New Trayvon Martin photos released into evidence

[Spencer24]

CNN was nice enough to provide subtitles for Dee Dee's testimony.

[Dragger]

Wo wooo - I don't think I said that.

For 73 pages you've repeated that you "went to law school," you repeatedly misspelled "self defense", you had to "speak with lawyer friends" for information, yet you never said anything about graduating law school, working as a lawyer or even a legal aid.

So why didn't you graduate from the alleged law school you went to?

[hooked4life]

For 73 pages you've repeated that you "went to law school," you repeatedly misspelled "self defense", you had to "speak with lawyer friends" for information, yet you never said anything about graduating law school, working as a lawyer or even a legal aid.

So why didn't you graduate from the alleged law school you went to?

I'm just not talking about my personal life here. Deal with it. Assume what you like - I know the truth and I'm happy with it. Could you reply to my other post?

[Farley1324]

This is probably 1/20 of what I found in about two minutes. I'm sure there is an assload more.

4.0 in undergrad, 4.0 in Masters (Chinese) now in law school.

going to a top school - i was poli sci/history
grad in chinese

but i know a lot of people had all kinds of crazy ass majors.

been said but LSAT/GPA is what it's all about

gotta do what you love man. I was phil/history undergrad ... yeah going to law school :P. But still if you want to teach it, do it.

[Dragger]

I'm just not talking about my personal life here. Deal with it. Assume what you like - I know the truth and I'm happy with it. Could you reply to my other post?

I don't blame you for not talking about your personal life, I understand.

But your professional life, hey, you mentioned you went to law school yet couldn't spell "self defense" and it wasn't a one-time typo, you did it repeatedly and consistently, over and over for around 50 pages. I seriously doubt you know much about something you couldn't even spell.

[Farley1324]

This is more specific

i go to law school in SF.

[Dragger]

This is more specific

Lower case "i" and all? Seems suspect for such a highly educated individual.

[ODBM]

CNN was nice enough to provide subtitles for Dee Dee's testimony.

I can't stand listening to this girl talk. Can someone cliff me on what she said and how/why she proved Zimmerman's case?

[Farley1324]

I can't stand listening to this girl talk. Can someone cliff me on what she said and how/why she proved Zimmerman's case?

Nobody has necessarily proved anything.

She said that Martin called Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker" and clarified that cracker referred to a white person. She said she didn't take the interview from way back seriously. She said that when she got off the phone with Martin she thought it was just a fight, which implies that a fight was no big deal to him, standard occurrence, nothing for her to be concerned with. And that is just scratching the surface. You really have to watch the video to see her courtroom presence.

Disclaimer: I am giving cliffs of cliffs as I only cared to watch about 3 minutes of her testimony.

[metroins]

I'm just not talking about my personal life here. Deal with it. Assume what you like - I know the truth and I'm happy with it. Could you reply to my other post?

Brah, you had to know you'd get called out sooner or later, you mention the law school thing a lot.

That's why I list my company in my signature, if I tell people I know insurance and own a company about it they can physically call me and actually get me.

It keeps me honest so I don't go full retard and have people just rely on the assumption that I have credentials.

[ODBM]

Nobody has necessarily proved anything.

She said that Martin called Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker" and clarified that cracker referred to a white person. She said she didn't take the interview from way back seriously. She said that when she got off the phone with Martin she thought it was just a fight, which implies that a fight was no big deal to him, standard occurrence, nothing for her to be concerned with. And that is just scratching the surface. You really have to watch the video to see her courtroom presence.

Disclaimer: I am giving cliffs of cliffs as I only cared to watch about 3 minutes of her testimony.

Thanks, on spread for you.

[metroins]

I'm confused at how the trial works. The prosecution seems to be clear, concise, understandable and easy to follow.

The defense on cross examination is detailing everything to the exact second and focusing on every little word. They are taking 3x longer and jump around a lot which is hard to follow.

In my opinion the defense is kicking ass, but to a jury I could see them easily being confused and annoyed with the types of questions.

