|
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 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated.
No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading.
|
I have no problem with them asking for reduced charges. It's perfectly standard and in many cases is absolutely necessary/warranted.
Out of all the problems I have with this case... that isn't one of them.
edit: though I am kind of weirded out about the "child abuse" part...
|
On July 12 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated. No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading.
Umm...truth is the exact opposite of subjective. Either Zimmerman murdered Martin or he did not. We are trying to discover that truth. Our entirely judicial system rests on the premise of objective truth and its discovery.
|
On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 00:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:14 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 00:11 DwD wrote:
The judge in this case is... Yeah I don't know what. How is this even an issue for her? Of course it's not illegal to follow someone if you need to tell the police where they are.. Lmao. This is going down a weird road. On one hand I agree that you should not follow people when the police tell you not to, on the other hand, I don't think it should be a factor in the conviction. Let us make this clear (because the prosecution surely won't) the police did not tell Zimmerman anything about following or not following. A police dispatcher is not police. And a police dispatcher has no right or authority to tell Zimmerman anything whatsoever, much less forbid any lawful action. A police dispatcher is not given the right to tell people what to do to protect them from being sued. But they are still part of the police force and a great many citizens out there don't like the idea of going against what the police ask you to do and you end up shooting someone because of it. Regardless of why the police dispatcher does not have the right to tell people what to do, the fact remains that they do not have the right to tell you what to do and Zimmerman was in no way required to follow any suggestions they may or may not have given.Show nested quote +Police dispatchers covering their asses from being sued is a lousy reason to say it was okay for Zimmerman to follow Martin that night. Events like this is the REASON police dispatchers aren't allowed to give orders. Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin.
People don't like it when police authority is disregarded because its assumed bad things happen when you do.
This happens often enough that emergency dispatch have to legally cover their asses in order to protect themselves.
Zimmerman acted out the exact reason why people say you shouldn't contradict police requests and why the police protect themselves from being sued by people like zimmerman who get into trouble after talking to them.
The law knows that Zimmerman didn't break a rule when he followed Trayvon, but the legality of that is being brought into question because of what it is allowing zimmerman to do.
|
On July 12 2013 00:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:14 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 00:11 DwD wrote:
The judge in this case is... Yeah I don't know what. How is this even an issue for her? Of course it's not illegal to follow someone if you need to tell the police where they are.. Lmao. This is going down a weird road. On one hand I agree that you should not follow people when the police tell you not to, on the other hand, I don't think it should be a factor in the conviction. Let us make this clear (because the prosecution surely won't) the police did not tell Zimmerman anything about following or not following. A police dispatcher is not police. And a police dispatcher has no right or authority to tell Zimmerman anything whatsoever, much less forbid any lawful action. You are correct, but clearly they are attempting to make the argument that any reasonable person would have listened and Zimmerman was not acting like reasonable person. 3rd degree murder requires some level of impaired judgment. I can see where they are going, saying that Zimmerman was caught up in his dream of being a cop and it impaired his ability to act reasonable. To be clear, I don't think its a great arguement.
Zimmerman was also convinced Trayvon was upto no good and is on record cussing and saying how 'punks' like Trayvon 'always get away' before he followed Trayvon.
Is it illegal to raise your voice at someone? But if you are heard raising your voice, and then claim self-defense, it should be considered by the jury.
ps. while I think Trayvon must have indeed played his part by fighting and injuring Zimmerman, I don't like how Zimmerman's supporters act as if Zimmerman had played no fault in Trayvon's death. Even if acquitted completely, I hope he gets nowhere near a law-enforcement occupation - that is probably the correct punishment but there's no law specific to that afaik.
|
On July 12 2013 00:31 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:On July 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated. No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading. Umm...truth is the exact opposite of subjective. Either Zimmerman murdered Martin or he did not. We are trying to discover that truth. Our entirely judicial system rests on the premise of objective truth and its discovery.
Yes but barring a video camera or some other recording device we are trying to get as close to the truth as possible and decide what crime he is guilty of if he is guilty of any crime. If you think he is guilty of 2nd degree murder and even if you are fairly certain that he is (as prosecution seems to be in this case) but you can only prove a lesser charge then that's no reason to get off on a different crime because it wasn't original charge.
|
On July 12 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated. No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading.
The problem is that they're springing this on the defense at literally the last minute. There is a certain amount of research needed to find the case law (actual trial decisions in previous cases) regarding these new charges. The prosecution is trying to deny Zimmerman his right to effective counsel by preventing his lawyers from having the time to do that research.
|
On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find.
I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver.
It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance.
|
On July 12 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated. No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading.
He is correct that the point of the trial is to find the truth, but the jury is responsible for that part of the process. The prosecution’s job is to determine if they believe a crime has taken place and then attempt to secure a conviction through presenting the evidence. Most crimes have tiers of severity, like breaking an entering, burglary and home invasion. All of those crimes are basically the same physical act(breaking into a house) but the sentences and fact sets that surround them are different in subtle ways. The prosecution could change their charge if they find out their evidence does not support one crime, but another instead. Since the burden is on them to prove the crime, they are allowed to change their charge part way through if they feel it is necessary.
