Advertisement
BREAKING: George Zimmerman Could Be Charged With Federal Hate Crime
The FBI announced today that George Zimmerman could be charged with a federal hate crime, a charge that would mean Zimmerman could face the death penalty if convicted. The FBI made the announcement shortly after Zimmerman’s lawyers received the list of witnesses and evidence materials, which included never before seen accounts of the shooting from witnesses, new footage and new 911 call recordings.
State Prosecutors made the case that Zimmerman, who admitted to fatally shooting 17 year old Trayvon Martin, profiled and stalked the youth prior to a confrontation, which lead to Martin’s death, something that has prompted the FBI to investigate the possibility of raising the charge from second degree murder to a federal hate crime.
www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05...e-crime/
I have always spoke about this as a possibility, now we will have to see if this new evidence lends credence to these claims.
The FBI announced today that George Zimmerman could be charged with a federal hate crime, a charge that would mean Zimmerman could face the death penalty if convicted. The FBI made the announcement shortly after Zimmerman’s lawyers received the list of witnesses and evidence materials, which included never before seen accounts of the shooting from witnesses, new footage and new 911 call recordings.
State Prosecutors made the case that Zimmerman, who admitted to fatally shooting 17 year old Trayvon Martin, profiled and stalked the youth prior to a confrontation, which lead to Martin’s death, something that has prompted the FBI to investigate the possibility of raising the charge from second degree murder to a federal hate crime.
www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05...e-crime/
I have always spoke about this as a possibility, now we will have to see if this new evidence lends credence to these claims.
posted by:
|
Portland
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
considering how bungled this investigation has been since the beginning, it amazes me that the death penalty would even be discussed.
-
-
Yes, the initial investigation was bungled. My guess is that this case is going to rely on the scondary investigation, not the first one that was bungled.
-
-
"My guess is that this case is going to rely on the scondary investigation, not the first one that was bungled."
Why would you guess that? Could you accept the possibility that Zimmerman was charged because the new prosecutor was basically brought in to charge Zimmerman in reaction to a public uproar and she did so for political rather than evidential reasons? -
-
<<"My guess is that this case is going to rely on the scondary investigation, not the first one that was bungled."
Why would you guess that?<<
Why would one try a case based on a bungled investigation? It would be illogical and sloppy to say the least. You try the case with the best investigative work you have, not the sloppy work that may have preceded it.
<<Could you accept the possibility that Zimmerman was charged because the new prosecutor was basically brought in to charge Zimmerman in reaction to a public uproar and she did so for political rather than evidential reasons?
Sure, it is a possibility. But thusfar there is no evidence that this is the case. Your opinion in that regard is based on incomplete data and an attempt to try this case based on evidence which has been leaked to the public, and by a police department that was defending itself from charges of sloppy investigative work. I will reserve my judgement about both Zimmerman's guilt or innocence and as to if it was political until we the public actually know the facts and evidence of this case. -
-
"Why would one try a case based on a bungled investigation?"
Just because there were mistakes in an investigation doesn't mean the investigation didn't produce sufficient evidence for a charge. And if the motive for the charge was political, it may not matter, and the prosecutor (Corey) praised the police investigation when she made the charge, calling it "thorough and intensive."
Corey: "Any time you have a shooting scene and there is a person whose death is caused, the police launch a thorough and intensive investigation. That was done here.
But before the investigation could be finished, there was a lot of outcry about this case. And then, it changed course and we got appointed to take over the investigation."
"But thusfar there is no evidence that this is the case."
Well, there is evidence, just not conclusive. The charging of second degree murder that would require proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with a depraved mind without regard for human life when the prosecution has admitted that they have no evidence of who even started the altercation, plus the charging affidavit's failure to identify evidence supporting Zimmerman's side as they are legally required to do, such as not even mentioning injuries to Zimmerman or a witness who said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman may be considered evidence that the prosecution is more interested in trying to avoid the political flak that would have resulted in no charges being made and is less interested in presenting a case based on facts.
-
-
<<"Why would one try a case based on a bungled investigation?"
Just because there were mistakes in an investigation doesn't mean the investigation didn't produce sufficient evidence for a charge. <<
That may well be true, but clearly the case is not going to hinge on the initial investigation alone. Why would they only rely on the intial bungled investigation when additional investigative work has been done? Reality is such that they will most likely use best evidence and information gathered from both investigations.
<<Well, there is evidence, just not conclusive.
Thusfar it is naked speculation.
<<The charging of second degree murder that would require proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with a depraved mind without regard for human life when the prosecution has admitted that they have no evidence of who even started the altercation
That is not evidence that this case is political. Evidence must be taken together in totality, rather than drawing one isolated piece of information and drawing a conclusion that it is evidence of anything.
<<plus the charging affidavit's failure to identify evidence supporting Zimmerman's side as they are legally required to do
I believe it was demonstrated that the laws in that state do not legally require this to be done at the charging affidavit point. I am fairly certain that the prosecutor is well aware of the laws in her own state and what is required of the charging affidavit, at least more aware of those specific state laws than you are. We will find out for certain soon enough. -
-
"That may well be true, but clearly the case is not going to hinge on the initial investigation alone. Why would they only rely on the intial bungled investigation when additional investigative work has been done?"
I've already answered that. The best evidence could have been from the initial investigation. Do you have any reason to assume that key evidence was later found?
"Thusfar it is naked speculation. "
The affidavit as a matter of fact failed to include any evidence of one of the key elements of the crime charged, as it was supposed to. It also as a matter of fact failed to include any potentially exculpatory evidence that the prosecution was aware of, such as the eye witness who reported seeing Martin raining blows on Zimmerman's head MMA style while they were on the pavement, and the injuries to the front and back of Zimmerman's head - evidence that according to Harvard Law professor and criminal law expert Alan Dershowitz the prosecution was ethically and legally required to include. That affidavit and what it lacked is evidence of prosecutorial mindset, so the speculation isn't "naked." All evidence needs to be interpreted.
"I believe it was demonstrated that the laws in that state do not legally require this to be done at the charging affidavit point"
Who "demonstrated" that? Dershowitz said that it's a requirement under Supreme Court precedent. State law doesn't trump the Supreme Court. That's why it's called the SUPREME Court.
"at least more aware of those specific state laws than you are"
That's a silly thing to include Jeff. I'm sure the defense attorney knows more about state law than you do. So what? I doubt she's more an expert on federal requirements of criminal law than Alan Dershowitz, and Dershowitz is in a more disinterested position than she. -
-
<<I've already answered that. The best evidence could have been from the initial investigation. Do you have any reason to assume that key evidence was later found?
You are missing the point. Gerbil asked why they would base a trial on a bungled investigation. This statement ignores the fact that there were two investigations done, so any holes that may be in the initial investigation were hopefully addressed in the second. I willl address the rest later, I have to get back to work.
In the meantime, here is more of the evidence that is being leaked.
George Zimmerman Made Racist Remarks At Work
Within a collection of evidence officially released by the State Attorney's Office on Thursday, was an audio recording of a 15-minute interview with George Zimmerman's former co-worker. During the interview, the man, whose name was not given, says that Zimmerman racially targeted him and bullied him at work, ThinkProgress.com reports.
According to the witness, Zimmerman singled him out because he was Middle Eastern, calling him a "fucking moron" and mocking him with the voice of "Achmed the terrorist." He said Zimmerman would also tell stories and make jokes about "bombing" and other "Middle Eastern stuff."
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...68.html -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded."This statement ignores the fact that there were two investigations done"
According to whom? According to Corey, they just continued the investigation already begun by the local police. Even if there were holes in the initial investigation, what reason is there to assume that those holes were significant enough to be the key between charging and not charging, and that subsequent key evidence was later found upon which to base the case?
"George Zimmerman Made Racist Remarks At Work "
This is not relevant "evidence" and would likely be inadmissible. Even if true, mocking a middle easterner's accent at work has no logical bearing as to whether Zimmerman murdered an entirely different person in an entirely different situation at an entirely different time and of an entirely different race. This is just an effort to convict the guy for being a bad guy. -
-
<<According to whom? According to Corey, they just continued the investigation already begun by the local police.
I don't care if you want to call it a continuation or a secondary investigation, the point still remains that there was more work done that was intended to plug the holes in the first investigation. You are arguing semantics and completely missing the pont.
<<Even if there were holes in the initial investigation, what reason is there to assume that those holes were significant enough to be the key between charging and not charging, and that subsequent key evidence was later found upon which to base the case?
My point makes no such assumption. My point was in direct response to the idea put forth by Gerbil that the trial is based on the initial bungled investigation does not make sense, and that this causes problems for the case against Zimmerman. The point of the additional investigation was to plug those holes, thereby creating a more complete investigation to base the case on. As to if the additional investigation turned up key evidence that is key to charging Zimmerman remains to be seen.
