TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:Did anyone see what happened with the "doll" today? I read about it, but would have liked to have seen it when it happened.

The Annoyed Man wrote:ABC TV analysis: Zimmerman will walk....

"With all of this said, juries are notoriously impossible to predict and the deliberation process can take on a life of its own, but if they follow the letter of the law, it's hard to see, based on everything we know now, how they find him guilty of either murder or even manslaughter."

sjfcontrol wrote:

baldeagle wrote:The defense can argue for a directed acquittal before closing their case. If the judge rejects that (which it seems she will - she rejects almost everything the defense asks for), it goes to the jury and who knows what happens?

She did that this afternoon. (Deny it, that is)

sjfcontrol wrote:

fickman wrote:The state's witness this afternoon is creating a new measuring stick for incompetence and stupidity.

Low-information voter.

and she DIDN'T want to come back tomorrow!

RoyGBiv wrote:^^^ I think you missed this bit...

philip964 wrote:Sarcasm on/

philip964 wrote:Sarcasm on/ The judge has ruled that Zimmerman cannot take the stand in his own defense, as he might say something bad about TM. Sarcasm/off

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2013/ ... der-trial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mamabearCali wrote:

G26ster wrote:
Of course TM is not on trial, but his character will become an issue at trial, and certainly impact the jury, if the prosecution is allowed to introduce negative character evidence about Mr. Zimmerman. If so, Zimmerman's attorney will attempt to do the same with TM's "character."

I think at minimum the toxicology report needs to be admitted that had a direct impact on what happened that night. If he was high as a kite that is a biggie. Tangentially as he was said to have mounted Zimmerman MMA style, his you tube videos of him participating in such fights would be relevant (as in he had trained in this before). Zimmerman said it looked like he was casing houses...so the burglary tools becomes relevant (was Trayvon casing houses?). I think those things need to be considered. The schools absenteeism and the guns fill in blanks in his character, but they may not be directly relevant.

mamabearCali wrote:

G26ster wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Perhaps the defense has more....I don't know. Really the gun is the least of Mr. martins troubles...the drugs, fights, and burglary look much worse on him. I does appear that he was looking for a gun though from the way those texts read.

I agree, and as I said before, I am not arguing the case, only that there is no evidence that shows it is TM that is holding the gun, therefore, at least to me, the discussion as to whether he legally "possessed" a gun is moot. Also, I hope that my "interest" in guns is never used against me in a court.

He is dead , we don't put dead people on trial. So it does not really matter. You are (likely) not as troubled as Mr. Martin was. So you are probably safe.

If it was just his interest in guns that was being used to smear him, I would say it is inappropriate to say anything about it. However it is part of a picture that is emerging of Mr. Martin and who he was at the time of his death. Leave out the guns and you have the same picture as before. So they could scrap the gun tweets and have the same picture of a deeply troubled young man. They guns part simple fills out the picture a little more.

mamabearCali wrote:Perhaps the defense has more....I don't know. Really the gun is the least of Mr. martins troubles...the drugs, fights, and burglary look much worse on him. I does appear that he was looking for a gun though from the way those texts read.

mamabearCali wrote:

G26ster wrote:
You are arguing the case and I am not. But you and others have been going round and round about his legal ability to possess a gun based on the photo. I am simply looking for proof that the hand holding the gun is Trayvon's, and so far I have seen none.

As I said before Mr. Martin said it was his hand.....could he have been lying? Sure. Mr. Martin is not on trial for possession of a firearm. But if he was, a written confession is often admissible in court. If you say you did something online, even if it is a lie, you can still be bagged for it.

Now as our other friend here has pointed out if he had his parents permission to have the gun he would get a pass on possesion, but somehow I doubt they had any idea of their sons actions.

However, Just for you I will try to search out the link that showed the gun and trayvons post about it.


Edited to add....here is the link about TM and the gun. It is NBC so they are not exactly pro-Zimmerman. Draw from it what you want. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05 ... phone?lite

mamabearCali wrote:

G26ster wrote:

jmra wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:So you are arguing that Trayvon had written permission (or otherwise had their consent) from his parents to possess that gun?

Where is the proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Trayvon Martin possessed that gun? If a photograph of someone's hand holding a gun on his phone proves he possessed it, then my avitar proves I'm a Siamese cat.

As I understand it Mr. Martin before his demise posted that it was his hand holding a gun. Could he have lied......sure....but that still is consistent with the image of the thug that he was trying to be. The pic is part of a persona that Mr. Martin was trying to portray. The gun, the mma fighting videos, the drank, the weed, the burglary tools, the pictures of him with wads of cash, the suspensions and the chronic absenteeism from school all paint a picture of a very troubled young man. A young man that it is quite plausible to believe that while high he jumped a man and nearly beat him to death before the man defended himself.

All of Mr. martins injuries were offensive in nature (excepting the gun shot wound) scrapes to his hands and knuckles. All of Mr. Zimmermans wounds were defensive (injuries to the back of his head, black eyes and a broken nose).

As far as reasonable doubt goes, Mr. Zimmerman is on trial here, not Mr. Martin. So he gets the reasonable doubt here.

jmra wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:So you are arguing that Trayvon had written permission (or otherwise had their consent) from his parents to possess that gun?

philip964 wrote: I thought earlier someone showed that it was in the Bill of Rights to have a grand jury. Is this kind of like the second amendment.