The defense seems to be setting themselves up for an easy appeal, I'm just not sure if that type of questioning will win over a 6 female jury.

Anybody else think like this? The talking heads on CNN still think the prosecution isn't doing bad, but they are obviously biased. The fact the American public believes them makes me scared for Zimmerman.

[jafomofo]

Looking into it more it appears that as it stands the jury can't just convict Zimmerman of lesser charges, the prosecution would have to request that the judge instruct the jurors on being able to go with a lesser charge, AND the judge would have to decide to allow that and follow through with it, and I'm not yet seeing anything that indicates this will necessarily happen.

jafomofo, I'm waiting for that link I supposedly ignored 5 times that shows that Z can be found guilty of lesser charges

hah. it was me asking you for a link 5 times in this thread and the misc thread which somehow you didn't see. you stated it couldn't happen, now you say it can but you're still right both times? full farley in effect.

[Farley1324]

I'm confused at how the trial works. The prosecution seems to be clear, concise, understandable and easy to follow.

The defense on cross examination is detailing everything to the exact second and focusing on every little word. They are taking 3x longer and jump around a lot which is hard to follow.

In my opinion the defense is kicking ass, but to a jury I could see them easily being confused and annoyed with the types of questions.

The defense seems to be setting themselves up for an easy appeal, I'm just not sure if that type of questioning will win over a 6 female jury.

Anybody else think like this? The talking heads on CNN still think the prosecution isn't doing bad, but they are obviously biased. The fact the American public believes them makes me scared for Zimmerman.

If CNN only thinks the prosecution "isn't doing bad", that means the prosecution is sucking it up hardcore.

Probably due to a lack of evidence that supports their position...

hah. it was me asking you for a link 5 times in this thread and the misc thread which somehow you didn't see. you stated it couldn't happen, now you say it can but you're still right both times? full farley in effect.

So you said I was wrong, even that I was "making it up", but you have no evidence whatsoever showing that I was wrong? And are actually asking me to tell you what's what?

So apparently I was correct?

[jafomofo]

If CNN only thinks the prosecution "isn't doing bad", that means the prosecution is sucking it up hardcore.

Probably due to a lack of evidence that supports their position...




So you said I was wrong, even that I was "making it up", but you have no evidence whatsoever showing that I was wrong? And are actually asking me to tell you what's what?

So apparently I was correct?

After you made a false assertion I asked for a link to vet it. Repeatedly. You ignored it repeatedly. elmariachi proved you were wrong and then I just confirmed it. its weird you missed this since we all know you read back in threads religiously.

and yes you made it up because you asserted a false fact, what else would you call that? Was your claim based on research? Did you qualify it as an opinion or anything similar? Nope.

[Farley1324]

i said you were wrong after you made a false assertion. I asked for a link to vet it. elmariachi proved you were wrong and then I just confirmed it. its weird you missed this since we all know you read back in threads religiously.

I missed where I was proved wrong.

Can you link or quote it please?



Also, lulz at claiming that I read the entirety of all of these threads. Talk about making stuff up.


Edit: It shouldn't be this difficult. What is holding you up? Somebody asked if he could be convicted of a lesser charge, and I said it was second degree murder or not guilty. You disagreed, said I was factually incorrect, and even said I was making it up. I said that was my understanding, if I was wrong it was because I was wrong, not because I was 'making it up', and asked for a link, cite, reference, clarification, etc, showing what else he could be convicted of. Instead of providing it you are going around in circles, showing nothing, asking me to provide something.

[jafomofo]

I missed where I was proved wrong.

Can you link or quote it please?



Also, lulz at claiming that I read the entirety of all of these threads. Talk about making stuff up.


