• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is the account given by eyewitness "John" in Zimmerman's case reliable?

Do you still believe this witness' account before being thoroughly cross-examined?

  • Yes, as Zimmerman supporter I still do.

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • No, as Zimmerman supporter I changed my mind.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, being neutral I still believe this eyewitness.

    Votes: 4 44.4%
  • No, I never believe anything other than in 911 tape only.

    Votes: 3 33.3%

  • Total voters
    9

dolphinocean

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
807
Location
Volunteer State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
An eyewitness known only as "John" claimed that he saw the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to him, 'Help! Help!' and he told him to stop, and he was calling 911.

Since this story broke, many pro-zimmerman supporters became strongly convinced that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor and what this witness described was consistent with the story of Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

Here are two part 1 and part 2 of my blog article I wrote about this witness' account that I find problematic:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/dolphinocean/601-john-witness-reliable-part-1.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/dolphinocean/602-john-witness-reliable-part-2.html
 
After reading my article, do you still believe you can rely on his claim to the Fox Orlando reporter during an interview on the afternnoon of Feb 27, the day after the fatal shooting?
 
An eyewitness known only as "John" claimed that he saw the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to him, 'Help! Help!' and he told him to stop, and he was calling 911.

Since this story broke, many pro-zimmerman supporters became strongly convinced that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor and what this witness described was consistent with the story of Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

Here are two part 1 and part 2 of my blog article I wrote about this witness' account that I find problematic:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/dolphinocean/601-john-witness-reliable-part-1.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/dolphinocean/602-john-witness-reliable-part-2.html
 
After reading my article, do you still believe you can rely on his claim to the Fox Orlando reporter during an interview on the afternnoon of Feb 27, the day after the fatal shooting?

Considering the crap CBS,ABC and other news networks have played I would have to say that Zimmerman's accounts are probably reliable. The media has deliberately distorted facts. They edited the 911 tape to make it seem as though Zimmerman is a racist. They used a grainy low resolution video to say that Zimmerman was lying about his injuries. The media said that a mortician claimed that there were no injuries on Martin's hands to say that Zimmerman was lying about Martin assaulting him. The media also claimed that that a inaudible word in a 911 tape was the racial slur coon to make it look like Zimmerman is a racist who racially profiled. The media also placed a several year old photo of Zimmerman next to a 3-4 year old photo of Martin to make it look it look like some big huge bruiser murdered some little kid.
 
Last edited:
An eyewitness known only as "John" claimed that he saw the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to him, 'Help! Help!' and he told him to stop, and he was calling 911.

Since this story broke, many pro-zimmerman supporters became strongly convinced that Trayvon Martin was the aggressor and what this witness described was consistent with the story of Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

Here are two part 1 and part 2 of my blog article I wrote about this witness' account that I find problematic:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/dolphinocean/601-john-witness-reliable-part-1.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/dolphinocean/602-john-witness-reliable-part-2.html
 
After reading my article, do you still believe you can rely on his claim to the Fox Orlando reporter during an interview on the afternnoon of Feb 27, the day after the fatal shooting?


Bass-ackward. Burden of proof is on the prosecution to show evidence that it DIDN'T happen the way all existing evidence says it happened: an assault by Martin on Zim.
 
John will have to testify under oath. He will only say what he thinks he saw. If he's filled in some parts in his own mind, the prosecution will pull that out.

Let's tattoo a teardrop under one of Zimms eyes and be done with it. As far as I'm concerned, they were both scum. Nothing will bring Martin back. Zimmerman can live with himself.
 
Considering the crap CBS,ABC and other news networks have played I would have to say that Zimmerman's accounts are probably reliable. The media has deliberately distorted facts. They edited the 911 tape to make it seem as though Zimmerman is a racist. They used a grainy low resolution video to say that Zimmerman was lying about his injuries. The media said that a mortician claimed that there were no injuries on Martin's hands to say that Zimmerman was lying about Martin assaulting him. The media also claimed that that a inaudible word in a 911 tape was the racial slur coon to make it look like Zimmerman is a racist who racially profiled. The media also placed a several year old photo of Zimmerman next to a 3-4 year old photo of Martin to make it look it look like some big huge bruiser murdered some little kid.
So your logic is: CBS,ABC and other news networks messed up therefore Zimmerman's accounts are probably reliable?