<<
"George Zimmerman Made Racist Remarks At Work "
This is not relevant "evidence" and would likely be inadmissible.<>>
That depends on as to if the FBI moves forward with federal hate crime charges, as they indicated was a possibility. I think you are too quick to declare that there is no case, in particular being that we don't know the totality of evidence as of yet.
-
-
" My point was in direct response to the idea put forth by Gerbil that the trial is based on the initial bungled investigation does not make sense, and that this causes problems for the case against Zimmerman. The point of the additional investigation was to plug those holes, thereby creating a more complete investigation to base the case on"
You're assuming a lot that you don't have evidence for and completely missing my point. You're assuming that Corey's office taking over the investigation was intended to "plug holes" in the initial investigation, when it's entirely possible that whatever the faults of the initial investigation, there were no serious holes to plug, and that Corey was just brought in for political reasons given the uproar. Again, it is not nonsensical that Corey thought that the initial investigation provided sufficient grounds for a charge of murder and that on that issue she just disagreed with the original district attorney who refused to prosecute, and that the continued investigation brought forth no substantial evidence. -
-
<<You're assuming a lot that you don't have evidence for and completely missing my point.
Ron, you are mistaken as to what my point to Gerbil was. The purpose of the second investigation was to address the inequities of the first investigation. And if those inequities were addressed, then that means the idea that the initial investigation was bungled, in and of itself, is not enough to deligitimize the case. That in no way speaks to whether enough new evidence was collected for a solid case. It speaks ONLY to the idea of the investigation itself being deligitimized due to the initial investigation being bungled. There have been no such allegations of bungling involved with the secondary investigation.
<<You're assuming that Corey's office taking over the investigation was intended to "plug holes" in the initial investigation
The Governor and state Attorney General asked State Attorney Norman Wolfinger to step aside specifically because of the problems with the initial investigation, with Wolfinger himself citing the conflict of interest due to those problems. If there were not problems with the initial investigation Corey would never of been asked by the Gov. and the AG to take over. Considering this it is a reasonable assumption.
<<and that Corey was just brought in for political reasons given the uproar.
-
<<and that Corey was just brought in for political reasons given the uproar.
It is possible, but I don't think there would have been as much of an uproar if there were not issues with the initial investigation, not to mention the fact that they determined there was not enough evidence before they had even properly reviewed the evidence. For instance, they made this declaration before the autopsy and gun powder residue reports had been completed. What if the results determined that they were not at close range when Martin was shot?
<<Again, it is not nonsensical that Corey thought that the initial investigation provided sufficient grounds for a charge of murder and that on that issue she just disagreed with the original district attorney who refused to prosecute, and that the continued investigation brought forth no substantial evidence.
That is also possible. But the initial investigation was determined to be over before a lot of the evidence had actually been reviewed, it was incomplete, and the additional information that has since been determined will most certainly round out the case. That evidence may or may not lead to Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. And as of yet, we don't know the totality of evidence collected, in either the initial investigation nor the second investigation.
-
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.<George Zimmerman Made Racist Remarks At Work>
While no one can stop a politically-motivated prosecution, there's nothing illegal about being a racist. To charge him with a hate-crime, they'd have to prove that at that moment he did something involving a racist action. AND, since we do not have ANY witnesses previous to Trayvon reportedly beating the fuck out of Zimmerman...well, looks like this is some people's wet dream.
<This is just an effort to convict the guy for being a bad guy.>
Yup. And suckers being suckers, there'll be another one coming by to suggest this as some thing relevant every minute. -
-
it certainly suggests a pattern of racism, which will be presented to the jury to establish zimmerman's character.
-
-
-
-
-
<the prosecution has admitted that they have no evidence of who even started the altercation>
When did the prosecution admit this?
<plus the charging affidavit's failure to identify evidence supporting Zimmerman's side as they are legally required to do>
No they're not. They weren't presenting to a Grand Jury.
<may be considered evidence that the prosecution is more interested in trying to avoid the political flak that would have resulted in no charges being made and is less interested in presenting a case based on facts.>
It may be that you are confused about the facts.
Or are you intentionally misrepresenting them? -
-
"When did the prosecution admit this? "
The lead prosecuting investigator was questioned under oath by the defense counsel during the bond hearing
"No they're not. They weren't presenting to a Grand Jury. "
Doesn't have to be. I'm basing my claim on Harvard Law Professor (and criminal law expert) Alan Dershowitz's assertions that the Supreme Court has said that charging affidavits must include potentially exculpatory evidence known to the prosecution, as well as incriminating evidence. What are you basing your claim on?
"It may be that you are confused about the facts.
Or are you intentionally misrepresenting them? "
I'm not a prosecutor. Unlike a prosecutor, I don't have a legal obligation to present any facts on this case of any kind - having said that, what facts have I claimed that you think are misrepresented? -
-
<The lead prosecuting investigator was questioned under oath by the defense counsel during the bond hearing>
You've already shared the hearing transcript where he denied being the lead investigator and never stated, or admitted that they have no evidence of who even started the altercation.
< I'm basing my claim on Harvard Law Professor (and criminal law expert) Alan Dershowitz's assertions that the Supreme Court has said that charging affidavits must include potentially exculpatory evidence known to the prosecution, as well as incriminating evidence. What are you basing your claim on?>
The fact that charging documents are not required to include exculpatory evidence.
When did the Supreme Court, or Florida state law, make such a requirement?
<Unlike a prosecutor, I don't have a legal obligation to present any facts on this case of any kind>
Obviously.
< having said that, what facts have I claimed that you think are misrepresented?>
See above. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded."The fact that charging documents are not required to include exculpatory evidence. "
Begging the question. So you're basing your claim that charging documents don't require exculpatory evidence on the "fact" that charging documents don't require exculpatory evidence? That's like a theist saying that he's basing his claim that God exists on the fact that God exists.
Charging documents don't require exculpatory evidence, therefore charging documents don't require exculpatory evidence.
Again, apart from your own assurances, what's the basis for your claim? Again, I'm basing my claim on the opinion of a renowned criminal law expert.
www.youtube.com/watch -
-
<So you're basing your claim that charging documents don't require exculpatory evidence on the "fact" that charging documents don't require exculpatory evidence?>
Yes.
That's common practice in Florida, even if Dershowitz disagrees with it.
<That's like a theist saying that he's basing his claim that God exists on the fact that God exists.>
No it's not.
It may be like saying I don't go to church based on the fact that I'm not required to go to church, and just because it's the opinion of a renown Harvard Seminary Professor that I should go, doesn't mean it's required. ;) -
-
Again, you're relying on your own authority. Are you an expert on criminal procedure?
-
-
<Again, you're relying on your own authority.>
No, I'm not.
<Are you an expert on criminal procedure?>
No, I'm not. -
-
"No, I'm not. "
Sure you are, since you're provided no legal authority other than your own assurances to back your claims.
"<Are you an expert on criminal procedure?>
No, I'm not. "
That should be obvious. However Alan Dershowitz certainly is, and he disagrees with you, as do the previous Florida cases I referred to. -
-
<<Sure you are, since you're provided no legal authority other than your own assurances to back your claims.
Dershowitz himself provided cited no case law or legal rules to back up his assertion, an assertion he made while acting as a political commentator.
-
<Sure you are, since you're provided no legal authority other than your own assurances to back your claims.>
That I have not provided you with a legal authority does not mean my conclusion is based on my own authority.
There is a world of people with legal expertise and authority. And even Supreme Court Justices disagree in their legal opinions.
Dershowitz stated the Affidavit "is not the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth" like it's a crime if it's not. But it states plainly on the Affidavit:
"The facts mentioned in this Affidavit are not a complete recitation of all the facts and evidence in this case but only are presented for a determination of Probable Cause for Second Degree Murder."
You do know that the judge can say no.
<However Alan Dershowitz certainly is, and he disagrees with you>
He's obviously wrong about the Affidavit being the whole truth.
If you have a Supreme Court case that backs the claim that all charging documents must include any/all potentially exculpatory evidence, bring it.
<as do the previous Florida cases I referred to.>
You haven't presented any cases relevant to this subject, in this thread.
If you presented them elsewhere, I haven't seem them. So please post them here. -
-
<<Dershowitz stated the Affidavit "is not the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth"
I am confused, I thought Dershowitz indicated that it was required by law that esculpatory evidence be included in the affadavit? Is this statement the totality of his statements regarding the affidavit? Or is there more?
<<If you have a Supreme Court case that backs the claim that all charging documents must include any/all potentially exculpatory evidence, bring it.
It does not have to be a Supreme Court case, it just needs to be demonstrated in the actual text of the specific law Ron is speaking of. Thusfar I have not seen that specific law provided, unless I have missed something. Ron?
