The State is about to rest

Markle wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Other than the Prosecution, or yourself, what person of authority and are inside the courtroom, have said the states case is Prima Facia that Zimmerman murdered Martin. That the state has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman is guilty.


Omara did a brilliant argument on the status of the law in the state of Florida.   His argument was very clear.  If there was a VIABLE case of self defense, as a matter of law she had to grant the motion for acquittal.  He gave clear Florida case law and the State never argued that was the law.  The motion was denied.   This means that the entire self defense case has failed because Zimmerman has lied.   The state has met their burden of a prima facia case.

Do you understand as a matter of law there has been no self defense affirmative defense recognized by the court after listening to all of Zimmerman's explanations.........You do understand these elementary concepts?  There is no self defense......the defense is going to have to rebut the prima facia case with evidence......she already heard the words of Zimmerman.........

Now the jury is the finder of fact.....the court rules on the law.....the jury may have doubt as to some facts in evidence or weigh them differently, but as a matter of law.....the state has proven Zimmerman guilty of murder, and as a matter of law the motion for acquittal has been denied.

The request is made at virtually every criminal trial.  ESPECIALLY one receiving as much publicity as this one due to the race issue.  Your assumption is foolish and terribly uninformed.

Foe once I agree w/ you too. The request is made at every trial. It's standard practice.

That is false, Seaoat! All she said was there was enough evidence for the jury to decide. She just decides if there is enough evidence for the jury to decide.

Now that I know you are a college graduate, do some reading. As a matter of law the state has met the requirements of a prima facia case. I have posted the jury instructions of the same. You can argue as a matter of fact until the cows fly, I am arguing on what the motion under the law meant. Nothing I have said is false. Some may comprehend, others may not, but as a college graduate you should be able to read. Omara did a brilliant job setting forward the standard....particularly the depraved mind standard.....as a matter of law the elements have been met......I will not debate with people who do not know the difference of the role of the finder of fact and the finder of the law......the judge has ruled on the law which means taking the evidence most favorable to the state, they saw not one scintilla of evidence which would be self defense(Omara was brilliant as to why this is the case), but more importantly the almost impossible standard of a depraved mind(which again was brilliantly argued by Omara) was met, or otherwise the law is clear.....aquittal.......there is only way by law that she could arrive at these legal conclusions......the defendant is not credible.

The request is made at virtually every criminal trial. ESPECIALLY one receiving as much publicity as this one due to the race issue. Your assumption is foolish and terribly uninformed.


Hardly. Do you understand that manslaughter would still be on the table. Do you understand after listening to Omara's brilliant arguments what the standards are in Florida for a depraved mind. The jury instructions should not be given to a jury if as a matter of law there is even a slight possibility of self defense in this second degree murder charge because of the depraved mind standard as outlined by Omara.........You think the race issue would stop this jury from hearing the manslaughter instructions......Your assumptions are simply naive and without even rudimentary understanding of how difficult the second degree murder charges in Florida are to meet as a Matter Of LAW.

Can I ask this question. Did Dreams or Mr. Markle listen to Omara's argument on acquittal? If you did......did you think you understood the same? I am puzzled if you even understand the issues we are discussing......the jury is going to get instructions and to grant a motion of acquittal on the second degree does not take this case from the jury......I think I may be wasting my time discussing these simple concepts with people who neither understand them, or at least listened to the brilliant arguments which Omara made.

2seaoat wrote:That is false, Seaoat! All she said was there was enough evidence for the jury to decide. She just decides if there is enough evidence for the jury to decide.

