|
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. |
Rules on Withdrawal of Attorneys in Criminal Cases in Florida
Rule 4-1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation
(a) When Lawyer Must Decline or Terminate Representation.
Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or law;
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or
(3) the lawyer is discharged.
(b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed.
Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:
(1) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(2) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(3) a client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent;
(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
(c) Compliance With Order of Tribunal.
When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
(d) Protection of Client's Interest.
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interest, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers and other property relating to or belonging to the client to the extent permitted by law.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/code/FL_CODE.HTM#Rule_4-1.16(b)
Criminal Cases
In a criminal case in which the defense attorney believes that the client's case is meritless, withdrawal is not permitted at the trial level. Even if the lawyer believes the case to be wholly frivolous, the lawyer is obligated to provide a defense and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S 429, 435, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). The lawyer is, of course, nevertheless bound by ethical considerations against "making dilatory motions, adducing inadmissible or perjured evidence, or advancing frivolous or improper arguments." Id.
However, after conviction, if the defense attorney believes that an appeal would be frivolous, the lawyer may move to withdraw. In the case of indigent criminal defendants, Florida requires adherence to the procedure set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987). The request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief pointing to anything in the record which might arguably be grounds for reversal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. A copy of the brief must be provided to the defendant, who may then file a pro se brief. The court then reviews the entire record and if the appeal is "wholly frivolous," may grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal, unless prohibited by state law. Id. If the court finds any arguable points which are not frivolous, counsel must be appointed to argue the appeal. Id.
The Anders procedure is appropriate even when meritorious issues are raised as to costs or other minor sentencing errors. In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla. 1991). However, if any substantial sentencing errors are raised such as the trial court's reliance on insufficient grounds to depart from sentencing guidelines, the Anders procedure is not appropriate. Id.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/narr/FL_NARR_1_16.HTM
|
On April 11 2012 06:11 dAPhREAk wrote:Rules on Withdrawal of Attorneys in Criminal Cases in Florida Show nested quote +Rule 4-1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation
(a) When Lawyer Must Decline or Terminate Representation.
Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or law;
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or
(3) the lawyer is discharged.
(b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed.
Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:
(1) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(2) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(3) a client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent;
(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
(c) Compliance With Order of Tribunal.
When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
(d) Protection of Client's Interest.
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interest, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers and other property relating to or belonging to the client to the extent permitted by law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/code/FL_CODE.HTM#Rule_4-1.16(b)Show nested quote +Criminal Cases
In a criminal case in which the defense attorney believes that the client's case is meritless, withdrawal is not permitted at the trial level. Even if the lawyer believes the case to be wholly frivolous, the lawyer is obligated to provide a defense and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S 429, 435, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). The lawyer is, of course, nevertheless bound by ethical considerations against "making dilatory motions, adducing inadmissible or perjured evidence, or advancing frivolous or improper arguments." Id.
However, after conviction, if the defense attorney believes that an appeal would be frivolous, the lawyer may move to withdraw. In the case of indigent criminal defendants, Florida requires adherence to the procedure set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987). The request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief pointing to anything in the record which might arguably be grounds for reversal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. A copy of the brief must be provided to the defendant, who may then file a pro se brief. The court then reviews the entire record and if the appeal is "wholly frivolous," may grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal, unless prohibited by state law. Id. If the court finds any arguable points which are not frivolous, counsel must be appointed to argue the appeal. Id.
The Anders procedure is appropriate even when meritorious issues are raised as to costs or other minor sentencing errors. In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla. 1991). However, if any substantial sentencing errors are raised such as the trial court's reliance on insufficient grounds to depart from sentencing guidelines, the Anders procedure is not appropriate. Id. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/narr/FL_NARR_1_16.HTM
What are the implications? They can't actually drop out? Sounds like they are dropping out...
|
On April 11 2012 06:22 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2012 06:11 dAPhREAk wrote:Rules on Withdrawal of Attorneys in Criminal Cases in Florida Rule 4-1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation
(a) When Lawyer Must Decline or Terminate Representation.
Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or law;
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or
(3) the lawyer is discharged.
(b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed.
Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:
(1) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(2) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(3) a client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent;
(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
(c) Compliance With Order of Tribunal.
When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
(d) Protection of Client's Interest.
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interest, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers and other property relating to or belonging to the client to the extent permitted by law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/code/FL_CODE.HTM#Rule_4-1.16(b)Criminal Cases
In a criminal case in which the defense attorney believes that the client's case is meritless, withdrawal is not permitted at the trial level. Even if the lawyer believes the case to be wholly frivolous, the lawyer is obligated to provide a defense and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S 429, 435, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). The lawyer is, of course, nevertheless bound by ethical considerations against "making dilatory motions, adducing inadmissible or perjured evidence, or advancing frivolous or improper arguments." Id.
However, after conviction, if the defense attorney believes that an appeal would be frivolous, the lawyer may move to withdraw. In the case of indigent criminal defendants, Florida requires adherence to the procedure set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987). The request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief pointing to anything in the record which might arguably be grounds for reversal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. A copy of the brief must be provided to the defendant, who may then file a pro se brief. The court then reviews the entire record and if the appeal is "wholly frivolous," may grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal, unless prohibited by state law. Id. If the court finds any arguable points which are not frivolous, counsel must be appointed to argue the appeal. Id.
