On July 04 2013 00:17 Maxie wrote: This reminds me of school and old teachers + technology. It's golden.
Yeah the best part might have been the crowd of attorneys gathering around the laptop dumbfounded with the judge cackling in the back 'guiz wats wrong wif phone, guiz please use new phone!!'
My god, that was the greatest.
I can't see what is going on, but I know exactly what is happening. This is why we don't use electronic exhibits in any of our cases, ever. It is worth the hell and high-water to avoid it and get confirmed valid documents. Paper can't fail or have a driver issue.
On July 04 2013 00:17 Maxie wrote: This reminds me of school and old teachers + technology. It's golden.
Yeah the best part might have been the crowd of attorneys gathering around the laptop dumbfounded with the judge cackling in the back 'guiz wats wrong wif phone, guiz please use new phone!!'
My god, that was the greatest.
I can't see what is going on, but I know exactly what is happening. This is why we don't use electronic exhibits in any of our cases, ever. It is worth the hell and high-water to avoid it and get confirmed valid documents. Paper can't fail or have a driver issue.
Since you couldn't see the best moment in the trial here is a timeline.
Rich Mantei called his witness via Skype. It was his personal Skype account. Skype was broadcasted on stream. Skype was in 'available' mode. 4chan (probably) started spam calling Rich Mantei. Testimony couldn't be heard, attorneys couldn't figure it out, judge was blaming the phone. I died of laughter.
On July 04 2013 00:17 Maxie wrote: This reminds me of school and old teachers + technology. It's golden.
Yeah the best part might have been the crowd of attorneys gathering around the laptop dumbfounded with the judge cackling in the back 'guiz wats wrong wif phone, guiz please use new phone!!'
My god, that was the greatest.
I can't see what is going on, but I know exactly what is happening. This is why we don't use electronic exhibits in any of our cases, ever. It is worth the hell and high-water to avoid it and get confirmed valid documents. Paper can't fail or have a driver issue.
Since you couldn't see the best moment in the trial here is a timeline.
Rich Mantei called his witness via Skype. It was his personal Skype account. Skype was broadcasted on stream. Skype was in 'available' mode. 4chan (probably) started spam calling Rich Mantei. Testimony couldn't be heard, attorneys couldn't figure it out, judge was blaming the phone. I died of laughter.
Welcome to the internet, Counsel. Get a paralegal who knows how it works, because clearly you spent your time learning other stuff. Or use a freaking IPAD and Facetime that shit.
On July 04 2013 00:17 Maxie wrote: This reminds me of school and old teachers + technology. It's golden.
Yeah the best part might have been the crowd of attorneys gathering around the laptop dumbfounded with the judge cackling in the back 'guiz wats wrong wif phone, guiz please use new phone!!'
My god, that was the greatest.
I can't see what is going on, but I know exactly what is happening. This is why we don't use electronic exhibits in any of our cases, ever. It is worth the hell and high-water to avoid it and get confirmed valid documents. Paper can't fail or have a driver issue.
Since you couldn't see the best moment in the trial here is a timeline.
Rich Mantei called his witness via Skype. It was his personal Skype account. Skype was broadcasted on stream. Skype was in 'available' mode. 4chan (probably) started spam calling Rich Mantei. Testimony couldn't be heard, attorneys couldn't figure it out, judge was blaming the phone. I died of laughter.
On July 03 2013 23:43 Junichi wrote: I looked through the op, but may have overlooked it, so I'm gonna ask: has anybody compiled a list with names of all the important people in the courtroom?
I just started to watch the trial a few days ago and sometimes it's hard to keep up with what name belongs to what group.
no, but most people can probably tell you what you want to know.
On July 04 2013 00:49 Alejandrisha wrote: if it was a contact shot, then what about GZ saying he did not know whether or not he had shot Martin after the fact?
Contact with the clothing, while not pushed into Trayvon's body, which is how the forensics indicate the shot happened, wouldn't provide feedback to Zimmerman that Trayvon had actually been shot vs. the shot missing his body.
On July 04 2013 00:49 Alejandrisha wrote: if it was a contact shot, then what about GZ saying he did not know whether or not he had shot Martin after the fact?
Contact with the clothing, while not pushed into Trayvon's body, which is how the forensics indicate the shot happened, wouldn't provide feedback to Zimmerman that Trayvon had actually been shot vs. the shot missing his body.
I understand that, but how could he think he may have missed if his gun's muzzle was in contact with his Martin's sweatshirt when he shot?
