Predict the Zimmerman verdict

You really border on megalomania.


Yes I am......if somebody is talking about putting air in a auto tire, and then makes a statement that the gasoline is stored in the tires.....well if my actions or opinions border on megalomania.......then lets put the gas where it belongs.........it would be nice not having to visit the border.......because with so much misinformation and ill formed concepts, I think we will need to borrow those 20k border guards to start tutoring folks that gasoline is not put in auto tires. Megalomania........that sounds like something the Doctor Biopsied off of Bob.......are you saying I am a wart?

Yes. Omara will clear up the prosecutor's lies.


Do you understands that closing statements are not evidence. If a lawyer mistakenly gives an exhibit number or characterizes the evidence incorrectly that does not change the evidence which the jury will review. The defense will correct any flawed argument by their argument, and if they make a mistake the state will correct the same in rebuttal but the actual evidence is what speaks and has a probative value.....not the words of a lawyer on closing attempting to tie that evidence together.

It was no damn accident or mistake.  The prosecutor set the situation up to back up his claim that Zimmerman is a liar.   The prosecutor said that Zimmerman lied when he told the officer at the police station on the night of the shooting that he did not realize that Trayvon was dead.  Then he backed that up by saying that Zimmerman had earlier in the evening told his neighbor to tell Zimmerman's wife that he had "killed" Trayvon.   And he emphasized the word "killed" to make a point that Zimmerman was lying when he told the police officer, later, that he didn't realize that Trayvon was dead.  What Zimmerman actually told the neighbor was:  Tell my wife that I "shot" him.   It was no mistake or accident that the prosecutor substituted "killed" for "shot". It couldn't be a mistake because of the way he set the whole thing up.  

I understand that when a prosecutor lies while trying to prove that the defendant is a liar, that we have a dishonest prosecutor.

2seaoat wrote:Yes. Omara will clear up the prosecutor's lies.


Do you understands that closing statements are not evidence.   If a lawyer mistakenly gives an exhibit number or characterizes the evidence incorrectly that does not change the evidence which the jury will review.   The defense will correct any flawed argument by their argument, and if they make a mistake the state will correct the same in rebuttal but the actual evidence is what speaks and has a probative value.....not the words of a lawyer on closing attempting to tie that evidence together.  

Oh let's review this bias. When the state makes a false statement, it is a mistake, right? When Zimmerman has an inconsistency he is a liar. Am I reading this right? LOL!

Bob wrote:Nah I think seaoat's probably right that ghandi is saying what many believe but don't have the gumption to say.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

I just watched the exchange between Nancy Grace and Zimmerman's friend.
What we have here, is a real reality show. It's real in the sense that the incident actually did occur and somebody is dead. But that has been turned into a new media act.
It's all quite bizarre. Even for these times and that's saying something.

Dreamsglore wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Yes. Omara will clear up the prosecutor's lies.


Do you understands that closing statements are not evidence.   If a lawyer mistakenly gives an exhibit number or characterizes the evidence incorrectly that does not change the evidence which the jury will review.   The defense will correct any flawed argument by their argument, and if they make a mistake the state will correct the same in rebuttal but the actual evidence is what speaks and has a probative value.....not the words of a lawyer on closing attempting to tie that evidence together.  

Oh let's review this bias. When the state makes a false statement, it is a mistake, right? When Zimmerman has an inconsistency he is a liar. Am I reading this right? LOL!

It could not have been a mistake the way it was set up.
I thought that West was an ass, but he has nothing on that prosecutor.

Bob wrote:I was waiting in line earlier today at CVS to price a prescription.
Ahead of me was a young black girl with her two year old boy in a stroller.
He was the cutest smiling little thing I have ever seen.  He had no clue that he was black and I was white.
He'll need about five more years to get indoctrinated into race.
God how I wish it didn't have to be like that.

It doesn't.

Floridatexan wrote:

It doesn't.

It's one helluva lot easier said than done, tex. lol

I understand that when a prosecutor lies while trying to prove that the defendant is a liar, that we have a dishonest prosecutor.



First, there are probably 30 lies which Zimmerman told. Second, those lies are in evidence.......closing arguments are not evidence. Omara will correct any argument the state made, and the state will correct Omara on any variations of his argument with the evidence.