Edit: It shouldn't be this difficult. What is holding you up? Somebody asked if he could be convicted of a lesser charge, and I said it was second degree murder or not guilty. You disagreed, said I was factually incorrect, and even said I was making it up. I said that was my understanding, if I was wrong it was because I was wrong, not because I was 'making it up', and asked for a link, cite, reference, clarification, etc, showing what else he could be convicted of. Instead of providing it you are going around in circles, showing nothing, asking me to provide something.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...post1093948173

No i didn't disagree. I asked you repeatedly for a link to what you were talking about so I could read up on it. You made the unqualified assertion based on...?

You did not say it was your understanding until after I mocked your claim that you hadn't made anything up related to the case and cited it as an example. It's not difficult at all except its dealing with you who evades and argues minutae rather than just saying the following:

I was wrong when I said that and when I asserted that we didn't know if he turned back toward his car or whatever very finessed version of your statement you want to hang desperately on to try and avoid being wrong.

Also, in case you missed it... did you watch the prosecution's opening statement? You and kikn should find it interesting and entertaining particular his comments about zimmerman's nose. You will find them familiar i'm sure.

[Farley1324]

Here is an (old, can't find anything newer that is specific and to the point) article saying what I said earlier. Since you seem unable or unwilling to provide something, we'll just have to assume this is correct until proven otherwise, I guess. According to this, conviction of a lesser charge would have to be allowed by a judge. I haven't seen where the judge has explicitly allowed this. Maybe you have. Can you link it please, for clarification? (and not an unverified post by another bb.com member)

Bold emphasis mine

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/12/us...n-florida.html

snip

"At trial, however, the question of self-defense can be brought up again and possibly will, said Robert Weisberg, a criminal law expert at Stanford Law School. That could lead to a fallback position for the jury — if allowed by the judge — of a lesser verdict of manslaughter should the jury decide that Mr. Zimmerman sincerely but unreasonably believed that he was appropriately using lethal force to defend himself, which is known as “imperfect self-defense.”"

snip

[Farley1324]

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showth...post1093948173

That's it? Is some other poster making a statement without reference or citation of any kind?

That's "proof"?

Got anything more substantial?

[jafomofo]

That's it? Is some other poster making a statement without reference or citation of any kind?

That's "proof"?

Got anything more substantial?

you've already substantiated it with your own posts why would i bother doing so further? Your claim was quite clear, its either murder 2 or not guilty. There is no qualification in there and bottom line... your post was wrong. You are so completely invested in not being wrong that you are arguing that somehow you weren't wrong? Its so confusing.

Come on, say it with me farley... I was wrong. Baby steps.

[Farley1324]

you've already substantiated it with your own posts why would i bother doing so further? Your claim was quite clear, its either murder 2 or not guilty. There is no qualification in there and bottom line... your post was wrong. You are so completely invested in not being wrong that you are arguing that somehow you weren't wrong? Its so confusing.

Come on, say it with me farley... I was wrong. Baby steps.

Says who?

The fact that, after hours of you seemingly stewing over this, and posting about it how many times, and telling me outright that I was factually incorrect over and over, and even claiming that I 'made it up', you STILL have yet to provide a shred of evidence is quite, well, odd.

I have provided an outside source from a major media outlet written by a subject matter expert that clearly, concisely, and specifically shows where I was coming from with my statement.

What have you done? Link to a post some random bb.com'er made and proclaim it as "proof"? I expected better than that.

I'm going to bed. Maybe, just maybe, when I get up tomorrow and read the next ~10 posts before jumping to the last page, you'll have substantiated your claims and we can all be on the same page regarding the state of different possible convictions.

[jafomofo]

Says who?

The fact that, after hours of you seemingly stewing over this, and posting about it how many times, and telling me outright that I was factually incorrect over and over, and even claiming that I 'made it up', you STILL have yet to provide a shred of evidence is quite, well, odd.

I have provided an outside source from a major media outlet written by a subject matter expert that clearly, concisely, and specifically shows where I was coming from with my statement.

What have you done? Link to a post some random bb.com'er made and proclaim it as "proof"? I expected better than that.