-
-
-
-
-
-
<<Again, I'm basing my claim on the opinion of a renowned criminal law expert.
He did not cite the relevant law or rules for Florida indicating that exculpatory evidence need be stated in the charging documents. Thusfar it is an unproven claim. -
-
"He did not cite the relevant law or rules for Florida indicating that exculpatory evidence need be stated in the charging documents. Thusfar it is an unproven claim. "
Nobody makes detailed legal cases when being interviewed for a news show. No news producer would allow it, since it would be dreadfully boring and time consuming. That doesn't mean a legal expert's claims are legally unsupported however. -
-
<<Nobody makes detailed legal cases when being interviewed for a news show.
Nobody is asking for a detailed legal case, a simple citation of the law he is speaking of would be sufficient.
<<That doesn't mean a legal expert's claims are legally unsupported however.
Neither does it mean they are supported. -
-
"Neither does it mean they are supported. "
No, but I supported them by citing the very cases your linked author cited. So what's your problem with Dershowitz's opinion now? -
-
<<So what's your problem with Dershowitz's opinion now?
Just that, he put forth an opinion that does not seem to be backed up the law as far as I can find. Is Zimmerman's lawyer filing a complaint regarding the charging affidavit violation Dershowitz has claimed? I am assuming Zimmerman's lawyer knows Florida law.
-
-
-
-
-
Whereas the following actually cites case law and the rules for Florida.
And the following directly contradicts Dershowitz statements regarding the charging afadavit:
So, what did Dershowitz get wrong? To start with, Dershowitz seems to be speaking out of a feigned ignorance for criminal law in general, as well as a complete ignorance for the specific Rules of Criminal Procedure enacted by the state of Florida. The prosecution’s handling of the initial pretrial detention hearing, along with the Affidavit of Probable Cause that Dershowitz calls “a crime,” was completely and utterly routine; the State was doing the same thing it does every day, for all of the defendants it charges with crimes, in all the cases it handles.
The particular affidavit that Dershowitz ascribes so much profound significance to is in fact of little procedural significance and absolutely no substantive significance, and the prosecution is not required to do any of the things Dershowitz suggests in his interview. To clarify, an Affidavit of Probable Cause, submitted in conjunction with a pretrial probable cause determination under Rule 3.133 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure: (1) is not a formal charge; (2) is not subject to normal evidentiary rules or standards; and (3) is not used to disclose the State’s case against the accused, and as a routine matter the State attempts to provide as little of the State’s evidence as possible in such affidavits, providing only what is necessary to demonstrate probable cause.
Simply put, “[a] preliminary hearing is for the purpose of determining if probable cause exists to hold one accused of a crime for trial. Such a hearing is not a critical stage in the proceedings.” Anderson v. State, 241 So. 2d 390, 392-93 (Fla. 1970). At these initial hearings, “the strict rules of evidence are not enforced … and no formal charges are existing or filed against the defendant. The whole proceedings partake of the nature of an inquiry and, outside of being conducted by a magistrate (perhaps in a court house), bears little or no resemblance to a trial.” Davis v. State, 65 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 1953).
Contrary to Dershowitz’s unsupported claims, it is expected, normal, and proper for everything but the bare bones case for probable cause to be left out of a probable cause affidavit, whether it be in support of a warrant or a pretrial preliminary hearing. See Perry v. State, 842 So. 2d 301, 303 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (“Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.133(a)(3) states that … the court should apply the same standard as is required for issuing an arrest warrant.”). The Probable Cause Affidavit filed against Zimmerman is in no manner unique or somehow lacking, as compared to the probable cause affidavits filed in every other criminal manner. In any matter where more than a modicum of investigation has been done, such affidavits essentially never include the State’s full case against the accused. So if Dershowitz was right about the State’s requirements in filing such an affidavit, it is not just Angela Corey that ought to be looking for an attorney; every prosecutor in the U.S. ought to be doing the same as well.
viewfromll2.com/2012/04/29...erman-case/
Ultimately Dershowitz is also a political commentator, and it is quite probable that the lines are blurred between his political role and his knowledge of the law. Which may be why he was less than specific in his claims. -
-
"it is quite probable that the lines are blurred between his political role and his knowledge of the law. "
What political role? He's not a conservative. How does his opinion here deal with his political perspective?
"And the following directly contradicts Dershowitz statements regarding the charging afadavit:"
You raised this article you linked in another thread and I addressed it there. The author of the piece you linked is not a criminal procedure expert. What is the basis for her claim that prosecutors routinely produce affidavits like that when the author does not practice criminal law at all? In fact, the author makes some mistakes on the law.
The link's author claims the following:
“Omissions are only a potential issue where the state has withheld information that can absolutely defeat probable cause”
Wrong. That's too high a standard even by the authorities the author cites:
“[t]he omitted facts are only material if there is a substantial possibility that had the magistrate been aware of the omission he would not have found sufficient probable cause for issuance of a warrant.” State v. Van Pieterson, 550 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
So the standard is not whether it would "absolutely defeat" probable cause but whether there is a "substantial possibility" (not even "probability - this is a significantly lower standard of proof) that it would defeat probable cause. As a magistrate may think that evidence that Zimmerman was getting his head pounded into the pavement may be sufficient grounds for self-defense, then there would have been a "substantial possibility" that such evidence would defeat probable cause in the mind of the magistrate. As such, the prosecutor had a legal duty to include such evidence. Furthermore, according to that author's own citations:
“Some omissions may be ‘intentional’ but also reasonable in the sense that they exclude material police in good faith believed to be marginal, extraneous, or cumulative.” Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fl. 1995).
The idea that evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating his head into the pavement, which would be directly relevant for a self-defense claim, that such evidence would be "marginal, extraneous, or cumulative", is absurd. -
-
<<"it is quite probable that the lines are blurred between his political role and his knowledge of the law. "
What political role?<<
He makes his $$ as a political commentator, and he was engaging in political commentary with his claim. Which was vauge and lacking in supporting citations of law.
<<The author of the piece you linked is not a criminal procedure expert.
And yet this author cited some actual law in support. -
-
"He makes his $$ as a political commentator, "
That doesn't mean that every word that comes out of his mouth is political. There are other news issues besides political ones, such as legal cases, and who better to ask about a legal matter than a legal expert?
"and he was engaging in political commentary with his claim"
Why do you say that? What's the political content of saying that a legal document filed in a prosecution is legally insufficient?
"Which was vauge and lacking in supporting citations of law. "
It wasn't vague. It was quite specific. He specifically said that the prosecutor failed her legal obligation to provide required details in the charging affidavit. He didn't cite supporting case law because citing supporting case law is not a function of a news interview. Who cites supporting cause law in news interviews?
"And yet this author cited some actual law in support. "
And yet I demonstrated that she was actually contradicted by the very sources she cited, which buttresses her lack of expertise on the matter. -
-
Oh, and by the way, to say that he makes his money as a political commentator is an over generalization. He makes money as a law professor, as an attorney, as a political commentator, as a legal consultant, as a legal commentator, and as a general commentator on the news. But just because he wears one hat doesn't mean that hat controls all the others.
Having said that, again, I don't see how his commentary is political, unless you've bought the left's politicization of this issue to the extent of interpreting it as an example of unjust white oppression against blacks, and that anyone who doesn't support the narrative that the shooting and failure to initially charge Zimmerman were acts of unjust racism is a right wing defender of anti-black oppression. -
-
<<But just because he wears one hat doesn't mean that hat controls all the others.
I am just telling you what hat he was wearing at the time of his claim. Can you show me this Florida law that requires exculpatory evidence in the charging statement? -
-
"I am just telling you what hat he was wearing at the time of his claim"
You don't know he was speaking politically. Why would you assume he was? Again, what political content was there in what he said?Why are you not answering my questions Jeff? Normally you're more straight arrow than this.
"Can you show me this Florida law that requires exculpatory evidence in the charging statement?"
I cited the very cases from the very website you linked. It's all in this thread. Did you not read the very posts that responded to you that you are now addressing?
-
-
-
<"He makes his $$ as a political commentator, ">
That is such a great example of a weasel-y argument. This means that you are able in your 'argument' to totally negate any opinion by this person by suggesting "He makes his $$ as a political commentator..." That's some kind of fallacy. Which one?
<So what's your problem with Dershowitz's opinion now?>
It goes against his agenda & bias? Oh, wait. Sorry. That was what you meant, right?
-
<<That doesn't mean that every word that comes out of his mouth is political.
Sure, but the point is that he was acting in the capacity of a commentator and did nothing to support his claims. I have yet to see this law that you indicated he is referencing.
<<It wasn't vague. It was quite specific. He specifically said that the prosecutor failed her legal obligation to provide required details in the charging affidavit.