The Anders procedure is appropriate even when meritorious issues are raised as to costs or other minor sentencing errors. In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla. 1991). However, if any substantial sentencing errors are raised such as the trial court's reliance on insufficient grounds to depart from sentencing guidelines, the Anders procedure is not appropriate. Id. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/narr/FL_NARR_1_16.HTM What are the implications? They can't actually drop out? Sounds like they are dropping out... well, worst case for them would be an ethics violation and a hearing before the professional conduct board. however, because this was pre-arrest, it is highly unlikely. courts look with extreme displeasure at attorneys who drop their clients once a trial / lawsuit begins. indeed, in most cases you have to ask permission from the court to withdraw as counsel. we have continued cases even though we werent getting paid (and it was unlikely we would ever get paid).
if there were some legitimate reasons for them to withdraw that they aren't stating, i would temper my opinion. but the fact that he has not contacted them in two days (over the fucking easter break) and is contacting Fox News are not legitimate reasons for withdrawing. the fact that he is contacting the prosecutor directly gives me pause, but still doesnt seem like a legitimate reason. you work with your clients, explain to them why they are dipshits and continue your representation of them. its only when its absolutely clear that its not going to work out that you walk away. clients are expected to be absolute dipshits; they hire attorneys to be the reasonable ones.
plus, sonner didnt seem to mind when he was running around the media circuit getting his name out there and getting free publicity. but all of a sudden there is an issue? wtf is that?
|
Does anyone other than myself just wish to let law enforcement do their job now that the Feds are overseeing the investigation? Just watch the trial, see what the outcome is, and if anything fishy happened during the trial, have a race war or something.
|
On April 11 2012 06:48 xtruder wrote: Does anyone other than myself just wish to let law enforcement do their job now that the Feds are overseeing the investigation? Just watch the trial, see what the outcome is, and if anything fishy happened during the trial, have a race war or something. FBI is not overseeing the investigation; Florida's special prosecutor is. the FBI is only looking at the civil rights issues.
|
On April 11 2012 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2012 06:22 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2012 06:11 dAPhREAk wrote:Rules on Withdrawal of Attorneys in Criminal Cases in Florida Rule 4-1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation
(a) When Lawyer Must Decline or Terminate Representation.
Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or law;
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or
(3) the lawyer is discharged.
(b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed.
Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:
(1) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(2) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(3) a client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent;
(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
(c) Compliance With Order of Tribunal.
When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
(d) Protection of Client's Interest.
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interest, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers and other property relating to or belonging to the client to the extent permitted by law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/code/FL_CODE.HTM#Rule_4-1.16(b)Criminal Cases
In a criminal case in which the defense attorney believes that the client's case is meritless, withdrawal is not permitted at the trial level. Even if the lawyer believes the case to be wholly frivolous, the lawyer is obligated to provide a defense and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S 429, 435, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). The lawyer is, of course, nevertheless bound by ethical considerations against "making dilatory motions, adducing inadmissible or perjured evidence, or advancing frivolous or improper arguments." Id.
However, after conviction, if the defense attorney believes that an appeal would be frivolous, the lawyer may move to withdraw. In the case of indigent criminal defendants, Florida requires adherence to the procedure set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987). The request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief pointing to anything in the record which might arguably be grounds for reversal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. A copy of the brief must be provided to the defendant, who may then file a pro se brief. The court then reviews the entire record and if the appeal is "wholly frivolous," may grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal, unless prohibited by state law. Id. If the court finds any arguable points which are not frivolous, counsel must be appointed to argue the appeal. Id.
The Anders procedure is appropriate even when meritorious issues are raised as to costs or other minor sentencing errors. In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla. 1991). However, if any substantial sentencing errors are raised such as the trial court's reliance on insufficient grounds to depart from sentencing guidelines, the Anders procedure is not appropriate. Id. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/narr/FL_NARR_1_16.HTM What are the implications? They can't actually drop out? Sounds like they are dropping out... well, worst case for them would be an ethics violation and a hearing before the professional conduct board. however, because this was pre-arrest, it is highly unlikely. courts look with extreme displeasure at attorneys who drop their clients once a trial / lawsuit begins. indeed, in most cases you have to ask permission from the court to withdraw as counsel. we have continued cases even though we werent getting paid (and it was unlikely we would ever get paid). if there were some legitimate reasons for them to withdraw that they aren't stating, i would temper my opinion. but the fact that he has not contacted them in two days (over the fucking easter break) and is contacting Fox News are not legitimate reasons for withdrawing. the fact that he is contacting the prosecutor directly gives me pause, but still doesnt seem like a legitimate reason. you work with your clients, explain to them why they are dipshits and continue your representation of them. its only when its absolutely clear that its not going to work out that you walk away. clients are expected to be absolute dipshits; they hire attorneys to be the reasonable ones. plus, sonner didnt seem to mind when he was running around the media circuit getting his name out there and getting free publicity. but all of a sudden there is an issue? wtf is that?
I really get the feeling that they know something none of us know. Something about to make the ship sink and they are getting the hell out of there.
|
Decision in Trayvon case expected by Friday, as Zimmerman goes AWOL from lawyers.
+ Show Spoiler +With prosecutors saying they will announce a decision in the Trayvon Martin case by Friday, George Zimmerman appears to have struck out on his own.