|
On July 12 2013 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 00:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 00:14 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 00:11 DwD wrote:
The judge in this case is... Yeah I don't know what. How is this even an issue for her? Of course it's not illegal to follow someone if you need to tell the police where they are.. Lmao. This is going down a weird road. On one hand I agree that you should not follow people when the police tell you not to, on the other hand, I don't think it should be a factor in the conviction. Let us make this clear (because the prosecution surely won't) the police did not tell Zimmerman anything about following or not following. A police dispatcher is not police. And a police dispatcher has no right or authority to tell Zimmerman anything whatsoever, much less forbid any lawful action. A police dispatcher is not given the right to tell people what to do to protect them from being sued. But they are still part of the police force and a great many citizens out there don't like the idea of going against what the police ask you to do and you end up shooting someone because of it. Regardless of why the police dispatcher does not have the right to tell people what to do, the fact remains that they do not have the right to tell you what to do and Zimmerman was in no way required to follow any suggestions they may or may not have given.Police dispatchers covering their asses from being sued is a lousy reason to say it was okay for Zimmerman to follow Martin that night. Events like this is the REASON police dispatchers aren't allowed to give orders. Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. People don't like it when police authority is disregarded because its assumed bad things happen when you do. This happens often enough that emergency dispatch have to legally cover their asses in order to protect themselves. Zimmerman acted out the exact reason why people say you shouldn't contradict police requests and why the police protect themselves from being sued by people like zimmerman who get into trouble after talking to them. The law knows that Zimmerman didn't break a rule when he followed Trayvon, but the legality of that is being brought into question because of what it is allowing zimmerman to do.
Police dispatchers are not police authority, so Zimmerman did not disregard the orders of any police authority. The legality of Zimmerman following Trayvon was never, and never will be, under dispute. He is legally allowed to follow whomever he damn well pleases unless specifically forbidden to do so by an actual police authority, or by court order. Even if they changed the law (which they would never do), Zimmerman could not be held guilty of violating it ex post facto.
|
On July 12 2013 00:29 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I have no problem with them asking for reduced charges. It's perfectly standard and in many cases is absolutely necessary/warranted.
Out of all the problems I have with this case... that isn't one of them.
edit: though I am kind of weirded out about the "child abuse" part...
I think the child abuse part is just a reference to a case that involved 3rd degree murder. Since the charge is so rare, it might be one of the few cases the DA had to cite at the time.
|
On July 12 2013 00:34 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:On July 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated. No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading. The problem is that they're springing this on the defense at literally the last minute. There is a certain amount of research needed to find the case law (actual trial decisions in previous cases) regarding these new charges. The prosecution is trying to deny Zimmerman his right to effective counsel by preventing his lawyers from having the time to do that research.
It doesn't matter if they are springing it on them at the last minute because job of courts is to find the truth and find an effective punishment for whatever happened. If they are able to prove you are guilty of a crime that you weren't charged with during the trial then that's no reason for you to simply get off on that crime.
|
On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance.
I don't know what area you're from; but you're lucky those youth were not armed. An untrained person like a cab driver could have escalated the situation and gotten you killed when you could have run and dialed 911 and achieved the same result.
|
The jury isn't hearing the current arguments right?
|
On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance.
He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me.
|
On July 12 2013 00:39 ConGee wrote:
The jury isn't hearing the current arguments right?
Good Lord no!
|
On July 12 2013 00:39 ConGee wrote:
The jury isn't hearing the current arguments right?
No they aren't being brought in until closing arguments at 1.
|
On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me.
It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do.
Neither of those things are things that Martin did.
|
On July 12 2013 00:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:40 Adreme wrote:On July 12 2013 00:34 GreenGringo wrote:On July 12 2013 00:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Zimmerman does not have to provide a single reason for it being okay to follow Martin. He was legally allowed to follow Martin. He has no responsibility to not follow Martin. Once when I was a university student I was attacked and beaten up for no reason by drunken youths who decided to take their frustrations out on the nearest defenceless male student they could find. I was "rescued" by a cab driver who knew these kids were up to no good that night and decided to follow them in his cab. I got away with only minor injuries, but there's no telling how badly I would have been beaten up if it weren't for this cab driver. It's simply ridiculous to accuse people of being "vigilantes" for merely following suspicious-looking youths some distance. He wasn't following "youths" it was one lone guy who had every reason to be just more scared of him then Zimmerman was of Martin. If im in a group of people im not afraid of one weird guy following me but if im unarmed by myself that would quite frankly terrify me. It would terrify me too. So I would call the police and get to my house as quickly as possible. Those are two things any rational person would do. Neither of those things are things that Martin did.
There's a reason we don't allow 17 year olds to vote.
/edit
And what you say doesn't do away with Zimmerman's belief that Trayvon was a criminal. He was quite convinced, and it is on record on the call with the dispatcher.
|
On July 12 2013 00:34 Freddybear wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:28 docvoc wrote:On July 12 2013 00:25 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 00:17 Sermokala wrote:
This is just silly. Pobably was the prosecutions strategy the whole time to direct the case to be 2nd degree murder and then bait and switch at the end to get anything on him.
People shouldn't be allowed to be charged with different even lesser crimes at the end of their trial, just sickening. But isn't the point of a trial to arrive at the truth? Obviously the lawyers just want to win their case but the entire process ought to bring about justice. If you're not guilty of pre-meditated murder but you are guilty of something lesser, a trial ought to be able to shift gears. Because guilty people ought to be taken off the streets and (ideally) rehabilitated. No. Hopefully the trial does that, but truth is subjective. What seems to be occuring is that the prosectution has realized that they have either done a poor job, or are insecure in the job they have done. From the beginning they had a backup plan, as all good lawyers do. This is entirely within their rights from what I'm reading. The problem is that they're springing this on the defense at literally the last minute. There is a certain amount of research needed to find the case law (actual trial decisions in previous cases) regarding these new charges. The prosecution is trying to deny Zimmerman his right to effective counsel by preventing his lawyers from having the time to do that research.
The Defense knew the 3rd degree murder was always an option. Its one of the 4 charges that could be brought(1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder and manslaughter). They shouldn't be shocked this came up and the option was always there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
