OK, one more time cause at this point I'm so confused I need cooler heads to prevail to explain to me cause I've VERY frustrated on this point.

Today, Sundance has a thread The Zimmerman Trial Draws near. In that thread Sundance posted a video of a media interview with MOM. In that video MOM begins says it will be up to the jury to decide who was the aggressor - who started the fight.

Recently as you know Dershowitz was on Piers Morgan and explained that even if George was the aggressor, and then Trayvon defended himself and in the process got the better of George, George, at this point if he believes he is in fear of great bodily harm can meet that aggression with deadly force. THIS is what Dershowitz says is Florida law on self-defense.

MOM, however, is giving the impression to the listener that the jury will have to decide who STARTED it. According to Dershowitz ... it doesn't matter who started it.

snip

OK, one more time cause at this point I'm so confused I need cooler heads to prevail to explain to me cause I've VERY frustrated on this point.

Today, Sundance has a thread The Zimmerman Trial Draws near. In that thread Sundance posted a video of a media interview with MOM. In that video MOM begins says it will be up to the jury to decide who was the aggressor - who started the fight.

Recently as you know Dershowitz was on Piers Morgan and explained that even if George was the aggressor, and then Trayvon defended himself and in the process got the better of George, George, at this point if he believes he is in fear of great bodily harm can meet that aggression with deadly force. THIS is what Dershowitz says is Florida law on self-defense.

MOM, however, is giving the impression to the listener that the jury will have to decide who STARTED it. According to Dershowitz ... it doesn't matter who started it.

snip

Why not ALSO present that for the jury to decide?

If who was the aggressor is question A for the jury, and who feared loss of life / harm is B for the jury, why not show A and B, as it seem to make showing B much easier?

MOM: I apologize for lying to the judge in court. Now can we talk about the much more serious issue of BDLR lying to the judge in court?

Unless the IT guy has some earth shattering stuff, it seems to me that MOM has just paved a four lane highway for BDLR to escape.


BDLR: Ooops, I misspoke. Happens to everyone, right Mr. O'Mara?

MOM: I apologize for lying to the judge in court. Now can we talk about the much more serious issue of BDLR lying to the judge in court?

Unless the IT guy has some earth shattering stuff, it seems to me that MOM has just paved a four lane highway for BDLR to escape.


BDLR: Ooops, I misspoke. Happens to everyone, right Mr. O'Mara?

Great point.
I can picture and hear in my mind a No No Nelson ruling weaving Bernies mis-speak in with MOM's ... *sigh*

I think Omara traded something for the favor of getting caught in a mistake. Omara has been way to careful, him and West to have two slip's back to back .....I don't think so. Bernie looked like he was freaking out after the last hearing.... I think he worked something out with Omara to save his sorry lying a-- in exchange for something Omara wonted to help clear George.

Why not ALSO present that for the jury to decide?

If who was the aggressor is question A for the jury, and who feared loss of life / harm is B for the jury, why not show A and B, as it seem to make showing B much easier?

I could be way off-base, but I read "it is a question for the jury to decide" as O'Mara-speak for "the State has no evidence to prove that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor". It is also a tangential way to say, "there is reasonable doubt, and where there is reasonable doubt, the defendant must be acquitted".

I think Omara traded something for the favor of getting caught in a mistake. Omara has been way to careful, him and West to have two slip's back to back .....I don't think so. Bernie looked like he was freaking out after the last hearing.... I think he worked something out with Omara to save his sorry lying a-- in exchange for something Omara wonted to help clear George.

It wasn't just a "mistake" as in he was describing the fight over the bike and said it was a fight over something else, the there were 3 homeless guys etc.

MOM was describing a completely DIFFERENT video.

The "mistake" was to describe the wrong video... but he was actually describing A video accurately (IMO) A video that exists... he has seen, else how else could he refer to what he saw in it.

THAT video of TM's friends beating up a homeless guy SHOULD be in discovery at least? If not used at trial... so-be-it.... but to not even include it in discovery is APPEASEMENT on steroids.


BTW.... WHERE is Defence Discovery 4?

MOM has posted notice of hearing for June 6th... Discovery 4 should be posted before that??

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/

OK, one more time cause at this point I'm so confused I need cooler heads to prevail to explain to me cause I've VERY frustrated on this point.

Today, Sundance has a thread The Zimmerman Trial Draws near. In that thread Sundance posted a video of a media interview with MOM. In that video MOM begins says it will be up to the jury to decide who was the aggressor - who started the fight.

Recently as you know Dershowitz was on Piers Morgan and explained that even if George was the aggressor, and then Trayvon defended himself and in the process got the better of George, George, at this point if he believes he is in fear of great bodily harm can meet that aggression with deadly force. THIS is what Dershowitz says is Florida law on self-defense.

If a car blows a stop sign and hits my car crossing. I get out of my car and go over to driver and in a heated exchange he gets out of his car. He pee's me off in the argument and I take a swing at him. I hit him, but now he comes at me, gets me on the ground and begins to pound away. I fear for my life so I take reach for my legal firearm and shoot and kill him.

I was the agressor. I got out of my car .. I approached, I engaged him in a heated argument and when he got out of his car .. I hit him. He defends by hitting me, gets me on the ground, and has me in a situation where the beating I am taking could result in the loss of my life. I am allowed to meet his deadly force with deadly force.

Where am I wrong. Let's get all this clear before the trial starts cause quite frankly that video with MOM upset me. He was making it sound like the jury has to decided who confronted who as the lynch pin and to my knowledge this IS NOT the law.

Great point.
I can picture and hear in my mind a No No Nelson ruling weaving Bernies mis-speak in with MOM's ... *sigh*

I am very confused. Did a bike beat up a homeless man?

It wasn't just a "mistake" as in he was describing the fight over the bike and said it was a fight over something else, the there were 3 homeless guys etc.

MOM was describing a completely DIFFERENT video.

The "mistake" was to describe the wrong video... but he was actually describing A video accurately (IMO) A video that exists... he has seen, else how else could he refer to what he saw in it.

THAT video of TM's friends beating up a homeless guy SHOULD be in discovery at least? If not used at trial... so-be-it.... but to not even include it in discovery is APPEASEMENT on steroids.


BTW.... WHERE is Defence Discovery 4?

MOM has posted notice of hearing for June 6th... Discovery 4 should be posted before that??

http://www.gzlegalcase.com/

I agree with you..... I think there is a video of exactly what Omara said...... But what could make him back up for a second. If West wouldn't have just slipped up and made a mistake I might buy it as a honest mistake ,but the fact that the judge was so unhappy with West mistake I just can't see Omara and West not double checking everything in this case.

How can any of this be as bad as Bernie saying that George was told to stay in his car? That is very provable lie.

How can any of this be as bad as Bernie saying that George was told to stay in his car? That is very provable lie.