|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Zackback wrote: |
NBC spokeswoman Kathy Kelly-Brown said the network strongly disagreed with the accusations made in the complaint.
"There was no intent to portray Mr. Zimmerman unfairly," she said. "We intend to vigorously defend our position in court."
Three employees of the network or its Miami affiliate lost their jobs because of the changes. |
It's going to be interesting to see how the network explains that the report was fine, but resulted in 3 firings anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well the Zimmerman trial opens this week.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/28/18556018-judge-denies-delay-bars-evidence-in-george-zimmerman-trial-for-now?lite
| Quote: |
There is certainly enough evidence�that�s going to suggest Trayvon Martin involved himself ongoingly with fighting with other people,� O�Mara said.
He said the defense had obtained video of three fights � two in which Martin acted as a referee and a third in which two friends �were beating up a homeless guy.� The defense also wanted the right to present text messages, like one from November 2011 in which Martin seemed to refer to an organized fight: "He got mo hits cause in da 1st round. He had me on da ground nd I couldn�t do ntn."
Prosecutors argued that since Zimmerman and Martin didn�t know each other before the shooting, whether the teen had been involved in fights had no bearing on how the defendant reacted that night.
The judge ruled that the evidence about past fights could not be mentioned in opening statements but said it could be admitted during trial if the defense can authenticate it and overcome rules against hearsay evidence. |
Hopefully for Zimmerman they can. Past thuggery would seem to be relevant to this particular case. At the very least it does show that Trayvon is no stranger to participating in /instigating violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But doesn't the past record and "demography" also suggest that Zimmerman is prone to violence? I'd say that their past behavior is a push for both. Trayvon's a thug wannabe and Zimmerman has issues with violence and "Respect my Authoritay" wannabe cop attitudes.
Anything could have gone down, unfortunately the only evidence we have is likely not enough to convict Zimmerman. Reasonable doubt. If the event had ended up the same with Trayvon alive and Zimmerman dead, I'd say that Trayvon should be not guilty because there wouldn't be the physical evidence to convict him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
But doesn't the past record and "demography" also suggest that Zimmerman is prone to violence? I'd say that their past behavior is a push for both. Trayvon's a thug wannabe and Zimmerman has issues with violence and "Respect my Authoritay" wannabe cop attitudes.
Anything could have gone down, unfortunately the only evidence we have is likely not enough to convict Zimmerman. Reasonable doubt. If the event had ended up the same with Trayvon alive and Zimmerman dead, I'd say that Trayvon should be not guilty because there wouldn't be the physical evidence to convict him. |
Yes but Zimmerman's past record is not really an issue here...he's not on trial for that. However Trayvon's past record IS an issue because when this first came out he was being defended by various people as some kind of wide-eyed innocent kid. If you play up the character of someone then his character is fair game for the defense to find holes or flaws.
As for the physical evidence...well the only physical evidence we DO have supports Zimmerman's story. Grass stains on the back of his clothing, cuts on the back of his head, a bloody nose, powder burns on Trayvon's clothing...and the list goes on.
Surely if he was lying there would be at least one piece of evidence that doesn't fit his story. It's not like he had much time to put something together...witnesses and cops were there within minutes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
But doesn't the past record and "demography" also suggest that Zimmerman is prone to violence? I'd say that their past behavior is a push for both. Trayvon's a thug wannabe and Zimmerman has issues with violence and "Respect my Authoritay" wannabe cop attitudes.
Anything could have gone down, unfortunately the only evidence we have is likely not enough to convict Zimmerman. Reasonable doubt. If the event had ended up the same with Trayvon alive and Zimmerman dead, I'd say that Trayvon should be not guilty because there wouldn't be the physical evidence to convict him. |
Yes but Zimmerman's past record is not really an issue here...he's not on trial for that. However Trayvon's past record IS an issue because when this first came out he was being defended by various people as some kind of wide-eyed innocent kid. If you play up the character of someone then his character is fair game for the defense to find holes or flaws.
As for the physical evidence...well the only physical evidence we DO have supports Zimmerman's story. Grass stains on the back of his clothing, cuts on the back of his head, a bloody nose, powder burns on Trayvon's clothing...and the list goes on.
Surely if he was lying there would be at least one piece of evidence that doesn't fit his story. It's not like he had much time to put something together...witnesses and cops were there within minutes. |
Actually, Zimmerman is the person on trial, so his past tendencies to violence are certainly relevant to the case. However, it is a self-defense case, so of course Trayvon's tendencies towards violence merit inspection as well.
Whatever portrayal the media makes is not foundation for "fair game", the foundation comes from the version of events the prosecution and defense wish to present. Until the prosecution presents Trayvon as some sort of innocent doe-eyed kid, then "cute Trayvon" has no bearing on court proceedings. Murder of a drug dealer, freely described as such by the media and DA, is still murder.
The physical events supports Zimmerman's version of events, however that does not necessarily mean that it supports ONLY Zimmerman's version. As I said, I believe that evidence should be sufficient to get Zimmerman and acquittal, and unless there is some magic revelation, I think Zimmerman should go free as reasonable doubt would support his version of events.