Now that I know you are a college graduate, do some reading.   As a matter of law the state has met the requirements of a prima facia case.  I have posted the jury instructions of the same.  You can argue as a matter of fact until the cows fly, I am arguing on what the motion under the law meant.  Nothing I have said is false.  Some may comprehend, others may not, but as a college graduate you should be able to read.  Omara did a brilliant job setting forward the standard....particularly the depraved mind standard.....as a matter of law the elements have been met......I will not debate with people who do not know the difference of the role of the finder of fact and the finder of the law......the judge has ruled on the law which means taking the evidence most favorable to the state, they saw not one scintilla of evidence which would be self defense(Omara was brilliant as to why this is the case), but more importantly the almost impossible standard of a depraved mind(which again was brilliantly argued by Omara) was met, or otherwise the law is clear.....aquittal.......there is only way by law that she could arrive at these legal conclusions......the defendant is not credible.

It doesn't matter, Seaoat. There is not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That must be met. It's not there!

It doesn't matter, Seaoat. There is not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. That must be met. It's not there!

Perhaps. I have made it clear that I could care less what the jury finds......but do you understand where the compromise position is going to be if they do not think the murder charges are correct.......it will be manslaughter, and the second degree murder charges if Omara was correct should never have given a jury a chance to meet consensus on manslaughter. The state has never in my opinion intended second degree to be the conviction.....yet they made it......and now have the instructions.......a hung jury becomes much less probable when the home run is not stricken from instructions, and the fall back is manslaughter. Huge victory for the state, and the only possible explanation for the court's ruling is the total absence of credibility in Zimmerman.

2seaoat wrote:That is false, Seaoat! All she said was there was enough evidence for the jury to decide. She just decides if there is enough evidence for the jury to decide.

Now that I know you are a college graduate, do some reading.   As a matter of law the state has met the requirements of a prima facia case.  I have posted the jury instructions of the same.  You can argue as a matter of fact until the cows fly, I am arguing on what the motion under the law meant.  Nothing I have said is false.  Some may comprehend, others may not, but as a college graduate you should be able to read.  Omara did a brilliant job setting forward the standard....particularly the depraved mind standard.....as a matter of law the elements have been met......I will not debate with people who do not know the difference of the role of the finder of fact and the finder of the law......the judge has ruled on the law which means taking the evidence most favorable to the state, they saw not one scintilla of evidence which would be self defense (Omara was brilliant as to why this is the case), but more importantly the almost impossible standard of a depraved mind(which again was brilliantly argued by Omara) was met, or otherwise the law is clear.....aquittal.......there is only way by law that she could arrive at these legal conclusions......the defendant is not credible.

Nothing of the sort, you are grossly misusing the term "prima facia evidence".  

PLEASE show us where the judge stated that there was "not one scintilla of evidence which would be self defense".

The one neighbor alone who testified that he saw Martin, straddling Zimmerman and punching at him, is evidence of self defense as is Zimmerman's bloodied nose.

The ruling of the judge to continue the trial could also mean that there is only "one scintilla of evidence" that this was NOT self defense so the trial must continue.

IF Zimmerman is found guilty, in my opinion, it will ONLY be because the jury was afraid of starting riots.  Supposedly they're not allowed to see or hear any news reports, hopefully that is true.

PLEASE show us where the judge stated that there was "not one scintilla of evidence which would be self defense".


Do me a favor. Answer the question I gave you. Did you listen to Omara's legal arguments in support of his motion for acquittal? If you did, and you understood the same, you would understand the incredibly hard if not impossible ability to give these instructions where there is even a "plausible" self defense argument.....if there is as a matter of law the second degree murder charges and all the elements for the same can not be met. If you are going to argue something you do not understand, and then take my reference and do not understand the case law which was carefully recited by Omara.....AND WAS NEVER CHALLENGED BY THE STATE.....then you would understand that as a matter of law there was no self defense..........concepts require cursory understanding.......Omara's arguments would have given you the same.......You could have listened to the self defense cases involving 2nd degree, and you might also have listened that there will be no other case in recent history as quoted by Omara which would allow the judge to make the ruling she did......UNLESS......AS A MATTER OF LAW.....THE COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT ZIMMERMAN HAS NO CREDIBILITY.

