TexasCHLforum.com

The founding fathers knew what to do with officials like this.

Forum rules prohibit me from saying more.

Poll on http://www.wildabouttrial.com, bottom right:

Not Guilty - 66%
Guilty - Manslaughter - 29%
Guilty - Second Degree Murder - 5%

I don't think there's anything preventing you from voting twice, so I can't say how accurate it is.

I think if I were on that jury, I would have to slit my wrists. Listening to over two hours of this attorney blathering on about "he lied" and postulating how things must have happened ("he said he was always on his back in the grass, but he had grass on the top of his shoes" - he's obviously never walked on a damp lawn after a recent mowing). I would be sitting there wanting to yell at him about how he is so wrong in what he's saying. This is just making my blood boil.

I've had to turn off the sound a few times because of how much the guy is grating on my nerves. I honestly don't know if it's because I don't believe the story the way he's presenting it, or if it's because he really is that much of a tool.

I hope the defense's approach is a bit softer, and that they concentrate on the notion that the prosecution has proven nothing.

God forbid I should ever have to defend myself with my weapon but if His will is such that I do, I pray that it is a white man.

ScooterSissy wrote:I've had to turn off the sound a few times ...

One of the lawyers following this on twitter ran a "poll" on who is the most annoying prosecutor. I think this one won.

Fangs wrote:Poll on http://www.wildabouttrial.com, bottom right:

Not Guilty - 66%
Guilty - Manslaughter - 29%
Guilty - Second Degree Murder - 5%

I don't think there's anything preventing you from voting twice, so I can't say how accurate it is.

I just voted:

Not Guilty (63%, 292 Votes)
Guilty - Manslaughter (29%, 135 Votes)
Guilty - Second Degree Murder (8%, 33 Votes)
Total Voters: 460

He's slipping a bit...

I believe the defense will tear the prosecution to shreds tomorrow. There are some glaring instances of the state basically saying, "We have no idea how this couldn't be Trayvon's fault, so we're going to say anything we can to make it look like Zimmerman might have done something, anything, wrong."

A noticeable one was where the prosecutor said that Trayvon might have been trying to stop Zimmerman from shooting him by grabbing the gun, and that's what John Good saw instead of T pounding Z's head into the concrete. Not 5 minutes later, he brings up how there was none of T's DNA on the gun, and that goes against Z's friend's testimony that T grabbed the gun.

Is it too hard to pick one or the other?

If I were the defense, here's my closing. I would like to begin by thanking the prosecution for proving that there is plenty of reasonable doubt in this case. To convict someone of a crime, you have to be convinced BEYOND a reasonable doubt that they committed the crime in question. The prosecution has thrashed around for this entire trial trying to find a strategy that would help them convict my client. They've offered you multiple versions of how the shooting could have occurred; was he leaning backwards? Was he trying to end the fight? Was he trying to protect himself from the gun? I don't think they really know the answer, but I'll give them credit for trying at least.

The law requires them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that my client did NOT act in self defense. Since they have clearly not done that, and since all of the evidence, the witness testimonies, the autopsy, the forensic exam and all the experts have proven that my client did in fact act in self defense, I ask that you vote not guilty and end this travesty.

On that fateful night, George Zimmerman ran out of options, as Mr. Root testified, and was forced to shoot Trayvon Martin to save his own life. I believe the prosecution has run out of options and has been forced to admit that reasonable doubt exists. Mr. Zimmerman should be allowed to walk out of this courtroom a free man, burdened with the knowledge that he killed a man but comforted by knowing that his actions that night saved his life.

Thank you.

baldeagle wrote:If I were the defense, here's my closing.
<SNIP>
Thank you.

That would be a good one but I suspect O'Mara is going to take the jury down memory lane.

This situation is a glaring example of how utilizing our right of self defense can save our lives but ruin them at the same time. This whole deal makes my stomach turn. If they manage to convict Zimmerman, does this set a new standard for proving self defense in Florida? Al Sharpton made a stupid comment alluding to how it will be open season on all young black men if Zimmerman is acquitted. I wanted to ask him if the inverse were also true. A conviction means all young black men have a free pass to assault innocent people?

I have been forced to shoot in self defense twice in my life. The first time was scary but no real legal issues. The second time ended up costing me 17,500.00 and a month of extreme concern about being tried for AM and AA. I realize now I got off easy. Defending our lives with deadly force has consequences that go far beyond what I believe most of us consider.

Zimmerman does not deserve what is happening and may end up serving time to placate the real racists in our society. I feel horrible for him.

I think it would be interesting to hear from (ahem) one of the attorneys on the forum - does the fact that defense will close in the morning after the jury is fresh (and likely more open-minded) work for the defense, or does the fact that they sleep on the "last words ringing in their ears" work against the defense?

My gut feeling is, the defense got a break on the judge dismissing for the day.

03Lightningrocks wrote:This situation is a glaring example of how utilizing our right of self defense can save our lives but ruin them at the same time. This whole deal makes my stomach turn. If they manage to convict Zimmerman, does this set a new standard for proving self defense in Florida? Al Sharpton made a stupid comment alluding to how it will be open season on all young black men if Zimmerman is acquitted. I wanted to ask him if the inverse were also true. A conviction means all young black men have a free pass to assault innocent people?

I have been forced to shoot in self defense twice in my life. The first time was scary but no real legal issues. The second time ended up costing me 17,500.00 and a month of extreme concern about being tried for AM and AA. I realize now I got off easy. Defending our lives with deadly force has consequences that go far beyond what I believe most of us consider.

Zimmerman does not deserve what is happening and may end up serving time to placate the real racists in our society. I feel horrible for him.

In answer, I don't think any precedents are set until the appeals are over. If he's convicted here, surely his appeal will be successful. Assuming, of course, that he can afford one...

ScooterSissy wrote:I think it would be interesting to hear from (ahem) one of the attorneys on the forum - does the fact that defense will close in the morning after the jury is fresh (and likely more open-minded) work for the defense, or does the fact that they sleep on the "last words ringing in their ears" work against the defense?

My gut feeling is, the defense got a break on the judge dismissing for the day.

I think so too, but then the prosecution gets the last word. And to that I can only say -- "That's retarded, sir!"

ScooterSissy wrote:I think it would be interesting to hear from (ahem) one of the attorneys on the forum - does the fact that defense will close in the morning after the jury is fresh (and likely more open-minded) work for the defense, or does the fact that they sleep on the "last words ringing in their ears" work against the defense?

My gut feeling is, the defense got a break on the judge dismissing for the day.

I agree. Can you imagine how long it would take to wake the jury back up? Tomorrow morning they'll be fresh, ready to go and eager to finally end this nightmare.

sjfcontrol wrote:In answer, I don't think any precedents are set until the appeals are over. If he's convicted here, surely his appeal will be successful. Assuming, of course, that he can afford one...

I don't think there's any problem with that. If he is found guilty after this travesty of a trial, the entire rational part of the country will be sending in donations for his appeals - including me.

sjfcontrol wrote:I think so too, but then the prosecution gets the last word. And to that I can only say -- "That's retarded, sir!"

It may be, but that's how it's done in our country. The prosecution gets the last word because they have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George did NOT act in self defense.

Unless the jury is insane, this verdict should take about ten minutes; long enough to vote and notify the deputy that they're finished.