These are hypothetical scenarios, not alternative explanations of events that transpired-
Let's say the fight went the opposite way, with Trayvon getting the back of his head smashed, would he be justified in grabbing the gun from Zimmerman and killing him? Would he still be a "thug"? Would Zimmerman's past problems with violence be an issue?
What if the fight had gone as it appears it has, and Trayvon was winning, but at Zimmerman went for his gun, only instead of shooting Trayvon, Trayvon had grabbed the gun from him and shot Zimmerman. Would Trayvon be guilty of murder? What if Zimmerman had the upper hand, Trayvon grabbed Z's gun out of his wasteband, but Z grabbed it back and shot him, would that be murder or self-defense?
It seems that what constitutes murder and self-defense in this case is not "who was winning the fight", but rather how the fight precipitated. Who threw the first punch? Who aggressively approached who?
As there is only person still alive, and no conclusive evidence available, the best answer is a not guilty verdict based on reasonable doubt.
However, anyone claiming that they know Zimmerman didn't cause anything or that Trayvon was a thug out for blood is engaged in total speculation, just as people who claim Trayvon was a saint and Z a total sociopath.
I don't care about either person's background as it appears that both had issues with violence. Therefore that adds nothing to the facts of the case as they are people with violent pasts, both are just as likely to have started the incident. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
Zimmerman's past record is not really an issue here...he's not on trial for that. However Trayvon's past record IS an issue because when this first came out he was being defended by various people as some kind of wide-eyed innocent kid. If you play up the character of someone then his character is fair game for the defense to find holes or flaws.
. . . |
Actually, Zimmerman is the person on trial, so his past tendencies to violence are certainly relevant to the case. However, it is a self-defense case, so of course Trayvon's tendencies towards violence merit inspection as well. |
Although past tendencies may arguably be generally relevant, they are inadmissible unless Zimmerman 'opens the door' and offers reputation evidence regarding Trayvon Martin.
Florida's Rules of Evidence closely track the Federal Rules of Evidence.
| Quote: |
90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.�
(1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.�Evidence of a person�s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:
(a) Character of accused.�Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.
(b) Character of victim.�
1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or
2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor. |
Past record is different from past tendencies. Also from Florida Rule 90.404:
| Quote: |
(2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.�
(a) Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity. |
So past acts may be relevant for other purposes, almost any other purpose, than to prove bad character or propensity.
Propensity evidence is highly disfavored in American law. Therefore, the accused are given a choice: they are either protected from propensity evidence, or they are allowed to present propensity evidence of the victim yet must also surrender their own protection from propensity evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
But doesn't the past record and "demography" also suggest that Zimmerman is prone to violence? I'd say that their past behavior is a push for both. Trayvon's a thug wannabe and Zimmerman has issues with violence and "Respect my Authoritay" wannabe cop attitudes.
Anything could have gone down, unfortunately the only evidence we have is likely not enough to convict Zimmerman. Reasonable doubt. If the event had ended up the same with Trayvon alive and Zimmerman dead, I'd say that Trayvon should be not guilty because there wouldn't be the physical evidence to convict him. |
Yes but Zimmerman's past record is not really an issue here...he's not on trial for that. However Trayvon's past record IS an issue because when this first came out he was being defended by various people as some kind of wide-eyed innocent kid. If you play up the character of someone then his character is fair game for the defense to find holes or flaws.
As for the physical evidence...well the only physical evidence we DO have supports Zimmerman's story. Grass stains on the back of his clothing, cuts on the back of his head, a bloody nose, powder burns on Trayvon's clothing...and the list goes on.
Surely if he was lying there would be at least one piece of evidence that doesn't fit his story. It's not like he had much time to put something together...witnesses and cops were there within minutes. |
Actually, Zimmerman is the person on trial, so his past tendencies to violence are certainly relevant to the case. However, it is a self-defense case, so of course Trayvon's tendencies towards violence merit inspection as well.
Whatever portrayal the media makes is not foundation for "fair game", the foundation comes from the version of events the prosecution and defense wish to present. Until the prosecution presents Trayvon as some sort of innocent doe-eyed kid, then "cute Trayvon" has no bearing on court proceedings. Murder of a drug dealer, freely described as such by the media and DA, is still murder.
The physical events supports Zimmerman's version of events, however that does not necessarily mean that it supports ONLY Zimmerman's version. As I said, I believe that evidence should be sufficient to get Zimmerman and acquittal, and unless there is some magic revelation, I think Zimmerman should go free as reasonable doubt would support his version of events.
These are hypothetical scenarios, not alternative explanations of events that transpired-
Let's say the fight went the opposite way, with Trayvon getting the back of his head smashed, would he be justified in grabbing the gun from Zimmerman and killing him? Would he still be a "thug"? Would Zimmerman's past problems with violence be an issue?...
