Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,426
- 49,042
Justice for Zimmerman
- Thread starter Adebisi
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
- Status
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Again, that's not evidence.
Zimmerman claiming that Martin attacked him does not count as "evidence" by any definition of the word.
However, there is just as little evidence to suggest Zimmerman attacked first (which is to say, no evidence at all).
Because we have no evidence either way, we have nothing to charge Zimmerman with. It has never been proven that Martin started the altercation, and everyone who says "it just makes more sense that he did" is making the same mistake that everybody who assumes Zimmerman is racist is making.
If you're trying to say that it doesn't make a difference who attacked first because we can't prove it, I'm with you. But stop giving Zimmerman +1 "evidence points" just for telling his version of the story. If Martin were alive he'd almost certainly have a different version of what went down. Would you consider his version "evidence" too?
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,426
- 49,042
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Dashel
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 1,833
- 2,931
No evidence and I dont think it much matters who was screaming. I think there is evidence TM was on top punching GZ. They were probably both scared at some point. Maybe TM thought I'm gonna beat this creepy ass cracker up a bit for stalking me, the gun comes into play then it's Help Help. Or maybe GM tried to detain TM by himself for the cops and TM panicked and was defending himself. No evidence for anything specific imo.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Adebisi
Clump of Cells
- 27,713
- 32,825
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,426
- 49,042
Thats your definition. The legal definition of evidence is:
A thing, a document, or the testimony of a person that bears on the truth or falsity of an assertion made in litigation.
You're referring to physical or circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence is what the people in the witness stand or on videos/recordings say.
Zimmermans testimony is evidence.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
From dictionary.com:
Evidence(definition 3):
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
Data presentedin proof of the facts.
Zimmerman is not a "witness" in this case, he's the guy on trial. What he says does not and can not count as "proof" of anything. The cuts on his head are evidence that he had his head hit against pavement. This backs up the part of his story where he said he got his head hit against pavement. We can therefore deduce that there is some truth to that part of the story. As for the part of his story where he says Martin attacked him, there is nothing to back that up. Nothing.
I'm not saying Zimmerman attacked first, as there is also zero evidence of that. But saying "it must have been Martin who attacked because Zimmerman said so and his word is the only 'proof' we have" is freaking ridiculous..
Evidence(definition 3):
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
Data presentedin proof of the facts.
Zimmerman is not a "witness" in this case, he's the guy on trial. What he says does not and can not count as "proof" of anything. The cuts on his head are evidence that he had his head hit against pavement. This backs up the part of his story where he said he got his head hit against pavement. We can therefore deduce that there is some truth to that part of the story. As for the part of his story where he says Martin attacked him, there is nothing to back that up. Nothing.
I'm not saying Zimmerman attacked first, as there is also zero evidence of that. But saying "it must have been Martin who attacked because Zimmerman said so and his word is the only 'proof' we have" is freaking ridiculous..
Jait
Molten Core Raider
- 5,035
- 5,317
This.
And unfortunately most of the peanut gallery disagrees or is biased against the laws of Florida and allow it to spill over as if it fucking matters. It's Florida's laws. The best they could ever hope for is manslaughter, and only if they can prove TM never turned around to initiate a physical confrontation.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 43,739
- 52,292
Do you work at being this fucking retarded or does it come naturally to you?
For starters, Cad was talking about theLEGAL DEFINITIONof evidence, not the english language definition. There is a very profound difference between the two, because the english language definition is completely meaningless when you're talking about a trial. Once again, here is theLEGAL DEFINITIONof evidence.
Second of all, lets go with theLEGAL DEFINITIONof Witness.
So you're wrong again. Maybe you should try to familiarize yourself with the difference between legal definition and english language definition before you try to nitpick words with a lawyer.Google_sl said:
P.S. Cad is a lawyer.
BoldW
Molten Core Raider
- 2,081
- 25
So how does it work when a judge instructs a jury on lesser possible convictions - i.e. manslaughter in this case?
Does the judge tell them, so, if you don't see Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt, you can still say he's guilty of manslaughter (wink, wink) basically putting it in their heads? I mean, I doubt it's like that, which is why i'm asking.
Does the judge tell them, so, if you don't see Murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt, you can still say he's guilty of manslaughter (wink, wink) basically putting it in their heads? I mean, I doubt it's like that, which is why i'm asking.
could the defense have called TMs father to testify? assuming he'd choose to not perjure himself.
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,457
- 6,003
She going to go down in history as the judge that oversaw the acquittal of Zimmerman.
She is going fuck me these fucking idiots bringing this weakass case to my court are going to ruin my chances for higher judgeship.
B_Mizzle
Golden Baronet of the Realm
- 7,737
- 15,272
Yeah but thats the picture the prosecution is trying to paint, which is really really reaching.
On another note, after seeing the parade of defense witnesses this morning, GZ appeared to me to be an outstanding citizen and a good guy. I am a firm believer in the saying, "Show me your friends and I'll tell you who you are." TM's friends sure didn't get him any points on the witness stand, GZ's scored him some major points imo.
Jait
Molten Core Raider
- 5,035
- 5,317
I wondered that as well. But you'd be labeled the biggest douchebag in history to compel a father to testify against his dead son murder case unless you REALLY need to. It could totally ruin you with the jury.
I think they made their point. It really doesn't matter because no one can agree.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 43,739
- 52,292
If anything is going to ruin her chances for advancement, it's her conduct so far in the trial.
- Status