Where is the Florida law that indicates that these details are required in the charging affidavit?
<<He didn't cite supporting case law because citing supporting case law is not a function of a news interview.
What specific law was he referencing? He said this was required by law and that has yet to be verified anywhere that I can see. -
-
"Sure, but the point is that he was acting in the capacity of a commentator and did nothing to support his claims."
Yes, commentator. "Commentator" does not necessarily equate with "political commentator." Again, why do you assume he was likely being political? Again, what political content was there in his opinion?
" I have yet to see this law that you indicated he is referencing. "
You would have if you had read the very post I wrote that responded to your post linking that blog. Why didn't you read it?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded."You've already shared the hearing transcript where he denied being the lead investigator"
He didn't deny being the lead investigator. He was asked if he was lead investigator and he responded by saying he was one of two investigators for the state attorney. He never said he wasn't the lead investigator - plus he has more seniority than the other investigator.
He was asked point blank if he had any evidence of who started the altercation and he answered "no." So is it your position that of the two state attorney investigators who were the ones who prepared the bulk of the charging affidavit that the one instigator who has more seniority had no evidence of who started the altercation but maybe the other investigator has such evidence, even though such evidence would obviously be extremely important to the case? -
-
<He was asked if he was lead investigator and he responded by saying he was one of two investigators for the state attorney.>
<He was asked point blank if he had any evidence of who started the altercation>
No, he wasn't.
There may be less disagreement, and more progress on this point if you just cut and paste (or at least accurately represent) the complete question and the complete answer.
Otherwise it looks like more spin on your part.
<So is it your position that of the two state attorney investigators who were the ones who prepared the bulk of the charging affidavit that the one instigator who has more seniority had no evidence of who started the altercation but maybe the other investigator has such evidence, even though such evidence would obviously be extremely important to the case?>
No.
My position is that you are misrepresenting the facts, and the prosecution has never "admitted that they have no evidence of who even started the altercation."
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sanford PD refused to secure the murder scene, released Zimmerman, let the scene decay, and rain fell on it.
Sanford PD had grounds, from circumstantial evidence, to make an arrest, and to charge 2nd degree murder, but they were covering up. All the controversy since February is just that, but murder-2 is justified:
1. Zimmerman often called Sanford PD dispatch, which advised him to stay in his car and to avoid Martin;
2. Zimmerman had a round, chambered, in his automatic pistol, and then he pursued Martin, while in his car AND on foot;
3. Somehow, one of the subjects was likely on top of the other, and accounts may differ, which is why we wanted a secure crime scene;
4. Zimmerman fired one round, from 1' to 18" away, from Martin, to deliberately kill him, rather than warn or wound and subdue him;
We do not have Martin's story, SPD has engaged in misconduct during the investigation, and if any more messing around happens, officials could be charged, not just Federal beef, for Zimmerman. State court is not as likely to bungle the case, with Feds watching, and that prosecutor who came up with murder-2 is straight as an arrow. Expect Zimmerman to go down for murder-2, but if he walks, the Feds can nail him. Will they do that, if Florida courts don't screw this up? Hmm. -
-
<Sanford PD refused to secure the murder scene, released Zimmerman, let the scene decay, and rain fell on it.>
This leads to the relevant question: What the fuck could they have found that the rain may have harmed. They had all the relevant material. They had the one bullet gone from the gun. They had the gun. They had the guy in the grass. They had witnesses statements...what more could they have gotten? The shooter admitted to shooting the gun... What more physical evidence could they get?
<Sanford PD had grounds, from circumstantial evidence, to make an arrest, and to charge 2nd degree murder, but they were covering up.>
What in the world are you talking about? "...covering up"? What were they "...covering up?"
<1. Zimmerman often called Sanford PD dispatch, which advised him to stay in his car and to avoid Martin;>
Not relevant. There is on lawful reason for Zimmerman to listen to them.
<2. Zimmerman had a round, chambered, in his automatic pistol, and then he pursued Martin, while in his car AND on foot;>
Not relevant. It's not illegal to have a round chambered, nor was it illegal to follow Trayvon.
<4. Zimmerman fired one round, from 1' to 18" away, from Martin, to deliberately kill him, rather than warn or wound and subdue him;>
HA! How in the world do YOU know what he meant to do? Even past that, he was lawfully able to shoot the guy on top of him, beating his ass (as the witnesses reports have clearly stated).
<SPD has engaged in misconduct during the investigation,>
You have yet to prove any "misconduct". Just stopping an investigation that is open & shut is not "misconduct".
<Expect Zimmerman to go down for murder-2, but if he walks, the Feds can nail him.>
A) He'll get off from the current charge - unless a jury WANTS to find him guilty.
B) The Feds have nothing on him.
-
-
<<This leads to the relevant question: What the fuck could they have found that the rain may have harmed.
We don't know being that the crime scene was not secured. Perhaps Zimmerman's blood in the sidewalk could have corroberated his own story. Or if his blood was found on a sprinkler head instead of the sidewalk, that would indicate that this is how his head wounds were inflicted, thereby contradicting Zimmerman's account. Ultimately we can't know that which was washed away. The point is that securing the crime scene is standard procedure in any murder investigation.
<<They had all the relevant material.
Says you.
<<They had witnesses statements
Actually they did not interview some of the witnesses for over a week, so that is factually incorrect.
<<Just stopping an investigation that is open & shut is not "misconduct".
Why are you assuming it was an open and shut case at that point?
<<He'll get off from the current charge - unless a jury WANTS to find him guilty.
So now you are predetermining Zimmerman's innocence before having seen the totality of evidence, and are now indicating that the jury will only find him guilty based on their "want". You should no more declare Zimmerman's innocence before the court case than I should declare his guilt. We have yet to see the totality of evidence, you sir are jumping the gun so to speak.
<<The Feds have nothing on him.
You also have no idea that this is true either. Just as some have jumped to the conclusion that Zimmerman is guilty, you are jumping the gun in declaring his innocence, and doing so before the trial and before we have seen the totality of evidence. You are once again overstating your case. -
-
<<This leads to the relevant question: What the fuck could they have found that the rain may have harmed.
<We don't know being that the crime scene was not secured. Perhaps Zimmerman's blood in the sidewalk could have corroberated his own story.>
You mean more than the witnesses? Didn't the cops say that they have witnesses who stated that the guy on top who got shot was beating up the guy on the bottom?
<Or if his blood was found on a sprinkler head instead of the sidewalk, that would indicate that this is how his head wounds were inflicted, thereby contradicting Zimmerman's account.>
Wait...what? How would that contradict anything? When one is having one's ass kicked, whether it's a sprinkler head or sidewalk... What the fuck is the difference in the end? Something hard that your head is being beaten against is something hard that your head is being beaten against. That would not change anything.
So...that's it? You can't imagine ONE THING that would be actually relevant that would be some kind of evidence? No fingerprints, or footprints or...well, what in the world would the rain have harmed after they had witness statements?
<Actually they did not interview some of the witnesses for over a week, so that is factually incorrect.>
Actually, not ALL of them, but obviously enough that they felt it was a sure enough case of self defense. So...you still have not stated what kind of evidence could be washed away. I find it interesting that you want 100% solid evidence when you are on the other side of debates like this, but you're fine with, "Ultimately we can't know that which was washed away.", which is good enough for you because...well, in this case, it's good enough for you.
<Why are you assuming it was an open and shut case at that point?>
Because they open & shut it?
<So now you are predetermining Zimmerman's innocence before having seen the totality of evidence>
Yes. Witnesses saw him getting his ass beaten "MMA style". Unless the prosecution is holding in their pocket a VERY GOOD witness that will state the opposite, well...yeah. I'm pretty comfortable with the evidence at hand. You are holding out for some mystery/secret evidence.
Get used to the idea that Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal. Just let that information get comfortable in y'r brainpan, 'eh?
<ou should no more declare Zimmerman's innocence before the court case than I should declare his guilt.>
"want"? What does "want" have to do with it?
<We have yet to see the totality of evidence, you sir are jumping the gun so to speak.>
My guess is that we have seen/heard 100% of the relevant evidence out there. There will be no surprise/mystery/secret witnesses.
<<<The Feds have nothing on him.>
<You also have no idea that this is true either.>
Unless there's some evidence that Zimmerman was shouting 'I'm going to kill this [insert expletive here] only because he's a [insert expletive here]', I feel pretty good that I have some idea if my first point was true. Again - just being a racist is not enough to find him guilty.
<You are once again overstating your case.>
Maybe. But I feel pretty good about what the result will be.
-
-
Another important point is that if the scene had been protected from the rain, they could have more easily done blood spatter tests to determine who was on top at the point the weapons was discharged. We know that Martin was likely on top through part of the struggle, we also know that Zimmerman was on top of Martin's dead body when eye witnesses showed up. Who was on top at the point that the weapono discharged?