He launched a website without telling his two attorneys, spoke to a talk show host and put in a call to the special prosecutor investigating him for the Feb. 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin. After Zimmerman went AWOL from his lawyers for two days, the attorneys held a press conference late Tuesday afternoon and quit.
Hours later, special prosecutor Angela Corey announced she would make an important announcement in the case in the next 72 hours.
“I’d have to count how many text messages I sent saying: ‘Please call me. Please call me collect. Please text me. Please email me. Please, so we can go forward,’” one of Zimmerman’s lawyers, Craig Sonner, said about his former client. “After I started getting calls from different people saying that he was giving statements to the media, calling the prosecutor’s office and not calling me, that’s when it started dawning on me that I wasn’t the attorney of record anymore.”
Now, the parents of the Miami Gardens teenager Zimmerman shot say they fear the man their lawyers call the “neighborhood watch loose cannon” will run. For the first time, Sonner and co-counsel Hal Uhrig acknowledged that Zimmerman is “far from Florida,” but still inside the United States.
“He is well hidden,” Sonner said.
They stressed that they never considered Zimmerman a flight risk, because he always cooperated with law enforcement and was easily reachable by phone. Even now, the attorneys say that a man who is poised to flee the country to avoid possible criminal charges would not check in with the prosecutors who appear poised to arrest him.
“We were a bit astounded,” Uhrig said, stressing that he always tells clients not to talk to prosecutors, cops, reporters or anybody else. “Now he is telling people: ‘I don’t have an attorney. Those guys were just my legal advisers.’ I’m not sure what the difference is.”
Sonner said Zimmerman was eager to tell the state attorney his side of the story. “He wanted to give his statement, and I was going to let him,” Sonner said. “But he was supposed to call me. Let me make the call. I hope he has found someone else to represent him.”
Zimmerman went into hiding after Sanford Police declined to arrest him for Trayvon’s shooting, sparking nationwide outrage.
Trayvon, 17, a junior at Dr. Michael Krop Senior High School, went for a walk to the store on a rainy Sunday night in Sanford, where he was visiting his father and his father’s girlfriend. Zimmerman called police, saying there was something suspicious about someone who walked too slowly in the rain, seemed high on drugs and appeared to be “looking about.”
About six minutes later, Trayvon was dead.
The neighborhood watch captain told police that Trayvon approached him from behind, that the two exchanged harsh words and that the boy allegedly hit him hard enough to break his nose. He said Trayvon slammed his head on the concrete, forcing Zimmerman to fire once with the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry on a holster on his waist.
But the investigation that followed was so fraught with problems that it was not long before the case caught the attention of civil rights figures such as the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Intense pressure from around the country grew until Gov. Rick Scott appointed a special prosecutor and the Sanford police chief took a leave of absence.
The FBI, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights division are investigating the case.
Now that the probe is in the hands of the Jacksonville-based special prosecutor, Trayvon’s family attorneys believe an arrest is imminent, but they were concerned by the defense lawyers’ decision to withdraw from the case.
“The family is deeply concerned that George Zimmerman could pose a flight risk if he does indeed face charges in the murder of Trayvon Martin,” family spokesman Ryan Julison said in a statement. “All the family has asked for from the very beginning is simple justice. It is their hope that George Zimmerman will face his legal responsibilities if arrested and charged.”
Zimmerman’s former lawyers said things started going wrong when they heard through the media that their client had launched a website called “The Real George Zimmerman.” The site had a PayPal account to process donations, even though the attorneys were working with Zimmerman’s father to start a legal defense fund in the father’s name.
“On Sunday February 26th, I was involved in a life altering event which led me to become the subject of intense media coverage,” Zimmerman wrote on his website. “As a result of the incident and subsequent media coverage, I have been forced to leave my home, my school, my employer, my family and ultimately, my entire life. This website’s sole purpose is to ensure my supporters they are receiving my full attention without any intermediaries.”
Trayvon’s parents scoffed at the wording, noting that Trayvon suffered not a “life-altering” event, but “a life-ending one,” his father Tracy Martin said.
Zimmerman had to leave his home and job, but Trayvon won’t get to attend prom, graduate from high school or achieve any of his dreams, he said.
Zimmernman’s website features philosophical quotes from Thomas Paine, Edmund Burke and other historical figures.
A link marked “My race” leads to this quotation by Paine: “The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.” From University of Vermont historian James W. Loewen, he posted: “Evidence must be located, not created, and opinions not backed by evidence cannot be given much weight.”
At first, Sonner said he was fine with Zimmerman launching his own website, even with a different fund-raising account that went directly to his former client.
“That money is for George,” Sonner said. “It’s not for me, and I don’t want my hands on it.”
But then the attorneys found out Zimmerman had also reached out to Fox News talk show host Sean Hannity. Hannity had recently interviewed Zimmerman’s dad and asked sympathetic questions like, “Is it true George mentored a black teenager?”
Late Tuesday morning, Zimmerman called the office of special prosecutor Corey, the state attorney for Duval, Nassau and Clay counties. Her office refused his call, because prosecutors are not allowed to speak to suspects without their lawyers present, the lawyers said. The attorneys described a man who appears to be unraveling from the stress, the bounty put on his head by extremists and from more than 40 days hiding in a room.
