It seems to me that the prosecutor is again, in his closing argument, introducing doubt with every point he makes, he keeps saying couldn't have this happened, couldn't have that happened, absolutely no evidence to support his assumptions but none the less hammering his version of the story home.
I'm thinking (hoping) the prosecutors remarks about Zimmerman being "armed" won't set too well with the jurors who have CCDW permits or have family members with such.
I realize I am dreaming, but it would be great to see an acquital and then one of the jurors say during an interview that she felt the judge showed some bias for the prosecution.
Two times Martin had a clear path to his father's house, two times he reversed course and came back for confrontation. Nobody on the left wants to address the wisdom in that, only Zimmerma's wisdom in following.
The PA is meandering around, trying to concoct stories about what the evidence might mean. I thought the State's job was to present 1 story, & prove the hell out of it, whereas the defense got to toss around "what if's" and "maybe's" to cast doubt on that story.
This case is the exact freakin' opposite.
FC
"Every day is a holiday, and every meal is a banquet."
The PA is meandering around, trying to concoct stories about what the evidence might mean. I thought the State's job was to present 1 story, & prove the hell out of it, whereas the defense got to toss around "what if's" and "maybe's" to cast doubt on that story.
This case is the exact freakin' opposite.
FC
Yep. He's trying to instill a reasonable doubt in their minds as to Zimmerman's claim of justified use of lethal force in self-defense. He's got it backwards. His burden is to eliminate all reasonable doubt regarding the state's claim that he wasn't justified in his use of lethal force in self-defense. However, the jury could easily become confused on burdens of proof. That might be what he's hoping for, which is unethical to the point of criminal, in my book.
Unbelievable closing. "It could be" has been said so many times I lost count. The prosecution has to prove "What is" not what could be. The defense will get to come in and close with what is and point out that all the prosecution has is "it could be".
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
there is no such thing as ethics in this country anymore.
I think there are. No like there should be, but there are still a lot of ethical, moral people. We see so much trash in the news and politics that we forget about the good folks...
Kinda like if you bust your nail with a hammer. 90% of your fingers are still good, but that one is the only one you think about. I doubt it's 90%, but there are still a lot of good folks out there.
Good Lord! This prosecutor reeks of desperation. It's painfully clear that he has nothing left but to try to serve some innuendo soup. I'm hoping the jury has no appetite for it.
In the meantime, I'm wondering if the defense will take his bait, & waste time (and the jury's attention) trying to refute all this BS, point-by-point. In my mind, the defense ought to take 10 minutes, or less:
1) Eye witness places TM straddling & beating GZ 2) GZ was in fear of his life from the beating, & from being shot with his own gun if TM were to gain control of it 3) GZ, being unable to retreat, or to defend himself physically, shoots TM.
Nothing else matters.
FC
Last edited by Folically_Challenged; 07/11/13.
"Every day is a holiday, and every meal is a banquet."
Good Lord! This prosecutor reeks of desperation. It's painfully clear that he has nothing left but to try to serve some innuendo soup. I'm hoping the jury has no appetite for it.
In the meantime, I'm wondering if the defense will take his bait, & waste time (and the jury's attention) trying to refute all this BS, point-by-point. In my mind, the defense ought to take 10 minutes, or less:
1) Eye witness places TM straddling & beating GZ 2) GZ was in fear of his life from the beating, & from being shot with his own gun if TM were to gain control of it 3) GZ, being unable to retreat, or to defend himself physically, shoots TM.
Nothing else matters.
FC
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ well put, and exactly right. All the rest is BS.
You can roll a turd in peanuts, dip it in chocolate, and it still ain't no damn Baby Ruth.
Good Lord! This prosecutor reeks of desperation. It's painfully clear that he has nothing left but to try to serve some innuendo soup. I'm hoping the jury has no appetite for it.
In the meantime, I'm wondering if the defense will take his bait, & waste time (and the jury's attention) trying to refute all this BS, point-by-point. In my mind, the defense ought to take 10 minutes, or less:
1) Eye witness places TM straddling & beating GZ 2) GZ was in fear of his life from the beating, & from being shot with his own gun if TM were to gain control of it 3) GZ, being unable to retreat, or to defend himself physically, shoots TM.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.rockymtnrefl.com/TetonFenceBarncd1985987.jpg)