On July 04 2013 00:49 Alejandrisha wrote: if it was a contact shot, then what about GZ saying he did not know whether or not he had shot Martin after the fact?
Contact with the clothing, while not pushed into Trayvon's body, which is how the forensics indicate the shot happened, wouldn't provide feedback to Zimmerman that Trayvon had actually been shot vs. the shot missing his body.
I understand that, but how could he think he may have missed if his gun's muzzle was in contact with his Martin's sweatshirt when he shot?
How would he have known it was even in contact with his sweatshirt? As far as he knows he simply fired upward, there would be have been no or minimal tactile feedback.
On July 04 2013 00:49 Alejandrisha wrote: if it was a contact shot, then what about GZ saying he did not know whether or not he had shot Martin after the fact?
Contact with the clothing, while not pushed into Trayvon's body, which is how the forensics indicate the shot happened, wouldn't provide feedback to Zimmerman that Trayvon had actually been shot vs. the shot missing his body.
I understand that, but how could he think he may have missed if his gun's muzzle was in contact with his Martin's sweatshirt when he shot?
Zimmerman couldn't have felt the muzzle of the handgun against the clothing, and with him laying on his back he couldn't see it. Also it probably happened very quickly.
On July 04 2013 00:49 Alejandrisha wrote: if it was a contact shot, then what about GZ saying he did not know whether or not he had shot Martin after the fact?
Contact with the clothing, while not pushed into Trayvon's body, which is how the forensics indicate the shot happened, wouldn't provide feedback to Zimmerman that Trayvon had actually been shot vs. the shot missing his body.
I understand that, but how could he think he may have missed if his gun's muzzle was in contact with his Martin's sweatshirt when he shot?
It was raining, dark and he was struggling with Martin. Guns do not provide a lot of feedback once they are fired and unless you are looking where the bullet went, it is hard to tell what it hit.
On July 03 2013 13:10 Sabu113 wrote: Hearing more talk about manslaughter being the most viable option now. What would state need to prove to get manslaughter to stick?
in addition to proving that there was no self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements for manslaughter are:
7.7 MANSLAUGHTER § 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of (victim).
b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused the death of (victim).
c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).
The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Negligence:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
Justifiable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
Excusable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.
Give only if 2a alleged and proved.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
Give only if 2b alleged and proved.
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something. 128
Give only if 2c alleged and proved.
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
Going by what you just posted daphreak, it seems like quite a stretch given the evidence to find a reason to convict on any of those reasons. Culpable negligence is what they will go for I'm sure but with what I've seen of the trial, I can't imagine the prosecution would be able to make that charge stick.
If murder 2 or manslaughter (culpable negligence) are the only two options, I think Zimmerman walks.
On July 03 2013 13:10 Sabu113 wrote: Hearing more talk about manslaughter being the most viable option now. What would state need to prove to get manslaughter to stick?
in addition to proving that there was no self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements for manslaughter are:
To prove the crime of Manslaughter, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. (Victim) is dead.
Give 2a, 2b, or 2c depending upon allegations and proof.
2. a. (Defendant) intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of (victim).
b. (Defendant) intentionally procured an act that caused the death of (victim).
c. The death of (victim) was caused by the culpable negligence of (defendant).
The defendant cannot be guilty of manslaughter by committing a merely negligent act or if the killing was either justifiable or excusable homicide:
Negligence:
Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence.
Justifiable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is justifiable homicide and lawful if necessarily done while resisting an attempt to murder or commit a felony upon the defendant, or to commit a felony in any dwelling house in which the defendant was at the time of the killing. § 782.02, Fla. Stat.
Excusable Homicide:
The killing of a human being is excusable, and therefore lawful, under any one of the following three circumstances:
1. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent, or
2. When the killing occurs by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or
3. When the killing is committed by accident and misfortune resulting from a sudden combat, if a dangerous weapon is not used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
§ 782.03, Fla. Stat.
Give only if 2a alleged and proved.
In order to convict of manslaughter by act, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had an intent to cause death, only an intent to commit an act that was not merely negligent, justified, or excusable and which caused death.
Give only if 2b alleged and proved.
To “procure” means to persuade, induce, prevail upon or cause a person to do something. 128
Give only if 2c alleged and proved.
I will now define “culpable negligence” for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard for the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.
The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
The prosecution have nailed down the proof on the first element. The rest, I'm not so sure.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/X4MjAEl.jpg)