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.<Another important point is that if the scene had been protected from the rain, they could have more easily done blood spatter tests to determine who was on top at the point the weapons was discharged.>
Y'r reaching there.
<We know that Martin was likely on top through part of the struggle,>
Didn't you mean "part or all of the struggle"?
<we also know that Zimmerman was on top of Martin's dead body when eye witnesses showed up.>
I have not seen that witness.
<Zimmerman stated that his head wounds were recieved from his head being beat in to the concrete. If there was no blood on the concrete, but blood on the sprinkler heads, that would directly contradict Zimmerman's story that concrete caused the wounds.>
That'd mean nothing. When people are moving from grass to concrete or back & forth, it means nothing one way or another. Just because they may not have been able to find blood one the concrete, does that mean that it didn't happen there? Or, maybe it happened somewhere else, but he was bleeding on the concrete? Or that he first hit his head on the concrete but then bled on the grass? There'd be no way to tell which happened first. Rather inconclusive if you ask me. And, I did not need to watch CSI to figure that out.
<The first question would be, why did Zimmerman lie?>
So, now you're assuming that he lied? Really?
<Repeatedly getting your head beat in to the concrete may be life threatening, thus blood on the concrete would corroberate the need for deadly force in response.>
Unless it headed to the grass, where they found Trayvon, right?
<Whereas getting one's head cut in the midst of a struggle, ie., not getting your head repeatedly beat in to concrete, ie., not life threatening, would then not as strongly support deadly force as a means of self defense.>
Irrelevant. Some guy beating the fuck out of you is enough in FL to allow for deadly force. It's not like the law says that if your head is only being beaten into grass, you can't use deadly force, right?
<in other words, sprinkler would could have easily been incurred in the midst of rolling around on the grass in a fight, as opposed to repeatedly getting your head smashed in to concrete.>
Why am I not shocked that such a thing means something to you? All it'd take is ONE time getting your head smashed into the ground - grass or concrete and deadly force could be used in FL.
Read:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person....a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;
So, as long as there's no proof that Zimmerman started it (meaning: committing a felony), there's no way to prove that it was not in Zimmerman's right to protect himself. Getting y'r ass kicked in FL is (basically) enough to warrant deadly force, and it looks like this is true possibly even if you started the fight.
So..........wanna reconsider that. No, of course you won't.
<We also have one who says they were not actually fighting when the weapon discharged.>
Yeah? Quote that.
<Ultimately we have slightly conflicting accounts,>
Which means that Zimmerman gets off.
<Which is why i said SOME Einstein, lol!>
I like being compared to Einstein.
<You have become so reflexively defensive of Zimmerman that you are throwing basic logic out the window.>
No. I don't know what happened with Zimmerman. I just don't think that blood on the ground would mean anything. It could have come from anywhere at any time. Totally inconclusive.
<<<So now you are predetermining Zimmerman's innocence before having seen the totality of evidence>
<Yes.><
<So you ARE guilty of doing the what you were being critical of others for doing.>
Look into the DSM and see what the kind of mental issues are that causes people to not recognize sarcasm. It's an interesting read. This is the 50th time that you have not been able to recognize sarcasm. Admittedly, this time it was rather vague. But...still.
<That is the testimony of ONE witness, other witness testimony differs.>
Nothing in any blood evidence would change the fact that on that night, they made a decision based on the evidence at hand.
<You have tried this case in the court of public opinion>
Y'r kidding, right? Me? Ha!
<We already have a witness that now places Zimmerman on top, keep up.>
Quote it.
<So yoiu are basing your declaration of Zimmerman's innocence, ultimately trying the case in the court of public opinion.......on a fucking GUESS? LMFAO! I would not be so foolish.>
Don't sell yourself that short.
-
-
<<<Another important point is that if the scene had been protected from the rain, they could have more easily done blood spatter tests to determine who was on top at the point the weapons was discharged.>
Y'r reaching there.<<
It is standard investigative procedure for any scene of a shooting death, regardless of your attempt to reflexively dismiss anything that is inconvenient to thought process. Take note that you are completely unable to even demonstrate how standard investigative procedure = "reaching". Fail.
<<<We know that Martin was likely on top through part of the struggle,>
Didn't you mean "part or all of the struggle"? >>
We don't know for a fact that Martin was on top through the entirety of the struggle. So why would I say that is what we "know" when we don't know any such thing? We only know for a fact that he was on top for at least the middle of the struggle.
<<<we also know that Zimmerman was on top of Martin's dead body when eye witnesses showed up.>
I have not seen that witness.<<
Then you are not keeping properly abrest of this case Andrew. But hey, why look at any additional evidence when you have already jumped the gun and determined his innocence? Here, let me hold your hand:
“Yeah, I run away from my backyard and when I just get into the point of my — like my screen, it stopped me, I look at the person on his knees on top of a body,” Lamilla elaborated.
“So you saw Mr. Zimmerman on top of Trayvon Martin?” Cooper questioned.
“Trayvon, exactly,” Lamilla said.
“When you say on top of, how so?” the CNN anchor pressed.
“Straddling him,” Cutcher replied.
“His legs were straddling him?” Cooper followed up.
“One on each side, on his knees, with his hands on his back. I immediately thought, okay, obviously if it’s the shooter, he would have ran,” Cutcher detailed. “I thought he’s holding the wound, helping the guy taking a pulse, making sure he’s okay. When she called to him three times, everything okay, what’s going on? Each time he looked back, didn’t say anything and then the third time he finally said, ‘just call the police.’”
portland.tribe.net/template...essage.vm
Clearly you are not aware of the totality of witness testimony, thereby demonstrating that your knowledge of this case is seriously lacking. -
-
<regardless of your attempt to reflexively dismiss anything that is inconvenient to thought process.>
What kind of fallacy is that one? I'm not really up on my point of grammer these days.
<We don't know for a fact that Martin was on top through the entirety of the struggle.>
Which is why, when you wrote, "We know that Martin was likely on top through part of the struggle,...", I corrected you. The way that you wrote that, it suggests to someone that does not know the facts that the suggestion is that Zimmerman was on top at some point. We do not know that. But, that is a rabbit-hole that I won't continue.
<We only know for a fact that he was on top for at least the middle of the struggle.>
"fact"? You have called all of these witnesses into question. So...you are SURE "that he was on top for at least the middle of the struggle"? How do you know that?
<Clearly you are not aware of the totality of witness testimony, thereby demonstrating that your knowledge of this case is seriously lacking.>
HA! This shows nothing about the conflict. ONLY the AFTER the shot. If Trayvon was already shot, then Zimmerman being on top of him means what...? At what point did Zimmerman get on top? AND, why does this testimony seem to contradict other testimony? Others say that the guy on top collapsed after the sound of a gunshot, right? AND, wasn't Trayvon found face-down?
Sooooo...if Trayvon was UNDERNEATH Zimmerman, and if the shot was to the FRONT of Trayvon...how'd he get face down? There are witnesses saying that the guy on top collapsed after the shot...Trayvon was found face down...shot to the front...
So...this report means nothing.
<No blood on the concrete would mean that there were no wounds inflicted on the concrete>
Not true AT ALL. If there was no blood, that'd be simply inconclusive. It would NOT mean that there was no head meeting concrete.
<My point is, whether it demonstrates innocence OR guilt, proper CSI investigation should have been done.>
That of course I'd agree. But...it seems to me that it was and still is a rather open & shut case. There's no witness that says that Zimmerman shot Trayvon from being ON TOP. There were witnesses that stated that night that the guy ON TOP, who was striking the guy on the bottom collapsed after hearing a shot... While it would have been better that they had at least TRIED - it does not change much. IF they found none of Zimmerman's blood, that'd not mean ANYTHING, and; if they HAD found blood, that'd not mean much either, as it would not conclusively PROVE anything other than blood on the concrete.
<If your head was repeatedly bashed in to the concrete then there would definately be blood.>
Ah. Y'r now a CSI expert. I see. "definately", 'eh?
<Why are you now ignoring that Zimmerman claimed his head was REPEATEDLY bashed in to the concrete? You are ignoring basic logic in an attempt to reflexively defend Zimmerman, even over CSI investigation that could of exonerated him. >
It's amazing that after all of these years, you have not figured out to not make assumptions. Really. It's amazing.
<<<Irrelevant. Some guy beating the fuck out of you is enough in FL to allow for deadly force.>>
<Wrong, you have to reasonably believe that your life is in danger.>
AND, someone beating the fuck out of you qualifies this need.
<A typical fight may not rise to that level.>
Bashing head to ground, beating the fuck out of you... Yeah. That'd do it.
