|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 04 2013 03:24 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 03:20 jeremycafe wrote: I am shocked she would refuse to allow defense proper time because she is impatient. This judge has made some crazy statements. to be fair, she is concerned about the jury. they are sequestered. she doesnt want to keep them sequestered for more time than is necessary because its a huge burden on them. she should just force crump to show up for deposition tomorrow. the guy is going to court as much as he can, its apparent he has no life or job outside of this case currently.
I agree with bringing crump in right away. But if they give the defense a disadvantage out of convenience, I would think that would give room for appeals would it not?
|
The trial is real boring right now, enough with the DNA lecture please. What are the prosecutors even getting out of this other than stating the obvious?
|
On July 04 2013 03:32 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 03:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 03:20 jeremycafe wrote: I am shocked she would refuse to allow defense proper time because she is impatient. This judge has made some crazy statements. to be fair, she is concerned about the jury. they are sequestered. she doesnt want to keep them sequestered for more time than is necessary because its a huge burden on them. she should just force crump to show up for deposition tomorrow. the guy is going to court as much as he can, its apparent he has no life or job outside of this case currently. I agree with bringing crump in right away. But if they give the defense a disadvantage out of convenience, I would think that would give room for appeals would it not? the judge legitimately pointed out that they have had a month to take the deposition since the court of appeal ruled they could take it. judge fucked up in the first instance by not allowing it during discovery, but defense hasnt really stated a legitimate basis for not being able to take the deposition in the last month. the fact that they are in trial is certainly a good argument, but i dont think it completely disposes of the issue. indeed, she said they are taking depositions every day this week after the trial. they are busy little bees.
|
On July 04 2013 03:36 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 03:32 jeremycafe wrote:On July 04 2013 03:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 03:20 jeremycafe wrote: I am shocked she would refuse to allow defense proper time because she is impatient. This judge has made some crazy statements. to be fair, she is concerned about the jury. they are sequestered. she doesnt want to keep them sequestered for more time than is necessary because its a huge burden on them. she should just force crump to show up for deposition tomorrow. the guy is going to court as much as he can, its apparent he has no life or job outside of this case currently. I agree with bringing crump in right away. But if they give the defense a disadvantage out of convenience, I would think that would give room for appeals would it not? the judge legitimately pointed out that they have had a month to take the deposition since the court of appeal ruled they could take it. judge fucked up in the first instance by not allowing it during discovery, but defense hasnt really stated a legitimate basis for not being able to take the deposition in the last month. the fact that they are in trial is certainly a good argument, but i dont think it completely disposes of the issue. indeed, she said they are taking depositions every day this week after the trial. they are busy little bees.
Ah, I thought this was a recent change that allowed them to get crump. Didn't realize it happened that long ago. Understood data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt=""
I guess you were right on the DNA expert as well, this is pointless as he doesn't say he grabbed the weapon, he said he reached for it. zzz
|
On July 03 2013 21:24 Akasha wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 16:01 Defacer wrote:On July 03 2013 11:36 Akasha wrote:On July 03 2013 10:52 Defacer wrote: Hip Hop/Black culture increasingly villifies authority, law enforcement and breeds resentment towards 'the man' or status quo (white culture).
You can argue that at first, in the 80's and 90's, it was catharis in the form of art, in light of actual discrimination or institutionalized racism or poverty that the Black community was suffering. But now you have a whole generation of black kids that have been grown up surrounded by hip hop culture at birth. They don't realize that when Snoop Dog raps about pimping or Public Enemy talks about how much the police suck, it's intended to be satirical or humorous with a grain a truth.
It's not intended to be the basis of your beliefs or lifestyle, the same way when Louis CK jokes about rape he's not actually encouraging people to rape. And it doesn't help that you have a generation of hip hop artists that saw how well gangland fairy tales and violence sold and made it their brand.
This is my long way of saying that, as silly or un-PC as it sounds, you do need to explain to black youth (or young people in general) how act appropriately and how to deal with conflict with maturity.
As far as Trayvon was concerned, he probably thought he was just 'keeping it real' and reacting in a way that would be considered normal at school or among his friends — which is to throw down when someone in your face.