So determined to believe this guy who shot an unarmed black kid.....that even at this late date you select one of the thirty lies and say that the state lied.......if this was not in closing it would have been handled by a normal objection, but there are rules which limit Omara's right to object where the other party in argument has characterized the evidence incorrectly......this happened all through the trial where both sides in some of their questions made mistakes in the characterization of the evidence......outside the presence of the jury either party can make a motion to instruct the jury to disregard the wrong words. There is even a standard jury instruction which tells the jury that closing arguments are not evidence.......so if you think this is some calculated plan, I would disagree(he honestly does not believe a word Zimmerman has said and he misspoke).....from the other inconsistencies in statements concerning if Zimmerman knew he had killed Martin.....are way down the list of probative evidence as to the more important lies............but certainly to characterize a statement as an intentional lie after a three hour closing statement......also, the judge will declare a mistrial if either party does something so improperly that the jury is prejudiced......plenty of safeguards, and few closings are error free.

Here we go again! Seaoat's opinions are fact, doesn't everybody know that?
Please show us your evidence Zimmerman has told 30 lies other than your opinion. At this point in the trial nobody knows what happened so apparently you do. Why haven't you testified? Enlighten us?

2seaoat wrote:I understand that when a prosecutor lies while trying to prove that the defendant is a liar, that we have a dishonest prosecutor.



First, there are probably 30 lies which Zimmerman told.   Second, those lies are in evidence.......closing arguments are not evidence.   Omara will correct any argument the state made, and the state will correct Omara on any variations of his argument with the evidence.    

So determined to believe this guy who shot an unarmed black kid.....that even at this late date you select one of the thirty lies and say that the state lied.......if this was not in closing it would have been handled by a normal objection, but there are rules which limit Omara's right to object where the other party in argument has characterized the evidence incorrectly......this happened all through the trial where both sides in some of their questions made mistakes in the characterization of the evidence......outside the presence of the jury either party can make a motion to instruct the jury to disregard the wrong words.   There is even a standard jury instruction which tells the jury that closing arguments are not evidence.......so if you think this is some calculated plan, I would disagree(he honestly does not believe a word Zimmerman has said and he misspoke).....from the other inconsistencies in statements concerning if Zimmerman knew he had killed Martin.....are way down the list of probative evidence as to the more important lies............but certainly to characterize a statement as an intentional lie after a three hour closing statement......also, the judge will declare a mistrial if either party does something so improperly that the jury is prejudiced......plenty of safeguards, and few closings are error free.

Sorry, Seaoat, but I think it was a deliberate lie.  Closing argument claims aren't off the cuff.   They are deliberate and rehearsed, unlike Zimmerman's interview at the police station an hour or so after he killed Trayvon.   I don't know why the prosecutor would lie about it.  It really makes no sense because I think Omara will call him on it.   But maybe he thought he could just slip it in there to put the word "killed" in the jurors' minds.

Enlighten us?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32IS9TMP9wY

Make a new plan stan.......it is not working.

Distract, distract from the facts. Do a little song and dance and maybe no one will realize that you don't have a case. Same tactic as the prosecutor today.

Closing argument claims aren't off the cuff.

They are much more common and negligent than you think intentional.

http://www.kttlaw.com/images/news/TuckerFloridaBarJournalDecember.pdf

Distract, distract from the facts

Agreed.....people have been distracted from the facts of this case.......the core central lies of the guy who is still walking around confirming that he could tell a story......the story was about as efficient as my four year old granddaughter's stories.....but I could understand somebody buying into my granddaughter's stories hook line and sinker........distracted from the facts would be a good starting point.

2seaoat wrote:Closing argument claims aren't off the cuff.

They are much more common and negligent than you think intentional.

http://www.kttlaw.com/images/news/TuckerFloridaBarJournalDecember.pdf

He set his argument up to show that Zimmerman is a liar. It could not have been a mis-statement.

Telling a lie in order to try and show that someone else is a liar...when that other person's life and future is on the line...is reprehensible.

2seaoat wrote:Distract, distract from the facts

Agreed.....people have been distracted from the facts of this case.......the core central lies of the guy who is still walking around confirming that he could tell a story......the story was about as efficient as my four year old granddaughter's stories.....but I could understand somebody buying into my granddaughter's stories hook line and sinker........distracted from the facts would be a good starting point.

I just think you're so wrong on all of this. But we'll see when the jury comes back with a verdict.

Telling a lie in order to try and show that someone else is a liar...when that other person's life and future is on the line...is reprehensible.


Were you aware of how many times West made objections, or the prosecutors made objections on statements of what the evidence was........at least a handful of times and by both sides.......you have a very selective reasoning process which is consistent........with the acceptance of every word Zimmerman has said and a complete denial of the lies......just an observation......what happens if the jury convicts......what intentional act by somebody will have misguided the jury? What if Zimmerman is simply a liar...........could you ever freely come to that conclusion from the evidence?......or has your prejudgment tainted your reasoning? I do not care what the jury decides, but I am beyond any reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is a liar.........but if he is found NG.....I will not blame Omara, or the media, or some other excuse....I will accept the jury verdict......and if they find him NG.....then that means that they found him credible......but if he is convicted....will you accept the fact that the Jury found his statements incredible?