<But IF your head was not being repeatedly beat in to the ground or concrete, and your head wound was incurred in the process of a normal fight, that may well not rise to the level of Martin incurring life threatening injuries.>
I see. You are now an expert witness for what constitutes rightful cause in FL, 'eh?
<Contrary to what you may think, you can't just shoot someone for kicking your ass in a non life threatening fight under the SYG Law.>
Sure you can. All you have to do is state that you were in fear of your life. Getting your ass kicked by some guy who is smashing your head against the ground in the dark seems to be good enough.
<Bloody nose and black eyes do not = "great bodily harm" that would require a hospital stay.>
Care to show me in the SYG law where it states the difference that would necessitate "require a hospital stay" or not in relation to fearing for one's life?
"(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm"
Yeah. Don't go down that road. It's a loser for you.
<Typical fight does not rise to the level of SYG law.>
So you say.
<And yet you state you believe his story 100%,>
Yeah? Quote for me where I say this. I'll bet you a gazillion dollars that you can't find that quote. So, either collect your gazillion dollars or apologize.
<Shit dude, you have declared him innocent before even reivewing the entirety of witness testimony.>
Wait...did I say that he was innocent under FL's SYG law, or did I say that I "believe his story 100%"?
<You are basing Zimmerman's innocence on a GUESS?>
AND, I am psychic. Don't forget that. Elo uses astrology while I am sentient.
-
-
<<<regardless of your attempt to reflexively dismiss anything that is inconvenient to thought process.>
What kind of fallacy is that one?>>
No fallacy, it is a simple fact. You have ignored witness testimony that is contrary to your predetermination of Zimmerman's innocence. Either that, or you have not actually actually read the totality of witness accounts.
<<Which is why, when you wrote, "We know that Martin was likely on top through part of the struggle,...", I corrected you.
Your correction was incorrect. Namely because we don't know that it was likely that Martin was on top for the entirety fo the struggle.
<<it suggests to someone that does not know the facts that the suggestion is that Zimmerman was on top at some point.
My paragraph clearly indicates that we don't know the answer, putting no more weight on either possibility. Which is why I framed the following as a question: "Who was on top at the point that the weapono discharged?" Whereas your correction would have suggested that Martinw was on top through the entire struggle, which is something we don't know. As we know, you have a tendency to overstate your case.
<<You have called all of these witnesses into question.
I have done no such thing. What I have done is correctly point out that their testimony differs slightly, wich is typical of eye witness testimony.
<<So...you are SURE "that he was on top for at least the middle of the struggle"? How do you know that?
Because Zimmerman's injuries demonstrate that through at least part of the struggle he was getting his ass kicked. All witness testimony indicates that this struggle happened on the ground. 2+2=4.
<<<Clearly you are not aware of the totality of witness testimony, thereby demonstrating that your knowledge of this case is seriously lacking.>
HA! This shows nothing about the conflict. <<
It shows you were ignorant of the totality of witness testmony after you had tried to speak with authority on it at length. Even going so far as to attribute the testimony of one witness to "witnesses". You latched on to the testimony of one witness and either ignored or were ignorant of the rest.
<<If Trayvon was already shot, then Zimmerman being on top of him means what...?
It means that the police should have secured the crime scene so that they could do blood spatter tests, namely to determine in what position the shooter and the victim were actually in when the gun discharged. If witnesses had found Zimmerman underneath of Martin's dead body then it would have been clear that Martin was on top at the point he was shot. CSI investigations can make such determinations Andrew.
<< At what point did Zimmerman get on top?
Exactly my question, pay attention.
<<AND, why does this testimony seem to contradict other testimony?
Have you yet read the entirety of witness testimony, thereby educating yourself on the subject so that we can have a knowledgeable discussion? If so, I would direct you toward my thread on the subject where I have posted some of the specifics.
<<Others say that the guy on top collapsed after the sound of a gunshot, right?
My understanding is that there were not any witnesses that say they actually seen Martin collapse. But my memory could be wrong, so how about if you provide the quote for this claim so that we can discuss from a place of knowledge?
<<Trayvon was found face down...shot to the front...
And that indicates what specifically?
<<Sooooo...if Trayvon was UNDERNEATH Zimmerman, and if the shot was to the FRONT of Trayvon...how'd he get face down?
Same question applies to if Martin was on top. In what manner did Zimmerman move the body once the shooting happened? If Martin collapsed dead on top of Martin, in what way did Martin extract himself? This is something a proper CSI investigation may have been able to determine.
<<Sooooo...if Trayvon was UNDERNEATH Zimmerman, and if the shot was to the FRONT of Trayvon...how'd he get face down?
Please provide this witness that seen Martin actually collapse.
<<So...this report means nothing.
What report means nothing?
<<Not true AT ALL. If there was no blood, that'd be simply inconclusive.
Head wounds bleed profusely, so I would think one would expect to find blood. We will never know being that the experts were never called in to to do their job.
<<<My point is, whether it demonstrates innocence OR guilt, proper CSI investigation should have been done.>
That of course I'd agree. <<
Wow, you really take the cake Andrew. So if CSI investigation were to suggest Zimmerman's guilt, well then it is meaningless. But if it were to suggest his innocence, then you would agree? Talk about fucking inconsistent and biased, LOL!
<<There's no witness that says that Zimmerman shot Trayvon from being ON TOP.
There is also no witness I can remember that seen Zimmerman shoot Martin from the bottom. Unless you can provide that witness testimony you indicate exists.
<<Ah. Y'r now a CSI expert.
One does not need to be a CSI expert to understand that head wounds bleed profusely.
<<It's amazing that after all of these years, you have not figured out to not make assumptions.
Like your assumption of Zimmerman's innocence? I am making no such similar assumptions of Zimmerman's guilt, and that sir is the difference between us.
<<AND, someone beating the fuck out of you qualifies this need.
Sorry, but fist fights are not typically fatal, you are wrong.
<<Bashing head to ground, beating the fuck out of you...
I already indicated that head bashing may rise to that level, pay attention bud.
<<You are now an expert witness for what constitutes rightful cause in FL
Nope, but I am an quite versed in what constitutes life threatening injuries being that I taught the class for my military unit.
<<Sure you can. All you have to do is state that you were in fear of your life.
Wrong. That would mean ANYONE couse use this law to get off of murder, your statement alone will not get you off.
<<Care to show me in the SYG law where it states the difference that would necessitate "require a hospital stay" or not in relation to fearing for one's life?
Such claims need to be reasonable, and if the evidence possibly contradicts then you may not be able to use the law.
<<"(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm"
Yeah. Don't go down that road. It's a loser for you<<
Only if you ignore the word "reasonably". If the head was not being bashed in to concrete, does that mean a fear of death was reasonable? We will never know being that the concrete claim is not in fact confirmed fact. A determination that may of been found by proper CSI investigation.
<<<And yet you state you believe his story 100%,>
Yeah? Quote for me where I say this.>>
Are you now trying to deny that you declared him innocent? If you declare him innocent that means you beleive his story.
<<AND, I am psychic. Don't forget that. Elo uses astrology while I am sentient.
You are avoiding my question. Are you really declaring him innocent based on a GUESS? That alone demonstrates bias toward his innocence. Case closed.
-
Andrew, I am still waiting for you to demonstrate your claim that a witness seen Martin collapse on top of Zimmerman. Are you once again overstating your case?
-
-
No answer Andrew?
-
-
Your fascination for me is enthralling.
-
-
Expecting that someone back up their claims with something of substance speaks nothing of fascination, it is standard for any discussion on this tribe. Your inability to provide said information is a giant clue to the fact that it does not exist, you made it up.
-
-
<Your inability to provide said information is a giant clue to the fact that it does not exist, you made it up.>
In your fantasyland, is it always 79degrees? Does it ever rain? Do you prefer boys or girls there?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
<<That'd mean nothing. When people are moving from grass to concrete or back & forth, it means nothing one way or another.
You are once again failing basic logic. No blood on the concrete would mean that there were no wounds inflicted on the concrete, contrary to Zimmerman's story. Lying to the police certainly does not "mean nothing". You are also ignoring that I am pointing out that proper CSI investigation could have exonnerated Zimmerman as well, I AM considering both possibilities. And yet you are only responding to one side, rather odd to say the least. My point is, whether it demonstrates innocence OR guilt, proper CSI investigation should have been done.
<<Just because they may not have been able to find blood one the concrete, does that mean that it didn't happen there?
If your head was repeatedly bashed in to the concrete then there would definately be blood. This evidence coulld even of exonerated Zimmerman if blood were indeed found on the concrete. But again, the point is that this should have been investigated in the first place, ie., proper CSI investigation.
<<Or that he first hit his head on the concrete but then bled on the grass?