Do you understand as a matter of law, on State's motion, the court could deny the self defense instructions(highly unlikely), but in my opinion as likely as the court allowing 2nd degree with Zimmerman's testimony to go to the jury......I have walked a lonely path before......do not care if you can see the path, or understand my words.......but if you have not even watched Omara's legal arguments on the Motion for acquittal......why are you wasting my time........like a buyer with a 30k income and no other access to assets coming to you to buy a million dollar house........and asking you to verify that the security system works........I think the first question would be....do you even understand what it takes to buy this house?

I'm not going to continue to argue w/ you your silly interpretations. The court has merely stated there was enough evidence for the jury to decide the case.

I'm not going to continue to argue w/ you your silly interpretations. The court has merely stated there was enough evidence for the jury to decide the case.

What argument.....you never listened to Omara's motion......there could not even be an intelligent discussion let alone an argument........but I cannot wait for the trial to begin again I may get another gem from you:

Time wasters if you ask me. The state doesn't have a case. They are trying to convict this man based on speculation. Speculation is not evidence. The witnesses haven't helped one way or another.


ooooppppps the state had a case, and I am the Dilbert......I will be damned.....who would have thought..........

2seaoat wrote:PLEASE show us where the judge stated that there was "not one scintilla of evidence which would be self defense".


Do me a favor.  Answer the question I gave you.   Did you listen to Omara's legal arguments in support of his motion for acquittal?  If you did, and you understood the same, you would understand the incredibly hard if not impossible ability to give these instructions where there is even a "plausible" self defense argument.....if there is as a matter of law the second degree murder charges and all the elements for the same can not be met.   If you are going to argue something you do not understand, and then take my reference and do not understand the case law which was carefully recited by Omara.....AND WAS NEVER CHALLENGED BY THE STATE.....then you would understand that as a matter of law there was no self defense..........concepts require cursory understanding.......Omara's arguments would have given you the same.......You could have listened to the self defense cases involving 2nd degree, and you might also have listened that there will be no other case in recent history as quoted by Omara which would allow the judge to make the ruling she did......UNLESS......AS A MATTER OF LAW.....THE COURT HAS DETERMINED THAT ZIMMERMAN HAS NO CREDIBILITY.

Do you understand as a matter of law, on State's motion, the court could deny the self defense instructions(highly unlikely), but in my opinion as likely as the court allowing 2nd degree with Zimmerman's testimony to go to the jury......I have walked a lonely path before...... do not care if you can see the path, or understand my words.......but if you have not even watched Omara's legal arguments on the Motion for acquittal......why are you wasting my time........like a buyer with a 30k income and no other access to assets coming to you to buy a million dollar house........and asking you to verify that the security system works........I think the first question would be....do you even understand what it takes to buy this house?

WHEEZY...BRING MY WADERS!

At least seaoat posts HIS opinions. You're a pathetic tool, spamming various forums with GOP talking points.

He wins by default Howard.

WHEEZY...BRING MY WADERS!

Mr. Markle like your poor attempt to instruct in the law on a prima facia case using a drivers license you mix metaphors again with this poorly executed attempt at humor first.......

In the Jeffersons it was George and Weezie, not Wheezy, but in toy story 2 there was a toy penguin called Wheezy, who did not have a partner who would bring waders like Louise Jefferson coming to the aid of George........lets try to improve your A game before getting in the MMA ring with Seaoat......first I am taking MMA classes three times a week, and I just do not understand the concept of stand your ground......never heard it before.....but again....please do not bring this weak crap when you are in the ring.....it is an embarrassing situation since I have seen your A game which is usually much better......but a penguin getting waders.......that probably does make sense in your world.

facia is a board,Seaoat. Not a legal term.

facia is a board,Seaoat. Not a legal term.

finally somebody paying attention.........

Guess what? I learned about PRIMA FACIE cases in college.

Guess what? I learned about PRIMA FACIE cases in college.


What class was that......Latin?