I know you wrote that this was an un-PC explanation but you essentially denied a lot of black people's experiences with authority as if it was unwarranted or doesn't exist. When you grow up with a situation where the people you thought were going to protect you, automatically think you are suspicious that trust is damaged. I absolutely believe minorities, and particularly Black people, experience overt discrimination and are subjected to systemic racism throughout their lives. And of course, there's are plenty of instances where Blacks are persecuted or treatly unjustly by the police. But I don't equate the identity of being Black exclusively with Hip Hop culture, and I'm certain a great deal of people in the Black community don't either. Popular Hip Hop glorifies drugs, sexual objectification, violence and anti-authority paranoia. Hell, you can say the same about psychedelic Hippie culture in the 60's, or shitty rap-rock in the 90's. And young people do model their behaviour off these fantasies. That being said, there's a world of grassroots, conscious, socially-empowering Hip Hop that most people never see or experience because it doesn't sell. And it does feel like the trends and fashions in popular Hip Hop are changing, as popular artists are aging and maturing. I guess what I'm saying is that Hip Hop traditionally served as a force of catharsis, protest and communication, like all art. But that tradition has been commercialized and perverted, and is partially to blame for glamourizing anti-social behaviour for the sake of being anti-social. And like all shit kids are into these days, that's immature. I don't see Trayvon as a gangbanger or criminal, but as a reckless teen that based his identity on the most immature and superficial elements of Hip Hop culture, and as a result reacted to a perceived threat in the stupidest way possible. Yeah I agree with this. Sorry for jumping on your statement in particular. As a black person, combing through this thread I see some generalizations/ignorance coupled with thoughtful commentary so I wanted to explain a very minor aspect of my culture. Today is probably going to be an interesting day if they do submit parts of Z's coursework and how well he did on that.
No worries, my previous post wasn't as clear as it should have be. I can't expect strangers on the internet to know my longwinded views on race and Hip Hop. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c81e3/c81e334f952fa6a3b77a0f55297a8c05972c04b5" alt=""
|
On July 04 2013 02:42 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 02:39 Plansix wrote:On July 04 2013 02:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 02:26 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 02:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 04 2013 02:18 ZasZ. wrote:On July 04 2013 01:52 dAPhREAk wrote: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. The prosecution have nailed down the proof on the first element. The rest, I'm not so sure. i am not sure that was a joke, but it made me laugh. yes, they have proven the first element. ;-) On July 04 2013 02:16 crms wrote: 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. re-reading the jury instructions, i dont think they are required to prove the culpable negligence. it is 2a, 2b or 2c,not 2a, 2b and 2c. i think they can show trayvon is dead, and that zimmerman intentionally committed an act that killed trayvon. self defense is the only issue. let me think on this a bit Heh, yes it was a joke. I understand why it is in there, but it struck me as funny that it has to be proven by the state. It also struck me as funny that it will probably be the only thing that the state can prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the coroner did that work for them. note to all serial killers: hide the body well. no body, no proof of death. =) My teacher in civil procedure always talked about proving murders with no bodies and how it was super challenging, if not impossible. Even if you could confirm the person was dead, but didn't have the body to prove it. It is that classic problem, that which everyone knows to be true may be impossible to prove to the standards of the Court. yep. i think some states have presumptions such as "if the person is missing for X number of years, they are presumed dead." i recall a case where somebody was convicted of murder without a body and then the person later showed up alive. that may have been an urban legend though. At least here in Sweden I know of a few cases where people have been charged with murder without any body. If I remember correctly that was based on blood found, some kind of weapon with blood on it and witnesses hearing screams and possibly dna evidence in the trunk of a car. Something of that kind.
|
Well, shit. This guy is testifying that he can't even conclude based on his analysis that Z ever even touched the trigger, so gg, prosecution. Not terribly effective.
|
On July 04 2013 03:45 Kaitlin wrote: Well, shit. This guy is testifying that he can't even conclude based on his analysis that Z ever even touched the trigger, so gg, prosecution. Not terribly effective. maybe we'll see a jury reenactment from that one show where trayvon shoots himself.
|
so, Zimmerman's DNA was on trayvon's sweatshirt.
|
So apparently a professor was called to testify remotely via skype. His skype name was displayed on national television. I wonder what could have happened?
|
On July 04 2013 04:08 dAPhREAk wrote: so, Zimmerman's DNA was on trayvon's sweatshirt.
Still consistent with Zimmerman "splaying" his hands and checking for a weapon, right ?
|
On July 04 2013 04:09 Bayyne wrote:So apparently a professor was called to testify remotely via skype. His skype name was displayed on national television. I wonder what could have happened?