Why are you now ignoring that Zimmerman claimed his head was REPEATEDLY bashed in to the concrete? You are ignoring basic logic in an attempt to reflexively defend Zimmerman, even over CSI investigation that could of exonerated him.
<<And, I did not need to watch CSI to figure that out.
CSI = Crime Scene Investigation, it is standard for any shooting death. There is a reason these things are standard procedure Andrew, pretending otherwise is to ignore reality.
<<<The first question would be, why did Zimmerman lie?>
So, now you're assuming that he lied? Really? >>
I am assuming no such thing. We are surmising about if blood was found on the concrete and if blood was not found on the concrete. Clearly I layed out a scenario where blood on the concrete could have exonerated him. I also layed out the opposite scenario where a lack of blood could indicate his head was not repeatedly bashed in. I have layed out both possible scenarios, please do pay closer attention.
<<Irrelevant. Some guy beating the fuck out of you is enough in FL to allow for deadly force.
Wrong, you have to reasonably believe that your life is in danger. A typical fight may not rise to that level. Repeatedly getting your head bashed in to concrete may well rise to that level. Simple logic.
<<All it'd take is ONE time getting your head smashed into the ground - grass or concrete and deadly force could be used in FL.
You are failing basic logic again. Your head repeatedly bashed in to concrete = life threatening. But IF your head was not being repeatedly beat in to the ground or concrete, and your head wound was incurred in the process of a normal fight, that may well not rise to the level of Martin incurring life threatening injuries. Contrary to what you may think, you can't just shoot someone for kicking your ass in a non life threatening fight under the SYG Law.
<<Getting y'r ass kicked in FL is (basically) enough to warrant deadly force
No it is not. Great bodily harm would = hospital type injuries, rather than family doctor injuries. Only repeated head bashing in concrete would rise to that level in this case. Otherwise Zimmerman was just getting his ass kicked. Bloody nose and black eyes do not = "great bodily harm" that would require a hospital stay.
<<776.012 Use of force in defense of person....a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm
See, exactly my point. Typical fight does not rise to the level of SYG law. A couple of cuts and a broken nose does not = imminent death, and may well not = "great bodily harm". I would assume that "great bodily harm" would mean you would need to go to the hospital, Zimmerman did not go to the hospital. ONLY if his head was being repeatedly bashed in to the concrete could this rise to the level of defense under the SYG law. So that claim is actually PIVOTAL to the case.
<<<We also have one who says they were not actually fighting when the weapon discharged.>
Yeah? Quote that. <<
See, once again you are ignorant of witness testimony that is contrary to your theme. Refer to my other thread about witness testimony, you can find it there. You might want to go back and review the entirety of witness testimony, not just that which fits your theme.
<<<Ultimately we have slightly conflicting accounts,>
Which means that Zimmerman gets off. <<
That is not necessarily true Andrew, there are many cases where people are found guilty regardless of witness testimony differring slightly. As a matter of fact, it is quite typical for such witness testimony to differ slightly.
<<<You have become so reflexively defensive of Zimmerman that you are throwing basic logic out the window.>
No. I don't know what happened with Zimmerman.<<
And yet you state you believe his story 100%, even going so far as to declare him innocent before seeing the entirety of the evidence. Shit dude, you have declared him innocent before even reivewing the entirety of witness testimony. You can't just look at the words of one witness that fits your theme and ignore the rest. This proves you are reflexively defending zimmerman and ignoring any information that is contrary to that theme.
<<<So yoiu are basing your declaration of Zimmerman's innocence, ultimately trying the case in the court of public opinion.......on a fucking GUESS? LMFAO! I would not be so foolish.>
Don't sell yourself that short. >>
You are avoiding my question. You are basing Zimmerman's innocence on a GUESS?
<< I just don't think that blood on the ground would mean anything.
Then what is the point of blood spatter investigation being standard in shooting deaths? Of course it means something.
<<This is the 50th time that you have not been able to recognize sarcasm.
That is a bullshit excuse Andrew, you have repeatedly declared Zimmerman innocent, and now you are backpedaling and dihonestly declaring it sarcasm.
<<<That is the testimony of ONE witness, other witness testimony differs.>
Nothing in any blood evidence would change the fact that on that night, they made a decision based on the evidence at hand. <<
That is exactly my point, proper police work and CSI investigative decisions are not based on evidence that is only "immediately at hand". The entire point of an investigation is to go deeper than what is only on the surface in the immediate aftermath of a shooting death.
<<<You have tried this case in the court of public opinion>
Y'r kidding, right? Me? Ha! >>
No kidding about it, you have repeatedly declared Zimmerman innocent based only on information available to the public. That = trying the case in the court of public opinion.
<<<We already have a witness that now places Zimmerman on top, keep up.>
Quote it.<<
Already did, see above.
-
-
-
<<<We don't know being that the crime scene was not secured. Perhaps Zimmerman's blood in the sidewalk could have corroberated his own story.>
You mean more than the witnesses?>>
Yes, believe it or not police investigations are much more involved and scientific than just eye witness testimony. Catch up to the 21st century bud, the police have very sophisticated CSI methods.
<<Didn't the cops say that they have witnesses who stated that the guy on top who got shot was beating up the guy on the bottom?
Witnesses are unsure, some have changed their stoy and now place Zimmerman on top, some have indicated the police led them to change their testimony, and it is not at all clear who was on top when the weapon was discharged. It was dark, a proper crime scene investigation and the subsequent determinations may have either corroberated or conflicted with Zimmerman's story. We will never know because proper procedure was not followed.
<<Wait...what? How would that contradict anything?
Zimmerman stated that his head wounds were recieved from his head being beat in to the concrete. If there was no blood on the concrete, but blood on the sprinkler heads, that would directly contradict Zimmerman's story that concrete caused the wounds.
<<When one is having one's ass kicked, whether it's a sprinkler head or sidewalk... What the fuck is the difference in the end?
The first question would be, why did Zimmerman lie? Repeatedly getting your head beat in to the concrete may be life threatening, thus blood on the concrete would corroberate the need for deadly force in response. Whereas getting one's head cut in the midst of a struggle, ie., not getting your head repeatedly beat in to concrete, ie., not life threatening, would then not as strongly support deadly force as a means of self defense. in other words, sprinkler would could have easily been incurred in the midst of rolling around on the grass in a fight, as opposed to repeatedly getting your head smashed in to concrete.
<<So...that's it? You can't imagine ONE THING that would be actually relevant that would be some kind of evidence?
I am not an expert in CSI, what I can imagine in no way excuses the lack of due diligence on the part of investigators. It is the job of the CSI experts to collect and interpret the data and make determinations as to what it means. CSI is not comprised of only what I can imagine.
<<...well, what in the world would the rain have harmed after they had witness statements?
Blood spatter tests, to determine who was on top when the weapon was discharged, a piece of the puzzle that is not entirely clear. We now have a witness who says that there were two separate struggles. We also have one who says they were not actually fighting when the weapon discharged. Ultimately we have slightly conflicting accounts, which is actually rather common in regards to eye witness testimony. Blood spatter tests and other CIS investigative techniques are intened to help round out the picture. There IS a reason that this sort of investigation is typically done, regardless of the presence of eye witness testimony. So let's not pretend that this total fuck up by the police is no big deal Andrew. They did not do their job right, and the life of a man hangs in the balance. What if that evidence had in reality corroberated Zimmerman's story? Zimmerman may well not be up on murder charges right now if that were the case. They fucked up, period.
<<<Actually they did not interview some of the witnesses for over a week, so that is factually incorrect.>
Actually, not ALL of them>>
Which is why i said SOME Einstein, lol!
<<So...you still have not stated what kind of evidence could be washed away.
Blood spatter evidence IS evidence Andrew, regardless of your reflexive and self serving dismissal of standard CSI investigation.
<<I find it interesting that you want 100% solid evidence when you are on the other side of debates like this
100% solid would be preferable, but is ultimately an unlikely standard, and ultimately not a standard I am demanding as you have falsely asserted. What I do expect is basic standard investigative procedures to be done by the police.
<<but you're fine with, "Ultimately we can't know that which was washed away.", which is good enough for you because...well, in this case, it's good enough for you.
Quite the opposite really, my entire point is that I am NOT ok with the crime scene not being secured and evidence possibly being washed away by the rain. What exactly is your problem with expecting the police to do their job Andrew? You have become so reflexively defensive of Zimmerman that you are throwing basic logic out the window.
<<<Why are you assuming it was an open and shut case at that point?>
Because they open & shut it? <<
Don't play coy Andrew, you know that "open and shut case" means something is uncomplicated and obvious. You are doing what you are accusing others of doing, trying the case and making a determination before the facts have all come out and before there has even been a trial. By your standard, even if it were fact that the police jumped the gun in closing the case, and that ultimately Zimmerman was guilty, you could still call it an open and shut case. That is not what the idiom means.