What kind of logic is that? Well, never mind.
 
Bass-ackward. Burden of proof is on the prosecution to show evidence that it DIDN'T happen the way all existing evidence says it happened: an assault by Martin on Zim.
Can you please stay on topic?

I am not talking about the trial that has yet to happen. I asked: "Do you still believe this witness' account before being thoroughly cross-examined?" It is precisely that because the trial date is not yet even set and the witnesses haven't yet sworn in and cross-examined, how can you make affirmative claim about "an assault by Martin on Zim" and calling it "the way all existing evidence says it happened"?

Have you not read my blog article?
 
John will have to testify under oath. He will only say what he thinks he saw. If he's filled in some parts in his own mind, the prosecution will pull that out.
That's what I mean. But, pro-zimmerman supporters have already determined that this witness' account is the absolute truth that supported Zimmerfman's story even to the point of vilifying Trayvon Martin.
 
Bass-ackward. Burden of proof is on the prosecution to show evidence that it DIDN'T happen the way all existing evidence says it happened: an assault by Martin on Zim.

Where is that a precedent?

Untitled Document
Legally recognized affirmative defense- burden shifts to defendant.

This is what watching Fox News does to a person. They genuinely believe that a dead person has the burden of proof.

BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has the burden of proving his or her affirmative defenses.
Hough v. Menses, 95 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1957)
First Union Nat. Bank of Fla. v. Ruiz, 785 So.2d 589 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2001)
Gilreath v. General Elec. Co., 751 So.2d 705 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2000)
Bankers Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 684 So.2d 246 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1996)
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Holmes, 646 So.2d 266 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1994)
 
Last edited:
So your logic is: CBS,ABC and other news networks messed up therefore Zimmerman's accounts are probably reliable?

If you mean they messed up by deliberately distorting facts and lying then yes they messed up.

What kind of logic is that? Well, never mind.

The logic is who is more trust worthy. So far Zimmerman's accounts seem to be backed up.He said he was assaulted,the injuries on the back of his head and the injuries on Martin's hands indicate one was assaulted and the other was doing the assaulting.
 
Bass-ackward. Burden of proof is on the prosecution to show evidence that it DIDN'T happen the way all existing evidence says it happened: an assault by Martin on Zim.

You got it bass-ackward yourself.

The American Legal Journal
However, the burden of proof shifts in an affirmative defense. In such a circumstance, it is the duty of the defendant’s attorney to prove that though the defendant committed the criminal act, particular grounds make it excusable .
 
If you mean they messed up by deliberately distorting facts and lying then yes they messed up.



The logic is who is more trust worthy. So far Zimmerman's accounts seem to be backed up.He said he was assaulted,the injuries on the back of his head and the injuries on Martin's hands indicate one was assaulted and the other was doing the assaulting.
Your side put up as much spin by deliberately distorting facts and lying as those you accused of, so save your breadth on your hypocracy. You can google all those 911 calls called in from the eyewitnesses and even Zimmerman's own unedited call to the police non-emergency line to get the information without going to the media.

So spin all you want, I am not going to waste any more time on this if this is the logic you are counting on to make your argument.
 
I still don't have any indication about who started the fight. There is information on who was winning but not who started it.
 
That's what I mean. But, pro-zimmerman supporters have already determined that this witness' account is the absolute truth that supported Zimmerfman's story even to the point of vilifying Trayvon Martin.
They're just a group of gun toters that want to believe that they will be able to shoot to kill anyone that throws a punch at them.
 
...
The logic is who is more trust worthy. So far Zimmerman's accounts seem to be backed up.He said he was assaulted,the injuries on the back of his head and the injuries on Martin's hands indicate one was assaulted and the other was doing the assaulting.
Yup, you have explained who was loosing the fight. Although I'm still interested in who started the fight. Aren't you?
 