What I didn't like is that it didn't start until exactly it was time for the defense. Seemed to well timed for me.. lol Was the defense every able to question him? I missed this entire part.
|
On July 04 2013 04:14 jeremycafe wrote:What I didn't like is that it didn't start until exactly it was time for the defense. Seemed to well timed for me.. lol Was the defense every able to question him? I missed this entire part.
the testimony wasn't smooth for anyone. it started with 1 prank caller during prosecution about 1m30s after skype was shown on screen then it was 2 people, after a few minutes it was chaos.
|
On July 04 2013 04:08 dAPhREAk wrote: so, Zimmerman's DNA was on trayvon's sweatshirt.
2 of the marked spots on Trayvons gray hoodie had Zimmermans blood (and DNA that is) on it, and from what i recall the spots were located far down on the frontside of the hoodie.
|
On July 04 2013 04:16 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 04:14 jeremycafe wrote:On July 04 2013 04:09 Bayyne wrote:So apparently a professor was called to testify remotely via skype. His skype name was displayed on national television. I wonder what could have happened? What I didn't like is that it didn't start until exactly it was time for the defense. Seemed to well timed for me.. lol Was the defense every able to question him? I missed this entire part. the testimony wasn't smooth for anyone. it started with 1 prank caller during prosecution about 1m30s after skype was shown on screen then it was 2 people, after a few minutes it was chaos.
However from the video I saw it looked like the state was able to finish with very limited interruptions. The second the defense stood in front of the computers, they started pouring at 10 a second. Probably just very bad timing. But did the defense get a chance to question the witness after all that?
|
During that testimony with the DNA guy in front of the jury, the camera angle was behind the prosecution table so you could see the laptop screen. I zoomed in and read "If you can read this, your case is fucked". I'm not sure what to make of that.
|
On July 04 2013 04:23 Kaitlin wrote: During that testimony with the DNA guy in front of the jury, the camera angle was behind the prosecution table so you could see the laptop screen. I zoomed in and read "If you can read this, your case is fucked". I'm not sure what to make of that.
No picture?
|
On July 04 2013 04:21 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 04:16 crms wrote:On July 04 2013 04:14 jeremycafe wrote:On July 04 2013 04:09 Bayyne wrote:So apparently a professor was called to testify remotely via skype. His skype name was displayed on national television. I wonder what could have happened? What I didn't like is that it didn't start until exactly it was time for the defense. Seemed to well timed for me.. lol Was the defense every able to question him? I missed this entire part. the testimony wasn't smooth for anyone. it started with 1 prank caller during prosecution about 1m30s after skype was shown on screen then it was 2 people, after a few minutes it was chaos. However from the video I saw it looked like the state was able to finish with very limited interruptions. The second the defense stood in front of the computers, they started pouring at 10 a second. Probably just very bad timing. But did the defense get a chance to question the witness after all that?
they did it over the phone, it was pretty lousy (audio quality) but the minor points that needed to be made got across. all in all he was a pretty worthless witness.
On July 04 2013 04:23 Kaitlin wrote: During that testimony with the DNA guy in front of the jury, the camera angle was behind the prosecution table so you could see the laptop screen. I zoomed in and read "If you can read this, your case is fucked". I'm not sure what to make of that.
wtf, the laptop on the podium or a laptop on the prosecutions table? Need pictures!!
|
On July 04 2013 04:23 Kaitlin wrote: During that testimony with the DNA guy in front of the jury, the camera angle was behind the prosecution table so you could see the laptop screen. I zoomed in and read "If you can read this, your case is fucked". I'm not sure what to make of that.
Screen capture of this? lol if their laptops are being hacked. That would suck .
|
On July 04 2013 04:21 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 04:16 crms wrote:On July 04 2013 04:14 jeremycafe wrote:On July 04 2013 04:09 Bayyne wrote:So apparently a professor was called to testify remotely via skype. His skype name was displayed on national television. I wonder what could have happened? What I didn't like is that it didn't start until exactly it was time for the defense. Seemed to well timed for me.. lol Was the defense every able to question him? I missed this entire part. the testimony wasn't smooth for anyone. it started with 1 prank caller during prosecution about 1m30s after skype was shown on screen then it was 2 people, after a few minutes it was chaos. However from the video I saw it looked like the state was able to finish with very limited interruptions. The second the defense stood in front of the computers, they started pouring at 10 a second. Probably just very bad timing. But did the defense get a chance to question the witness after all that?
I saw the story on the news earlier and they said they were able to continue via cell phone placed next to a microphone in the courtroom.
|
|
|
|