“George Zimmerman is not doing well emotionally,” Uhrig, one of his two former lawyers, said. “He probably has post traumatic stress disorder, and we understand from other people that he has lost a lot of weight. By him doing this, he may not be in control of what’s going on. We’re concerned.”
Both lawyers made clear that if Zimmerman reaches out to them, they would be happy to take the case back: They believe in his innocence, they said. They stressed that Zimmerman owes them no money, because they had agreed to work for free until charges were filed.
“This is the last thing I want to do,” Sonner said. “I am invested in this case. I put a lot of work into this case.”
Even after publicly resigning, Uhrig proceeded to emphatically represent Zimmerman’s position, insisting that the media, members of Congress, activists and others had made an unfair rush to judgment.
He insisted that Trayvon “slinked along the back of buildings” in the gated community where the shooting occurred, and ultimately threw the first punch. The crime committed, he said, was battery against Zimmerman.
He mimicked the voice of U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson — who has advocated for Zimmerman’s arrest — and railed against the people who came to Sanford “pumping their fists.”
“There are people who came to town who are only relevant in situations of racial strife,” Uhrig said. “Their business model is racial division.”
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/10/v-fullstory/2741248/george-zimmermans-lawyers-withdraw.html
|
On April 11 2012 07:12 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2012 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 11 2012 06:22 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2012 06:11 dAPhREAk wrote:Rules on Withdrawal of Attorneys in Criminal Cases in Florida Rule 4-1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation
(a) When Lawyer Must Decline or Terminate Representation.
Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or law;
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or
(3) the lawyer is discharged.
(b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed.
Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:
(1) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(2) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(3) a client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent;
(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
(c) Compliance With Order of Tribunal.
When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
(d) Protection of Client's Interest.
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interest, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers and other property relating to or belonging to the client to the extent permitted by law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/code/FL_CODE.HTM#Rule_4-1.16(b)Criminal Cases
In a criminal case in which the defense attorney believes that the client's case is meritless, withdrawal is not permitted at the trial level. Even if the lawyer believes the case to be wholly frivolous, the lawyer is obligated to provide a defense and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S 429, 435, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). The lawyer is, of course, nevertheless bound by ethical considerations against "making dilatory motions, adducing inadmissible or perjured evidence, or advancing frivolous or improper arguments." Id.
However, after conviction, if the defense attorney believes that an appeal would be frivolous, the lawyer may move to withdraw. In the case of indigent criminal defendants, Florida requires adherence to the procedure set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987). The request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief pointing to anything in the record which might arguably be grounds for reversal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. A copy of the brief must be provided to the defendant, who may then file a pro se brief. The court then reviews the entire record and if the appeal is "wholly frivolous," may grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal, unless prohibited by state law. Id. If the court finds any arguable points which are not frivolous, counsel must be appointed to argue the appeal. Id.
The Anders procedure is appropriate even when meritorious issues are raised as to costs or other minor sentencing errors. In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla. 1991). However, if any substantial sentencing errors are raised such as the trial court's reliance on insufficient grounds to depart from sentencing guidelines, the Anders procedure is not appropriate. Id. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/narr/FL_NARR_1_16.HTM What are the implications? They can't actually drop out? Sounds like they are dropping out... well, worst case for them would be an ethics violation and a hearing before the professional conduct board. however, because this was pre-arrest, it is highly unlikely. courts look with extreme displeasure at attorneys who drop their clients once a trial / lawsuit begins. indeed, in most cases you have to ask permission from the court to withdraw as counsel. we have continued cases even though we werent getting paid (and it was unlikely we would ever get paid). if there were some legitimate reasons for them to withdraw that they aren't stating, i would temper my opinion. but the fact that he has not contacted them in two days (over the fucking easter break) and is contacting Fox News are not legitimate reasons for withdrawing. the fact that he is contacting the prosecutor directly gives me pause, but still doesnt seem like a legitimate reason. you work with your clients, explain to them why they are dipshits and continue your representation of them. its only when its absolutely clear that its not going to work out that you walk away. clients are expected to be absolute dipshits; they hire attorneys to be the reasonable ones. plus, sonner didnt seem to mind when he was running around the media circuit getting his name out there and getting free publicity. but all of a sudden there is an issue? wtf is that? I really get the feeling that they know something none of us know. Something about to make the ship sink and they are getting the hell out of there. they have said multiple times that they want to continue to represent him--even at their press conference saying they were withdrawing. these are not the kind of cases that ambitious attorneys stay away from. its high publicity. win or lose, their names and reputations improve in the legal community.
|
On April 11 2012 11:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2012 07:12 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2012 06:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 11 2012 06:22 Mohdoo wrote:On April 11 2012 06:11 dAPhREAk wrote:Rules on Withdrawal of Attorneys in Criminal Cases in Florida Rule 4-1.16 Declining or Terminating Representation
(a) When Lawyer Must Decline or Terminate Representation.
Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:
(1) the representation will result in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or law;
(2) the lawyer's physical or mental condition materially impairs the lawyer's ability to represent the client; or
(3) the lawyer is discharged.
(b) When Withdrawal Is Allowed.
Except as stated in subdivision (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client, or if:
(1) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;
(2) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
(3) a client insists upon pursuing an objective that the lawyer considers repugnant or imprudent;
(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;
(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
(6) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
(c) Compliance With Order of Tribunal.
