuss the issues, not other members
 
I want to see the ballistics of the round that killed Martin.

That will tell us if Zimmerman shot Martin while laying on the ground.
 
rlg94086 said:
I doubt she will be called by the prosecution. If she can’t keep her opinions straight in the media, what are the odds she would be clear under cross examination? Besides, she wasn’t witness to anything, so she really wouldn’t add much to the conversation.
Click to expand...
Then again, it’s just over a month since her son was killed.
More time will pass before the trial happens. Maybe her mind
will be a bit more settled then.

(She was witness to the audio of the beating tape.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top