I'm going to bed. Maybe, just maybe, when I get up tomorrow and read the next ~10 posts before jumping to the last page, you'll have substantiated your claims and we can all be on the same page regarding the state of different possible convictions.

Wait a minute. Are you now arguing that

It's Murder 2 or not guilty for this case.

Is substantiated by

"At trial, however, the question of self-defense can be brought up again and possibly will, said Robert Weisberg, a criminal law expert at Stanford Law School. That could lead to a fallback position for the jury — if allowed by the judge — of a lesser verdict of manslaughter should the jury decide that Mr. Zimmerman sincerely but unreasonably believed that he was appropriately using lethal force to defend himself, which is known as “imperfect self-defense.”"

So you are actually now arguing that your unqualified post that it was murder 2 or not guilty was really supposed to mean murder 2 or lesser charges if the judge allows it. Is this really what you are trying to argue now?

That is honestly a new level of full farley son. You are literally proving your own original post wrong and arguing that somehow in doing so you were right all along. Holy ****.

And it gets better. Your research is literally just quoting the first article that pops up when searching for 'can zimmerman be found guilty of less charges'. Good god farley.

[Farley1324]

Now who's ignoring previous posts.



I very clearly followed up by stating that my understanding was 2nd degree or not guilty, that I could be wrong, could you please cite/link where you are getting your information for purposes of clarification?. I assumed that since you were so die hard and adamant about me being wrong that you actually knew what you were talking about. Maybe that assumption was a mistake?

I then said that I looked it up and all I could find was what I posted above about lesser convictions only if the judge allowed it, and again asked you to post a link/citation/proof that the jury can convict on lesser charges, so that we could see what's what.

You then linked to some random post by some random bb.com member as your "proof".

So I went and showed you where I was coming from with what I said about the judge needing to approve lesser charges during jury instruction, again asking you to provide a reference or citation to support your (repeated and adamant) claims that I was factually incorrect.. Surely you have one, because you have very clearly stated many many many times that I am "factually incorrect". Surely you have actual proof to go with that, right?

Well...still waiting.

Or do you want to repeat that I was wrong 15 more times before we even know whether or not I actually was wrong?

[jafomofo]

so you are saying that your post of:

It's Murder 2 or not guilty for this case.

Was meant to be read

Its my understanding was 2nd degree or not guilty, that I could be wrong

Is this what you are asserting? When you say you googled up the first link for can trayvon be charged with lesser crimes to show me where you were coming from, was that for your comment that

It's Murder 2 or not guilty for this case.

or was it afterward? Because if it was afterward which I'm assuming it was, what would you have been basing that original statement of fact on? Would it have been based on nothing but an unresearched opinion? There's another name for that I think... were you making that fact up?

And there you go. You were wrong, wrong, lied about not making stuff up and wrong some more. Good job.

[Farley1324]

so you are saying that your post of:
Was meant to be read


Is this what you are asserting? When you say you googled up the first link for can trayvon be charged with lesser crimes to show me where you were coming from, was that for your comment that


or was it afterward? Because if it was afterward which I'm assuming it was, what would you have been basing that original statement of fact on? Would it have been based on nothing but an unresearched opinion? There's another name for that I think... were you making that fact up?

And there you go. You were wrong, wrong, lied about not making stuff up and wrong some more. Good job.

*sigh*

So far you have provided -0- evidence that I was wrong. Still waiting on that, BTW.

I admitted I might be wrong. Many times. Here it is again: I MIGHT BE WRONG. Can you get over that?

As I said, I then clarified that my understanding was that it was second degree murder or not-guilty. Because that was my understanding. Translated, that was what I thought. What I thought *might* have been wrong. Or it might not. Don't know at this point.

You said I was wrong, and I was factually incorrect. You said I made stuff up (I did not) and now you are saying I lied (I did not, I never made anything up). However, you apparently don't have any evidence to support these statements. Why not?

Do you have any credible outside source stating that Zimmerman can be convicted of a lesser crime? If so, can we please see it?