This is a terribly worded poll.
 
The attempt, by the supporting OPINION posted, to discredit this witness is simply one person expressing their idea of probable events. The jury, with help from both the prosecution and defense, will have ample time to examine witness statements and physical evidence and make an INFORMED legal opinion as to what is, or is not, relevant based on the instructions of the judge. All of this 'semi-informed' speculation has no bearing on the outcome of the upcomming trial and is essentially useless babble.
 
The attempt, by the supporting OPINION posted, to discredit this witness is simply one person expressing their idea of probable events. The jury, with help from both the prosecution and defense, will have ample time to examine witness statements and physical evidence and make an INFORMED legal opinion as to what is, or is not, relevant based on the instructions of the judge. All of this 'semi-informed' speculation has no bearing on the outcome of the upcomming trial and is essentially useless babble.
Then please heed your own advice and stop spewing speculative nonsense so I don't have to clean up the mess after you.
 
Where is that a precedent?

Untitled Document


This is what watching Fox News does to a person. They genuinely believe that a dead person has the burden of proof.

BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has the burden of proving his or her affirmative defenses.
Hough v. Menses, 95 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1957)
First Union Nat. Bank of Fla. v. Ruiz, 785 So.2d 589 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2001)
Gilreath v. General Elec. Co., 751 So.2d 705 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2000)
Bankers Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 684 So.2d 246 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1996)
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Holmes, 646 So.2d 266 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1994)

Actually, unlike your message and conclusions, MOST people understand there is a HUGE difference in "proof" burdens in civil cases - which is what you cite - and criminal cases.
 
Where is that a precedent?

Untitled Document


This is what watching Fox News does to a person. They genuinely believe that a dead person has the burden of proof.

BURDEN OF PROOF
The defendant has the burden of proving his or her affirmative defenses.
Hough v. Menses, 95 So.2d 410 (Fla. 1957)
First Union Nat. Bank of Fla. v. Ruiz, 785 So.2d 589 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2001)
Gilreath v. General Elec. Co., 751 So.2d 705 (Fla. App. 5 Dist. 2000)
Bankers Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 684 So.2d 246 (Fla. App. 2 Dist. 1996)
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Holmes, 646 So.2d 266 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 1994)

The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Did the prosecution team get killed recently?
 
Since no one has mentioned it in this thread, I would just like to point out that the witness, "John", has since recanted his original story.
 
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. Did the prosecution team get killed recently?

The burden of proof on a Criminal Charge is on the Prosecution.

The burden of proof on an Affirmative Defense is on the Defendant.

Two different things.
 
Since no one has mentioned it in this thread, I would just like to point out that the witness, "John", has since recanted his original story.
Not exactly.
He only recanted a potion of his story.
The portion that he knew it was Zimmerman yelling for help. That is all.

He still places Zimmerman on the bottom and Trayvon on top.

In addition, his earlier recollections will still be considered to be more accurate.


Experts in the field, however, have noted that later recollections — which could be impacted by external factors such as publicity, for example — are thought to be less reliable than earlier memories. And the addition of post-event information into the memory reconstruction process, normally unbeknownst to the person, is one reason why psychologists believe that eyewitness testimony can often be unreliable.

Experts Weigh in After Four Witnesses in Trayvon Martin Case Change Story



The burden of proof on a Criminal Charge is on the Prosecution.

The burden of proof on an Affirmative Defense is on the Defendant.

Two different things.

The information you have is inaccurate.

The burden of proof is always on the prosecutor.

The defense only has to make a "showing" to generate the self-defense jury instruction.
 
The burden of proof on a Criminal Charge is on the Prosecution.

The burden of proof on an Affirmative Defense is on the Defendant.

Two different things.

Burden on the prosecution.....

On the defendant....Zimmerman only has to reasonably BELIEVE it is necessary.

The LAW provides him with LEGAL justification to use deadly force against *death/serious physical injury*
 
Back
Top Bottom