When ordered to do so by a tribunal, a lawyer shall continue representation notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation.
(d) Protection of Client's Interest.
Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interest, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers and other property relating to or belonging to the client to the extent permitted by law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/code/FL_CODE.HTM#Rule_4-1.16(b)Criminal Cases
In a criminal case in which the defense attorney believes that the client's case is meritless, withdrawal is not permitted at the trial level. Even if the lawyer believes the case to be wholly frivolous, the lawyer is obligated to provide a defense and require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S 429, 435, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). The lawyer is, of course, nevertheless bound by ethical considerations against "making dilatory motions, adducing inadmissible or perjured evidence, or advancing frivolous or improper arguments." Id.
However, after conviction, if the defense attorney believes that an appeal would be frivolous, the lawyer may move to withdraw. In the case of indigent criminal defendants, Florida requires adherence to the procedure set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). See State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987). The request to withdraw must be accompanied by a brief pointing to anything in the record which might arguably be grounds for reversal. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. A copy of the brief must be provided to the defendant, who may then file a pro se brief. The court then reviews the entire record and if the appeal is "wholly frivolous," may grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the appeal, unless prohibited by state law. Id. If the court finds any arguable points which are not frivolous, counsel must be appointed to argue the appeal. Id.
The Anders procedure is appropriate even when meritorious issues are raised as to costs or other minor sentencing errors. In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla. 1991). However, if any substantial sentencing errors are raised such as the trial court's reliance on insufficient grounds to depart from sentencing guidelines, the Anders procedure is not appropriate. Id. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/fl/narr/FL_NARR_1_16.HTM What are the implications? They can't actually drop out? Sounds like they are dropping out... well, worst case for them would be an ethics violation and a hearing before the professional conduct board. however, because this was pre-arrest, it is highly unlikely. courts look with extreme displeasure at attorneys who drop their clients once a trial / lawsuit begins. indeed, in most cases you have to ask permission from the court to withdraw as counsel. we have continued cases even though we werent getting paid (and it was unlikely we would ever get paid). if there were some legitimate reasons for them to withdraw that they aren't stating, i would temper my opinion. but the fact that he has not contacted them in two days (over the fucking easter break) and is contacting Fox News are not legitimate reasons for withdrawing. the fact that he is contacting the prosecutor directly gives me pause, but still doesnt seem like a legitimate reason. you work with your clients, explain to them why they are dipshits and continue your representation of them. its only when its absolutely clear that its not going to work out that you walk away. clients are expected to be absolute dipshits; they hire attorneys to be the reasonable ones. plus, sonner didnt seem to mind when he was running around the media circuit getting his name out there and getting free publicity. but all of a sudden there is an issue? wtf is that? I really get the feeling that they know something none of us know. Something about to make the ship sink and they are getting the hell out of there. they have said multiple times that they want to continue to represent him--even at their press conference saying they were withdrawing. these are not the kind of cases that ambitious attorneys stay away from. its high publicity. win or lose, their names and reputations improve in the legal community.
Zimmerman's gone rogue!
If I was getting slaughtered in the media, I probably wouldn't be able to bite my tongue any longer either ... still a bad decision from a guy with a track record of really crappy decisions.
|
Did he really go rogue? I mean this is a guy who really does have a bounty on his head and has received death threats. I would be pretty worried if he stopped returning phone calls.
|
|
A human life was taken, and nothing, not even a walnut, was taken from George Zimmerman.
That is justice in the good ol' USA.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 12 2012 01:37 cameler wrote: A human life was taken, and nothing, not even a walnut, was taken from George Zimmerman.
That is justice in the good ol' USA.
I guess your post is demonstration of ignorance in good ol' Canada?
Anyways, I have been riding this out without taking anybody's side. But if Zimmerman is running away from all of this, maybe something fishy did happen. There is no point in speculation though, just have to wait for law enforcement to do there job. And don't doubt that if they really have to find him that they can't.
Because they'll find him. Lol.
|
|
On April 12 2012 01:45 randomKo_Orean wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 01:41 UisTehSux wrote:On April 12 2012 01:37 cameler wrote: A human life was taken, and nothing, not even a walnut, was taken from George Zimmerman.
That is justice in the good ol' USA. I guess your post is demonstration of ignorance in good ol' Canada? Anyways, I have been riding this out without taking anybody's side. But if Zimmerman is running away from all of this, maybe something fishy did happen. There is no point in speculation though, just have to wait for law enforcement to do there job. And don't doubt that if they really have to find him that they can't. Because they'll find him. Lol. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but if the law enforcement was doing their job properly, Zimmerman would be in jail by now, wouldn't you think so? With that being said, I want to ask the TL audience this question. Which of you honestly believe that the killing or the handling of the case was not racially motivated at all? I want to hear your answers why you'd think that way.
In reponse to this, I would like to copy pasta this blog entry from a police officer. I find this account to be in line with pretty much everything I think about this whole situation.
This blog entry is from Officer "Smith" of "Smith"ville. You can find his blog here: http://officersmith.blogspot.com/
+ Show Spoiler +Over the past weeks I have noticed many of my friends, family and acquaintances jumping on the race guilt bandwagon and calling for the lynch mobs to come out and get George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin.
