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
Would the defense be out of line to do something like this?
Sorry, just thought a bit of levity might be welcome.
I would start off the closing by saying something like this:
Members of the jury, at the beginning of this case, the prosecution told you that my client killed Trayvon Martin not because he had to, but because he wanted to. That was a lie and the prosecution knew it was a lie when they said it. They have not presented one bit of evidence to support their outrageous claim for one simple reason - they didn't have any. Lack of evidence does not matter to the prosecution. They just want you to hate George Zimmerman for defending his life. If the state is willing to tell you an outrageous lie at the beginning of this trial just to smear my client, why should you trust anything that they have said? I maintain that the only thing you can trust from this prosecution is the evidence they have presented, and that evidence overwhelmingly supports that my client, George Zimmerman, reluctantly shot Trayvon Martin because he was reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm.
I would start off the closing by saying something like this:
Members of the jury, at the beginning of this case, the prosecution told you that my client killed Trayvon Martin not because he had to, but because he wanted to. That was a lie and the prosecution knew it was a lie when they said it. They have not presented one bit of evidence to support their outrageous claim for one simple reason - they didn't have any. Lack of evidence does not matter to the prosecution. They just want you to hate George Zimmerman for defending his life. If the state is willing to tell you an outrageous lie at the beginning of this trial just to smear my client, why should you trust anything that they have said? I maintain that the only thing you can trust from this prosecution is the evidence they have presented, and that evidence overwhelmingly supports that my client, George Zimmerman, reluctantly shot Trayvon Martin because he was reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm.
I like it, but I'd swap out "lie", for "attempt to deceive the jury", a couple times.
The PA is shouting. YELLING at the jury. All while he's straddling the dummy, putting Trayvon in the attack position. This guy is at atupid, strategically, as he is annoying and abrasive.
"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."
Good point but "lie" is an impact word. Libs have proven how effective it can be in persuading the public. Examples include "Bush lied, people died" and all the dems who flat out said that Romney "lied in the debates". Maybe it should be "The prosecution lied to you when they said that."
Good point but "lie" is an impact word. Libs have proven how effective it can be in persuading the public. Examples include "Bush lied, people died" and all the dems who flat out said that Romney "lied in the debates". Maybe it should be "The prosecution lied to you when they said that."
The PA is shouting. YELLING at the jury. All while he's straddling the dummy, putting Trayvon in the attack position. This guy is at atupid, strategically, as he is annoying and abrasive.
I've never witnessed a trial where the prosecution uses drama queen bullshitt, and twisting of the evidence, while the defense simply presents the facts. No offense to my attorney friends, but this role reversal thingy is just too weird.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
I would start off the closing by saying something like this:
Members of the jury, at the beginning of this case, the prosecution told you that my client killed Trayvon Martin not because he had to, but because he wanted to. That was a lie and the prosecution knew it was a lie when they said it. They have not presented one bit of evidence to support their outrageous claim for one simple reason - they didn't have any. Lack of evidence does not matter to the prosecution. They just want you to hate George Zimmerman for defending his life. If the state is willing to tell you an outrageous lie at the beginning of this trial just to smear my client, why should you trust anything that they have said? I maintain that the only thing you can trust from this prosecution is the evidence they have presented, and that evidence overwhelmingly supports that my client, George Zimmerman, reluctantly shot Trayvon Martin because he was reasonably in fear of death or great bodily harm.
Outstanding...
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
I think the prosecution did an outstanding job proving Zimmermans innocence. Unfortunately for Zimmerman, if he is found guilty or innocent he's dead. They'll kill him in prison or in the street.
�The constitution of the United States asserts that all power is inherent in the people, that they may exercise it by themselves, that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed!� � Thomas Jefferson
I have not listened to many prosecution closing arguments; but that was disconnected and pathetic. I felt like I listened to a 2 hour joke with no punch line.
Unfortunately for Zimmerman, if he is found guilty or innocent he's dead. They'll kill him in prison or in the street.
Nah. Even if he were convicted (which would surprise me greatly) he will be protected, if not released, and win on appeal. Either way, he will be a rich man.
The only thing worse than a liberal is a liberal that thinks they're a conservative.
He was interpreting the law, which isn't allowed in closing - I'm surprised they didn't object because the statement is false.
Last edited by WyColoCowboy; 07/11/13.
"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."
Wow -- that was pathetic. They didn't even talk about any physical evidence other than that Martin didn't have blood on his hands as evidence, just tried to say Zim was a liar.
"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."
Wow -- that was pathetic. They didn't even talk about any physical evidence other than that Martin didn't have blood on his hands as evidence, just tried to say Zim was a liar.
Despicable tactics from beginning to end. None of it based on an honest and dispassionate analysis of the facts. Just designed to inspire hatred for the man so as to evoke a guilty verdict based on that feeling of hate. The whole team should be disbarred, and that goes for the judge, too.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.rockymtnrefl.com/TetonFenceBarncd1985987.jpg)
![[Linked Image from images7.memedroid.com]](https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED555/651dcaab819c9.jpeg)