. |
Trayvon would still be a thug not because he attacked Zimmerman but because he participated in the beating up of a homeless man. The defense has videos showing this. (*Note that the prosecution seems somewhat desperate that these videos be not seen at all.)
That's thuggish behavior.
As for Zimmerman's past problems with violence they are largely unproven and overblown by the media. For most of them we have only his ex-wife's word. Ex-spouses are not the most reliable witnesses on the planet when it comes to the transgressions of their former spouses.
As for the rest we don't know what really went down...we do have media reports...but given how the media behaved in this case who's to say that the reports there haven't been just as over-hyped?
*
| Quote: |
| Over the course of two hours, Nelson granted numerous motions by prosecutors, who argued that details of the slain teen�s past are not be relevant to the Feb. 26, 2012, confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin and should not be discussed before the jury. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, this trial is just about over...Reasonable Doubt+Incompetent and Potentially Deceitful Star Witness=Acquittal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sure the fact that he apparently was staring at Travon over a period of time. After that approached him carrying a gun and asked him what he was doing there when Travon had every right to be there (as well as most of the other people that happened to be there) will be considered by the jury.
Why did he feel that he had the right to approach people in an accusatory fashion carrying a gun? That alone says something bad about Zimmerman's character. Not to mention he was a person who was constantly complaining about black people legally employed where he was working in an unspecific fashion.
If Zimmerman couldn't do what Zimmerman felt entitled to do without carrying a gun then Zimmerman should not have been doing what he was doing in the first place, especially in an aggressive fashion.
This of course is balanced by how wicked of a person Travon was. Because Travon was a wicked person and because Zimmerman is evidently an idiot and was taken by surprise with Travon's response maybe he deserves leniency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The day started with a hold-over witness for the prosecution--a Queen LaBeefa-lookalike that had the demeanor of a pithed toad and, at times, needed an ebonics translator.
This star witness did nothing for the cause of the prosecution.
The next witness was a neighbor that said a few things that didn't seem to support the prosecution in any way. I was uncertain at times who call the witness--the defense or the prosecution.
She was well-spoken and did nothing for the prosecution.
The next witness was a hot latina woman whos superior wisdom did little or nothing for the prosecution but she was fun to look at so that's what really matters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
I'm sure the fact that he apparently was staring at Travon over a period of time. After that approached him carrying a gun and asked him what he was doing there when Travon had every right to be there (as well as most of the other people that happened to be there) will be considered by the jury.
Why did he feel that he had the right to approach people in an accusatory fashion carrying a gun? That alone says something bad about Zimmerman's character. Not to mention he was a person who was constantly complaining about black people legally employed where he was working in an unspecific fashion.
|
He felt he had the right because he DID have the right. The homeowners association (as posted some pages back in this thread) ASKED Zimmerman to be their neighborhood watch captain.
If he'd never seen Trayvon before then he had every right to ask him what he was doing there.
But according to Zimmerman he never did ask Trayvon what he was doing there.
He stated that he'd stopped following Trayvon and had returned to his truck when suddenly Trayvon appeared and aggressively accosted him. Also according to him Trayvon struck the first blow.
And the forensic evidence (so far) backs up Zimmerman's story to a tee.
As for constantly complaining about black people..that's one of the things that was proven to be overblown and exaggerated by the media. Already covered in this thread as well. From page 21
| Quote: |
Looks like more and more info is coming out that deflates the racist theory.
It was in the news today that Zimmerman's so-called multiple 911 calls over the last several months were analyzed one-by-one.
1. It was found that NONE of them were 911 calls. They were to the non-emergency line.
2. Never, in ANY of the calls did he EVER refer to the color of the people he called about until directly asked what color by the dispatcher. |
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| While I agree with most everything TUM summarized, I would add that I seem to recall the neighborhood watch being told NOT to approach/question suspects. So his "right" to do so did not come from that authority. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| While I agree with most everything TUM summarized, I would add that I seem to recall the neighborhood watch being told NOT to approach/question suspects. So his "right" to do so did not come from that authority. |
People in America have an absolute unqualified right to approach and confront people they find suspicious. People who are confronted don't have a right to respond with violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Died By Bear wrote: |
The day started with a hold-over witness for the prosecution--a Queen LaBeefa-lookalike that had the demeanor of a pithed toad and, at times, needed an ebonics translator.
This star witness did nothing for the cause of the prosecution.
The next witness was a neighbor that said a few things that didn't seem to support the prosecution in any way. I was uncertain at times who call the witness--the defense or the prosecution.
She was well-spoken and did nothing for the prosecution.
The next witness was a hot latina woman whos superior wisdom did little or nothing for the prosecution but she was fun to look at so that's what really matters. |
Yep. We have a star witness ( Rachel Jeantel) admit under oath that she lied at least twice. The prosecution must be ruing that they ever called her as a witness.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-witness-cantt-read-letter-wrote-shooting/story?id=19504826#.Uc0X6NiO7W6
Also voice experts won't be called to testify whose voice is calling for help on the 911 tapes...jurors will have to decide it on their own
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/legal-victory-george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-case-19465125 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