What folks don't seem to understand is that they DO NOT KNOW the full details of the incident. All any of us knows is what we have heard from the "news" media. And we all know how thorough the media is in their reporting. They always give us ALL of the facts, and never leave ANYTHING out, or try to SPIN what they tell us. The media NEVER tries to SENSATIONALIZE any incident, and NEVER tries to turn ANYTHING into a RACIALLY MOTIVATED act. Right? Yeah, sure.
We ALWAYS hear about the white guy who shot the white guy, right? We ALWAYS hear about the black guy who shot the white guy, right? We ALWAYS hear about the hispanic guy who shot the asian guy, right? Hmmm.... well, maybe we don't. Of COURSE we don't. Unless the person who got shot was black and the person doing the shooting was something other than black we don't hear a peep on the news. And there are no RIOTS unless the shootee was black.
All we hear from the news about Trayvon Martin is what HIS family wants us to hear. We see the pictures of him when he was 12 years old. We hear what a "good boy" he was. We don't hear that the reason he was in a neighborhood where he didn't belong was because he was on a five day suspension from school. What gets a kid suspended for a week? We don't hear that he was 6'2" with the build of a football player. We don't know if he had any gang affiliation, or if he was prone to shooting his mouth off, or if his parents had bred the all too common sense of entitlement into him. We don't have any idea what type of person he was last month. Only what type of person he was five YEARS ago. And people change.
As for Zimmerman, the media seems to be stuck on reporting that Zimmerman is white. The fact they are overlooking is that he is HISPANIC. Sure his father is white, but his mother is hispanic. Certainly there are some things in Zimmerman's background that will call his judgement into question, but why is the focus all on HIM? Where are the "reporters" who should be looking for the things Martin may have done in his life? Just because he's black he's automatically the victim?
Witness statements suggest that Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin on top of him beating on him. I wonder why we haven't heard that on the news.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not coming out AGAINST Martin or FOR Zimmerman. I don't have enough information to pick a side. I'm just concerned that so many seemingly intelligent people are developing an opinion and calling for blood based solely on what they have heard or read in the media. I don't know all the details, so I can't say who was right or wrong. Neither can you.
The local police who are investigating this matter interviewed Zimmerman and several witnesses. They would have interviewed Martin as well, if they were able. When they finished, they determined there was not probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. That doesn't mean he will never be charged. That doesn't mean they think he did absolutely nothing wrong. It just means they couldn't find sufficient legal cause to arrest the man. He can still be charged with a crime if the District Attorney reads the report and believes he committed a crime. That's how our legal system works, and anyone who was paying attention in High School would know that.
Perhaps it really was self defense. Or perhaps it wasn't. WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE BECAUSE WE WEREN'T THERE AT THE TIME!
So forgive me for my cynicism on this matter, but I have a hard time pointing fingers at either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman without knowing all the details. Then again, I didn't point fingers at Johannes Mehserle or Oscar Grant without details either.
Folks need to seek out information before they apply their name to ANY cause. Make sure you know ALL the FACTS before you jump on a given bandwagon. Because once your name is out there as a supporter, you can't get it back, even if you later find out you didn't know everything you thought you knew, and you change your position.
It's common sense, but maybe I'm asking too much.
|
On April 12 2012 01:45 randomKo_Orean wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 01:41 UisTehSux wrote:On April 12 2012 01:37 cameler wrote: A human life was taken, and nothing, not even a walnut, was taken from George Zimmerman.
That is justice in the good ol' USA. I guess your post is demonstration of ignorance in good ol' Canada? Anyways, I have been riding this out without taking anybody's side. But if Zimmerman is running away from all of this, maybe something fishy did happen. There is no point in speculation though, just have to wait for law enforcement to do there job. And don't doubt that if they really have to find him that they can't. Because they'll find him. Lol. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but if the law enforcement was doing their job properly, Zimmerman would be in jail by now, wouldn't you think so? With that being said, I want to ask the TL audience this question. Which of you honestly believe that the killing or the handling of the case was not racially motivated at all? I want to hear your answers why you'd think that way.
This is a matter of where the burden of proof in the argument lies. Some people think you should have to prove he was acting on racial grounds. Some people think you should have to prove he wasn't. Personally, I think it was racially motivated. But its hard to really give a good reason why I think someone should have to prove otherwise.
|
On April 12 2012 01:41 UisTehSux wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 01:37 cameler wrote: A human life was taken, and nothing, not even a walnut, was taken from George Zimmerman.
That is justice in the good ol' USA. I guess your post is demonstration of ignorance in good ol' Canada? Anyways, I have been riding this out without taking anybody's side. But if Zimmerman is running away from all of this, maybe something fishy did happen. There is no point in speculation though, just have to wait for law enforcement to do there job. And don't doubt that if they really have to find him that they can't. Because they'll find him. Lol. he is not running away. if you were running away would you attempt to contact the state attorney who is thinking about putting you in prison? he is in hiding. not from the cops, but from the $10,000 bounty on his head ("dead or alive") and the other random idiots who want to lynch him.
|
On April 12 2012 01:52 UisTehSux wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 01:45 randomKo_Orean wrote:On April 12 2012 01:41 UisTehSux wrote:On April 12 2012 01:37 cameler wrote: A human life was taken, and nothing, not even a walnut, was taken from George Zimmerman.