I provided a credible outside source (a criminal law expert at stanford law school) saying that lesser convictions could only happen if the judge allowed it and included it in the jury instructions. If that is true, then it might end up being second degree murder or not guilty with no other options (what I said initially), unless the judge allows for lesser charges/convictions.

Do you have anything that contradicts this?

[jafomofo]

So you are not conceding that you are wrong? Even though you posted a link to a NY Times piece that specifically states the jury can convict on lesser charges if the judge allows it?

Am I accurately understanding this?

What you seem to be trying desperately to obfuscate is that your original statement did not allow for conditionals. You said specifically that it was all or nothing. In the form of logical syllogism that is:

All defendants found not guilty of murder 2 are found not guilty.

But you already provided an example that disproves your statement and makes your first statement wrong. Because of the link you yourself found you now have to state it as:

Some defendants found not guilty of murder 2 are found not guilty.

What part of this do you not understand because it is day 1 of logic 101. Your statement was demonstrably false as proved by your own subsequent link.

[Farley1324]

So you are not conceding that you are wrong? Even though you posted a link to a NY Times piece that specifically states the jury can convict on lesser charges if the judge allows it?

We don't even know if that is correct, as I only linked one article and it was from more than a year ago. But let's say that it is, because nobody has been able/willing to provide anything else to go off of.

That would mean that the default (current?) condition is that the jury can NOT convict on lesser charges; however, IF the judge decides to allow it, and instructs them in such, then they may convict on lesser charges.

At least that's the most accurate information I can come up with. Seemingly you have been unable to come up with anything contradictory.

Do you have any contradictory information you can reference for us?

[LukeLissen]

Witness 'john' will be a very important one, probably the most important one to the whole trial. This is the guy closest to where the shooting took place who came out his back door where TM and GZ were on the grass/sidewalk. It looks like is maybe 30-40 feet at most, maybe closer. He's the one Zimmerman said came out while he was being attacked and that he asked for help from and Z said the guy said 'stop' and that he was 'calling 911'.

John's witness account is basically that he saw the red sweater guy(GZ) on the ground with the dark hoodie guy(TM) on top attacking him, and that the guy in the red sweater on bottom was screaming for help.

[jafomofo]

We don't even know if that is correct, as I only linked one article and it was from more than a year ago. But let's say that it is, because nobody has been able/willing to provide anything else to go off of.

That would mean that the default (current?) condition is that the jury can NOT convict on lesser charges; however, IF the judge decides to allow it, and instructs them in such, then they may convict on lesser charges.

At least that's the most accurate information I can come up with. Seemingly you have been unable to come up with anything contradictory.

Do you have any contradictory information you can reference for us?

I thought about making you concede that you are wrong based off of your own posts but its bed time.

We do know its correct. A jury can always convict of lesser charges. Its called an alternative verdict and in florida in particular all lesser charges are automatically included so there is no way for the prosecution to overcharge zimmerman. There are many, many citations of this online from nbc, cnn, wikipedia explains it quite directly but since el mariachi has been favoring the legalinsurrection site and andrew branca the self defense specialist in this thread I'll just link you to his relevant post

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06...depraved-mind/

Why charge murder 2 on such little evidence of a “depraved mind”? Perhaps the prosecution believed more damning evidence would be found, or they hoped that the murder charge would lead to a plea bargain or compromise jury verdict on manslaughter. In Florida manslaughter is a lesser included offense to murder 2, and the jury will certainly have the manslaughter instruction to consider in their deliberations. .

You should go back into the misc thread and apologize to the people you mocked for not knowing what they were talking about considering the irony of this whole debacle.

[ElMariachi]

That's it? Is some other poster making a statement without reference or citation of any kind?

That's "proof"?

Got anything more substantial?

I'm looking for the article, but there was a lawyer discussing that in Florida , lesser charges....ie.....manslaughter, are pretty much always included in with murder two.


Not sure why this is such a big point of contention eitherway, trial has a long way to go.