2seaoat wrote:Telling a lie in order to try and show that someone else is a liar...when that other person's life and future is on the line...is reprehensible.


Were you aware of how many times West made objections, or the prosecutors made objections on statements of what the evidence was........at least a handful of times and by both sides.......you have a very selective reasoning process which is consistent........with the acceptance of every word Zimmerman has said and a complete denial of the lies......just an observation......what happens if the jury convicts......what intentional act by somebody will have misguided the jury?   What if Zimmerman is simply a liar...........could you ever freely come to that conclusion from the evidence?......or has your prejudgment tainted your reasoning?   I do not care what the jury decides, but I am beyond any reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is a liar.........but if he is found NG.....I will not blame Omara, or the media, or some other excuse....I will accept the jury verdict......and if they find him NG.....then that means that they found him credible......but if he is convicted....will you accept the fact that the Jury found his statements incredible?

I will find the jury didn't know what happened and took the middle road if he is convicted. They should under the law find him not guilty because we don't know what happened. You shouldn't convect anyone w/o knowing what happened.

Sal wrote:I think the prosecution did an excellent job of exposing Zimmerman's many lies, especially considering they were handicapped by the Sanford PD witnesses who were defensive and evasive due to the shoddy job they did in their initial investigation.

I am troubled that the prosecution did not place more weight on the testimony of Rachel Jeanteal.

Her testimony was powerful and compelling and they seem to have retreated from it due solely to the optics and not her veracity.  

That's a sad commentary on our society.

I fully expect the defense to do an excellent job tomorrow.

She didn't have any veracity because she admitted she didn't tell the truth the first time. She added the get off get off and cracker ass creep later.

Dreamsglore wrote:

Seaoat, just STFU! I'm so sick of you trying to be a lawyer and telling actual lawyers they are wrong. Just the fact you said this case is not about race should tell everybody what a dilbert you are.

Hell has frozen over...Dreams and I agree.

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Dreamsglore wrote:

Seaoat, just STFU! I'm so sick of you trying to be a lawyer and telling actual lawyers they are wrong. Just the fact you said this case is not about race should tell everybody what a dilbert you are.

Hell has frozen over...Dreams and I agree.

I know!!!!! I've been saying that too... It's worrisome!

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmuZsSsyQ-M

 

2seaoat wrote:Telling a lie in order to try and show that someone else is a liar...when that other person's life and future is on the line...is reprehensible.


Were you aware of how many times West made objections, or the prosecutors made objections on statements of what the evidence was........at least a handful of times and by both sides.......you have a very selective reasoning process which is consistent........with the acceptance of every word Zimmerman has said and a complete denial of the lies......just an observation......what happens if the jury convicts......what intentional act by somebody will have misguided the jury?   What if Zimmerman is simply a liar...........could you ever freely come to that conclusion from the evidence?......or has your prejudgment tainted your reasoning?   I do not care what the jury decides, but I am beyond any reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is a liar.........but if he is found NG.....I will not blame Omara, or the media, or some other excuse....I will accept the jury verdict......and if they find him NG.....then that means that they found him credible......but if he is convicted....will you accept the fact that the Jury found his statements incredible?

I'm not talking about Zimmerman lying, I'm talking about the prosecutor lying. If EVERY word out of Zimmerman's mouth is a lie, if he stalked Trayvon, called him the "N" word while  gleefully and happily shooting him dead, it in no way, shape or form excuses the STATE OF FLORIDA from deliberately lying about a comment that they claim that  Zimmerman said.  Do you understand that if the prosecutor is a LIAR, then no innocent man that he is prosecuting has a chance at a completely fair trial?  I just really cannot believe you on this.  If Zimmerman is GUILTY AS HELL, if he's a compulsive liar and a cold blooded murderer--that prosecuting attorney, who represents the State of Florida and tries to get defendants put away for life, is still a liar.  

The jury will rule and I will accept their decision.  I didn't see all of the evidence.  I didn't watch all of the trial.  The jury knows a lot more about the evidence than I do.

But that prosecutor is a LIAR.

What worries me is that most defendants don't have the kind of representation that Zimmerman has. Zimmerman has great attorneys who have spent a lot of time on his defense. Most people in his situation don't have that.