That is justice in the good ol' USA. I guess your post is demonstration of ignorance in good ol' Canada? Anyways, I have been riding this out without taking anybody's side. But if Zimmerman is running away from all of this, maybe something fishy did happen. There is no point in speculation though, just have to wait for law enforcement to do there job. And don't doubt that if they really have to find him that they can't. Because they'll find him. Lol. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but if the law enforcement was doing their job properly, Zimmerman would be in jail by now, wouldn't you think so? With that being said, I want to ask the TL audience this question. Which of you honestly believe that the killing or the handling of the case was not racially motivated at all? I want to hear your answers why you'd think that way. In reponse to this, I would like to copy pasta this blog entry from a police officer. I find this account to be in line with pretty much everything I think about this whole situation. This blog entry is from Officer "Smith" of "Smith"ville. You can find his blog here: http://officersmith.blogspot.com/+ Show Spoiler +Over the past weeks I have noticed many of my friends, family and acquaintances jumping on the race guilt bandwagon and calling for the lynch mobs to come out and get George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin.
What folks don't seem to understand is that they DO NOT KNOW the full details of the incident. All any of us knows is what we have heard from the "news" media. And we all know how thorough the media is in their reporting. They always give us ALL of the facts, and never leave ANYTHING out, or try to SPIN what they tell us. The media NEVER tries to SENSATIONALIZE any incident, and NEVER tries to turn ANYTHING into a RACIALLY MOTIVATED act. Right? Yeah, sure.
We ALWAYS hear about the white guy who shot the white guy, right? We ALWAYS hear about the black guy who shot the white guy, right? We ALWAYS hear about the hispanic guy who shot the asian guy, right? Hmmm.... well, maybe we don't. Of COURSE we don't. Unless the person who got shot was black and the person doing the shooting was something other than black we don't hear a peep on the news. And there are no RIOTS unless the shootee was black.
All we hear from the news about Trayvon Martin is what HIS family wants us to hear. We see the pictures of him when he was 12 years old. We hear what a "good boy" he was. We don't hear that the reason he was in a neighborhood where he didn't belong was because he was on a five day suspension from school. What gets a kid suspended for a week? We don't hear that he was 6'2" with the build of a football player. We don't know if he had any gang affiliation, or if he was prone to shooting his mouth off, or if his parents had bred the all too common sense of entitlement into him. We don't have any idea what type of person he was last month. Only what type of person he was five YEARS ago. And people change.
As for Zimmerman, the media seems to be stuck on reporting that Zimmerman is white. The fact they are overlooking is that he is HISPANIC. Sure his father is white, but his mother is hispanic. Certainly there are some things in Zimmerman's background that will call his judgement into question, but why is the focus all on HIM? Where are the "reporters" who should be looking for the things Martin may have done in his life? Just because he's black he's automatically the victim?
Witness statements suggest that Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin on top of him beating on him. I wonder why we haven't heard that on the news.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not coming out AGAINST Martin or FOR Zimmerman. I don't have enough information to pick a side. I'm just concerned that so many seemingly intelligent people are developing an opinion and calling for blood based solely on what they have heard or read in the media. I don't know all the details, so I can't say who was right or wrong. Neither can you.
The local police who are investigating this matter interviewed Zimmerman and several witnesses. They would have interviewed Martin as well, if they were able. When they finished, they determined there was not probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. That doesn't mean he will never be charged. That doesn't mean they think he did absolutely nothing wrong. It just means they couldn't find sufficient legal cause to arrest the man. He can still be charged with a crime if the District Attorney reads the report and believes he committed a crime. That's how our legal system works, and anyone who was paying attention in High School would know that.
Perhaps it really was self defense. Or perhaps it wasn't. WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE BECAUSE WE WEREN'T THERE AT THE TIME!
So forgive me for my cynicism on this matter, but I have a hard time pointing fingers at either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman without knowing all the details. Then again, I didn't point fingers at Johannes Mehserle or Oscar Grant without details either.
Folks need to seek out information before they apply their name to ANY cause. Make sure you know ALL the FACTS before you jump on a given bandwagon. Because once your name is out there as a supporter, you can't get it back, even if you later find out you didn't know everything you thought you knew, and you change your position.
It's common sense, but maybe I'm asking too much.
The thing that amazes me about your post and the bloggers post is, that you display a kind of weird 'American Mentality'. You somehow think that a person chasing down people at night with a shotgun and gunning down unarmed people can somehow be in the right and be the victim. You need gun control in America and you need to let go of this cowboy mentality that large parts of the world have moved on from or never had.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
With that being said, I want to ask the TL audience this question. Which of you honestly believe that the killing or the handling of the case was not racially motivated at all? I want to hear your answers why you'd think that way.
If by racially motivated you mean that Zimmerman hates blacks, and was out to get blacks, then no. There had been hundreds of reports and calls about young black men breaking in to houses in that area, so of course it made him suspicious, who wouldn't be? If the crimes in the area would have been committed by white kids, and Treyvon was white, I think Zimmerman would have acted the same way. So I don't think his skin color changed anything? Not really.