<<<So now you are predetermining Zimmerman's innocence before having seen the totality of evidence>
Yes.><
So you ARE guilty of doing the what you were being critical of others for doing. You are just as much at fault for jumping the gun in determining his innocense as others are in determining his guilt. You yourself said this should not be a trial by public opinon, and now it is clear that you are engaging in hypocrisy.
<<
<So now you are predetermining Zimmerman's innocence before having seen the totality of evidence>
Yes. Witnesses saw him getting his ass beaten "MMA style". <<
That is the testimony of ONE witness, other witness testimony differs. You have tried this case in the court of public opinion, and done so before seeing the totality of evidence, and are now declaring Zimmerman's innocence. Which is the same thing people are in predetermining his guilt. I have serious questions about this case, but I will reserve my opinion as to his guilt or innocence until I have seen the totatity evidence.
<<Unless the prosecution is holding in their pocket a VERY GOOD witness that will state the opposite
We already have a witness that now places Zimmerman on top, keep up.
<<Get used to the idea that Zimmerman didn't do anything illegal. Just let that information get comfortable in y'r brainpan, 'eh?
Sorry, I can raise serious questions, but I will not be the fool and try this case in the court of public opinion, especially being that we don't yet have the totality of evidence. You defense of Zimmerman has become reflexive, illogical, and ultimately hypocritical by jumping the gun in declaring his innocence.
<<<ou should no more declare Zimmerman's innocence before the court case than I should declare his guilt.>
"want"? What does "want" have to do with it?<<
You are confused, there is no "want" in the sentence you just quoted. Please do try to make sense.
<<My guess is that we have seen/heard 100% of the relevant evidence out there.
So yoiu are basing your declaration of Zimmerman's innocence, ultimately trying the case in the court of public opinion.......on a fucking GUESS? LMFAO! I would not be so foolish.
<<There will be no surprise/mystery/secret witnesses.
And yet we are still hearing additional information from the witnesses, and we are still hearing from previously unheard witnesses. I would not be so foolish as to make such a definitive statement. More and more information is coming out all of the time, so it is clear you don't know what you are talking about with your GUESS.
<<Unless there's some evidence
Which is exactly my point, we don't know the totality of evidence.
<<<You are once again overstating your case.>
Maybe. But I feel pretty good about what the result will be. >>
Maybe you should revisit your own recent history. Namely, you were also pretty sure the police said there were witnesses that seen Trayvon throw the first punch, you even tried to ridicule me for not knowing this. And yet the police said no such thing. So maybe you should stop trusting in what you "feel", because it has not thusfar served you very well. To say the least.
In closing, it is clear you are doing what you have been critical of others of doing, just on the opposite side of the spectrum. Innocence and guilt are determined by the totality of evdience and in a court of law. NOT in the court of public opinion. But hey, if you want to be a hypocrite have at it.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
What "new" evidence? It would be amazing for them to make this charge when even the prosecution admitted they have no evidence as to who even started the physical altercation.
Unless there's more evidence than publicly available, if the FBI goes through with this, it would be a political move rather than one based on facts. That would be disappointing, but not surprising coming from Obama's Justice Department. -
-
<<What "new" evidence?
It remains to be seen as to what exactly that evidence is. As the article stated: "The FBI made the announcement shortly after Zimmerman’s lawyers received the list of witnesses and evidence materials, which included never before seen accounts of the shooting from witnesses, new footage and new 911 call recordings.
<<Unless there's more evidence than publicly available
That is a given. The only public evidence we have is that which was leaked by the police department in an attempt to defend their decisions in the wake of the scandal, evidence that should not have been leaked I might add.
<<if the FBI goes through with this, it would be a political move rather than one based on facts.
I am not sure how you can say that being that we don't know the entirety of the facts in this case. Seems you are doing what you are being critical of others for doing, trying this case in the court of public opinion without the totality of evidence. Maybe we should wait to see the evidence before we make such definitive statements about that which we don't know.
-
-
The FBI publicly stating that Zimmerman "may" be charged with a hate crime at this point is incendiary and irresponsible, unless they point out the evidence that would support such a charge. Even the prosecutor says that his comment which some thought was "coons" was actually "punks" and suggested nothing racial about the killing. But publicly declaring that Zimmerman "may" have committed a hate crime raises expectations and gives credence to suspicions that the killing was in fact racist, and further increases the chance of racial violence if Zimmerman is acquitted or the charges dropped. If the FBI has no actual serious evidence of a hate crime, this public comment is outrageously irresponsible.
-
-
Even if Zimmerman DID say "coon" under his breath, that does not mean that he could be charged with a 'hate crime'. Isn't the burden on that something about they have to intentionally be found to have harmed a different race? Just being a racist & killing someone I don't believe is enough.
-
-
Even if he were racist, they have to prove that he killed Martin because of his racism. That would be difficult to prove given the evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman while they were over pavement and Martin was beating the latter's head "MMA style" (according to one witness).
So they would have to prove that Zimmerman, getting his head beaten, thought something to the effect of, "Now, this guy beating my head is not really sufficient grounds for me to shoot him, but hey, he's black, so I'll shoot him for that." -
-
<<Even if he were racist, they have to prove that he killed Martin because of his racism.
I think that is a given.
<<That would be difficult to prove given the evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman while they were over pavement and Martin was beating the latter's head "MMA style" (according to one witness).
We don't yet have the totality of evidence. -
-
<We don't yet have the totality of evidence.>
I'm betting that we do have "the totality of evidence" necessary to find him guilty or innocent. There's probably stuff here and there that we don't know, but I would bet money that there's no secret witness that saw the whole thing, start to finish and has a clear video or something such that would be definitive proof one way or another.
<The Governor and state Attorney General asked State Attorney Norman Wolfinger to step aside specifically because of the problems with the initial investigation, with Wolfinger himself citing the conflict of interest due to those problems.>
Or...maybe...just to side-step the bad press and let the public feel that a 'fresh' investigation is happening. Surely...no, that's not possible!
<If there were not problems with the initial investigation Corey would never of been asked by the Gov. and the AG to take over. Considering this it is a reasonable assumption.>
It's an inane assumption. Inane. The vagaries of politics is a MUCH more "reasonable assumption".
<<<and that Corey was just brought in for political reasons given the uproar.>>
<It is possible,>
Yes. Why yes. It is. Possible.
<For instance, they made this declaration before the autopsy and gun powder residue reports had been completed.>
Yes. Because witnesses saw two men fighting, one beating the shit out of the other one, the witnesses heard a shot and one fell and one got up. So...why wait until they get the report when they saw a close-shot on the dead guy?
<What if the results determined that they were not at close range when Martin was shot?>
That's a good point. Maybe the multiple witnesses all were mistaken or lied.
-
-
-
The FBI did not indicate that the possibility of federal hate crime charges would be based on the idea that he may have said "coon". With digital enhancement it has already been determined that he said "punks". In reality we don't yet have the totality of evidence, so we can't really say as to if there is evidence that would support such a charge. The FBI said it was possible, what they base that on is yet to be determined.
-
-
<The FBI did not indicate that the possibility of federal hate crime charges would be based on the idea that he may have said "coon".>
Can you find some cite for that. I can't find any cite that.
I did find this though, 'If we find evidence of a potential federal criminal civil rights crime, we will take appropriate action,” Mr. Holder said yesterday,'
www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-De...estigation
That said, I DID find this: reason.com/blog/2012/05...eral-hate-cri
-
-
<<<The FBI did not indicate that the possibility of federal hate crime charges would be based on the idea that he may have said "coon".>
Can you find some cite for that. I can't find any cite that.<<
How can I find a cite for something the FBI never said? You are asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible. Refer to the originating article for this thread, the FBI did not specify what the hate crime charges, if brought against Zimmerman, might be based on. Just that it was a possibility.
<<I did find this though, 'If we find evidence of a potential federal criminal civil rights crime, we will take appropriate action,” Mr. Holder said yesterday,'
Yes, and? -
-
Dang, you old boys are camping here, from the look.
First, a reply to the WAY BACK UP THERE comment, about my remark the crime scene was not secured and allowed to decay, footprints of the subjects were not analyzed, relevant to determining how to resolve the nasty controversy, over who did what, and when. Also, splatters may have been determined to be relevant, as Jeff said.
Second, former judge Jane Velez-Mitchell on HLN is gong to go over the case, 5/25/12 afternoon, check for time, maybe around 4 pm. If I have time, I'll get over there, to see what she thinks is relevant new evidence. Of course, consensus facts already nail Zimmerman. The rest just makes this more of an OJ chase. Somebody is 'go OJ, go OJ,' somebody else is gonna git him. At least this thread admits the Feds are watching.
-
-
-
-
-