Where I think things went wrong were with communication. I do town watch, and anyone I see that I don't know, I automatically let them know why I'm there, what I'm doing, then ask them if they need help just to be polite, and to find out what they are up too. If George Zimmerman, would have rolled his window down in his truck, and said "Hey, I'm doing town watch, are you here visiting someone, you don't look familiar?".. I think things could have went a lot different. I really think this is just overreaction on both parts.
|
On April 12 2012 02:11 Evil_Monkey_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2012 01:52 UisTehSux wrote:On April 12 2012 01:45 randomKo_Orean wrote:On April 12 2012 01:41 UisTehSux wrote:On April 12 2012 01:37 cameler wrote: A human life was taken, and nothing, not even a walnut, was taken from George Zimmerman.
That is justice in the good ol' USA. I guess your post is demonstration of ignorance in good ol' Canada? Anyways, I have been riding this out without taking anybody's side. But if Zimmerman is running away from all of this, maybe something fishy did happen. There is no point in speculation though, just have to wait for law enforcement to do there job. And don't doubt that if they really have to find him that they can't. Because they'll find him. Lol. I can't tell if you are being sarcastic, but if the law enforcement was doing their job properly, Zimmerman would be in jail by now, wouldn't you think so? With that being said, I want to ask the TL audience this question. Which of you honestly believe that the killing or the handling of the case was not racially motivated at all? I want to hear your answers why you'd think that way. In reponse to this, I would like to copy pasta this blog entry from a police officer. I find this account to be in line with pretty much everything I think about this whole situation. This blog entry is from Officer "Smith" of "Smith"ville. You can find his blog here: http://officersmith.blogspot.com/+ Show Spoiler +Over the past weeks I have noticed many of my friends, family and acquaintances jumping on the race guilt bandwagon and calling for the lynch mobs to come out and get George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin.
What folks don't seem to understand is that they DO NOT KNOW the full details of the incident. All any of us knows is what we have heard from the "news" media. And we all know how thorough the media is in their reporting. They always give us ALL of the facts, and never leave ANYTHING out, or try to SPIN what they tell us. The media NEVER tries to SENSATIONALIZE any incident, and NEVER tries to turn ANYTHING into a RACIALLY MOTIVATED act. Right? Yeah, sure.
We ALWAYS hear about the white guy who shot the white guy, right? We ALWAYS hear about the black guy who shot the white guy, right? We ALWAYS hear about the hispanic guy who shot the asian guy, right? Hmmm.... well, maybe we don't. Of COURSE we don't. Unless the person who got shot was black and the person doing the shooting was something other than black we don't hear a peep on the news. And there are no RIOTS unless the shootee was black.
All we hear from the news about Trayvon Martin is what HIS family wants us to hear. We see the pictures of him when he was 12 years old. We hear what a "good boy" he was. We don't hear that the reason he was in a neighborhood where he didn't belong was because he was on a five day suspension from school. What gets a kid suspended for a week? We don't hear that he was 6'2" with the build of a football player. We don't know if he had any gang affiliation, or if he was prone to shooting his mouth off, or if his parents had bred the all too common sense of entitlement into him. We don't have any idea what type of person he was last month. Only what type of person he was five YEARS ago. And people change.
As for Zimmerman, the media seems to be stuck on reporting that Zimmerman is white. The fact they are overlooking is that he is HISPANIC. Sure his father is white, but his mother is hispanic. Certainly there are some things in Zimmerman's background that will call his judgement into question, but why is the focus all on HIM? Where are the "reporters" who should be looking for the things Martin may have done in his life? Just because he's black he's automatically the victim?
Witness statements suggest that Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin on top of him beating on him. I wonder why we haven't heard that on the news.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not coming out AGAINST Martin or FOR Zimmerman. I don't have enough information to pick a side. I'm just concerned that so many seemingly intelligent people are developing an opinion and calling for blood based solely on what they have heard or read in the media. I don't know all the details, so I can't say who was right or wrong. Neither can you.
The local police who are investigating this matter interviewed Zimmerman and several witnesses. They would have interviewed Martin as well, if they were able. When they finished, they determined there was not probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. That doesn't mean he will never be charged. That doesn't mean they think he did absolutely nothing wrong. It just means they couldn't find sufficient legal cause to arrest the man. He can still be charged with a crime if the District Attorney reads the report and believes he committed a crime. That's how our legal system works, and anyone who was paying attention in High School would know that.
Perhaps it really was self defense. Or perhaps it wasn't. WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE BECAUSE WE WEREN'T THERE AT THE TIME!
So forgive me for my cynicism on this matter, but I have a hard time pointing fingers at either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman without knowing all the details. Then again, I didn't point fingers at Johannes Mehserle or Oscar Grant without details either.
Folks need to seek out information before they apply their name to ANY cause. Make sure you know ALL the FACTS before you jump on a given bandwagon. Because once your name is out there as a supporter, you can't get it back, even if you later find out you didn't know everything you thought you knew, and you change your position.
It's common sense, but maybe I'm asking too much. The thing that amazes me about your post and the bloggers post is, that you display a kind of weird 'American Mentality'. You somehow think that a person chasing down people at night with a shotgun and gunning down unarmed people can somehow be in the right and be the victim. You need gun control in America and you need to let go of this cowboy mentality that large parts of the world have moved on from or never had.
I don't understand your post. Are you saying that Zimmerman was walking down the street with a shotgun and shot Trayvon because he felt like it?
Because I don't think that shooting someone for no reason out of nowhere makes someone 'in the right'.
I don't see how what I've posted or what the blog says points to your conclusion.
|
|
|
|