|
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 March 09 2013 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2013 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On March 09 2013 06:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 09 2013 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 09 2013 06:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 09 2013 06:22 ranshaked wrote:On March 09 2013 06:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Chief witness in Trayvon Martin case lied under oath The state's chief witness in the Trayvon Martin murder case lied under oath, prosecutors say.
The young woman who says she was on the phone with Martin when he encountered George Zimmerman lied about her whereabouts at another time, the prosecution told a judge Tuesday.
The woman, whose name has not been released, had told prosecutors that she was in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral. The defense then sought her medical records.
Letters to Zimmerman show split opinions on Trayvon Martin shooting
In court on Tuesday, the state said the woman, known as Civilian Witness 8, was not in the hospital, so there are no such records to be turned over.
Prosecutors did not immediately respond to a question Wednesday from CNN about the witness's credibility and how this may affect the case.
Questions have long surrounded the woman. Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump first played an audio recording of the woman a year ago at a news conference. The recording seemed to have very poor quality.
Police said that as of that point they had not interviewed her.
Trayvon Martin's parents ready to let jury decide fate of son's killer
Crump said the witness was 16 years old. But prosecutors have since said she was already 18 -- legally an adult -- on the night of the killing, February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida.
Martin, 17, was walking to the house of his father's fiancee after a trip to a nearby convenience store.
Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, has acknowledged shooting Martin.
Crump has accused Zimmerman of killing Martin "in cold blood."
Zimmerman says he acted in self-defense.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/us/florida-trayvon-martin-case/index.html Does this hurt her testimony in the eyes of the jurors at all? Honestly, this might bug me if I was a juror because if you're willing to lie about your age, and lie about being in the hospital when needed for questioning, then it is possible that she also lied, or "trumped" up her statements to police in order to bring justice to her bf. two issues that i would need to know: 1. when she lied. there is an issue of collateral impeachment (it may not even go into evidence under legal rules). 2. why she lied. if she has a good excuse then some people may be willing to accept that. however, there have apparently been numerous misrepresentations attributed to her so she is not looking like the best witness for the prosecutor. just a minor point, when zimmerman's wife lied, they arrested her for perjury. when trayvon's purported girlfriend/friend lied, did they arrest her for perjury? because if they arrested her, her credibility will be shot. The lie will come into evidence unless Florida has some weird evidentiary rules. Parties are given very long leashes to delve into any evidence that shows bias or motive. It would almost certainly be error to exclude evidence tending to show that the victim's girlfriend may be a serial fibber when it comes to what happened to her boyfriend. i referred specifically to collateral impeachment, which is not a "weird evidentiary rule." it is quite common. I wasn't referring to collateral impeachment as being a weird evidentiary rule. What I was saying is that this wouldn't be an issue of collateral impeachment because the issue goes straight to bias. how so?
Where she was on the day of funeral and what she had previously testified to on that point is material to the quality of her relationship to Trayvon, which is evidence of bias.The Defense can spin it any number of ways. It will depend upon what else that they know about her and what she has said. The fact is that she is the State's key witness, which means that the judge is going to give the Defense a lot of leeway to go after her so long as there's a plausible bias argument to be made with regards to the evidence that they solicit on crossexamination.
|
On March 09 2013 06:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2013 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 09 2013 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On March 09 2013 06:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 09 2013 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 09 2013 06:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 09 2013 06:22 ranshaked wrote:On March 09 2013 06:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Chief witness in Trayvon Martin case lied under oath The state's chief witness in the Trayvon Martin murder case lied under oath, prosecutors say.
The young woman who says she was on the phone with Martin when he encountered George Zimmerman lied about her whereabouts at another time, the prosecution told a judge Tuesday.
The woman, whose name has not been released, had told prosecutors that she was in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral. The defense then sought her medical records.
Letters to Zimmerman show split opinions on Trayvon Martin shooting
In court on Tuesday, the state said the woman, known as Civilian Witness 8, was not in the hospital, so there are no such records to be turned over.
Prosecutors did not immediately respond to a question Wednesday from CNN about the witness's credibility and how this may affect the case.
Questions have long surrounded the woman. Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump first played an audio recording of the woman a year ago at a news conference. The recording seemed to have very poor quality.
Police said that as of that point they had not interviewed her.
Trayvon Martin's parents ready to let jury decide fate of son's killer
Crump said the witness was 16 years old. But prosecutors have since said she was already 18 -- legally an adult -- on the night of the killing, February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida.
Martin, 17, was walking to the house of his father's fiancee after a trip to a nearby convenience store.
Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, has acknowledged shooting Martin.
Crump has accused Zimmerman of killing Martin "in cold blood."
Zimmerman says he acted in self-defense.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/us/florida-trayvon-martin-case/index.html Does this hurt her testimony in the eyes of the jurors at all? Honestly, this might bug me if I was a juror because if you're willing to lie about your age, and lie about being in the hospital when needed for questioning, then it is possible that she also lied, or "trumped" up her statements to police in order to bring justice to her bf. two issues that i would need to know: 1. when she lied. there is an issue of collateral impeachment (it may not even go into evidence under legal rules). 2. why she lied. if she has a good excuse then some people may be willing to accept that. however, there have apparently been numerous misrepresentations attributed to her so she is not looking like the best witness for the prosecutor. just a minor point, when zimmerman's wife lied, they arrested her for perjury. when trayvon's purported girlfriend/friend lied, did they arrest her for perjury? because if they arrested her, her credibility will be shot. The lie will come into evidence unless Florida has some weird evidentiary rules. Parties are given very long leashes to delve into any evidence that shows bias or motive. It would almost certainly be error to exclude evidence tending to show that the victim's girlfriend may be a serial fibber when it comes to what happened to her boyfriend. i referred specifically to collateral impeachment, which is not a "weird evidentiary rule." it is quite common. I wasn't referring to collateral impeachment as being a weird evidentiary rule. What I was saying is that this wouldn't be an issue of collateral impeachment because the issue goes straight to bias. how so? Where she was on the day of funeral and what she had previously testified to on that point is material to the quality of her relationship to Trayvon, which is evidence of bias.The Defense can spin it any number of ways. It will depend upon what else that they know about her and what she has said. The fact is that she is the State's key witness, which means that the judge is going to give the Defense a lot of leeway to go after her so long as there's a plausible bias argument to be made with regards to the evidence that they solicit on crossexamination.
seems like a stretch to me without further information.
also, zimmerman's counsel is equivocating about whether it is an issue:
O'Mara said he wanted to wait and take the girl's deposition later this month before commenting on whether her credibility could be an issue at trial.
"The state did what it was supposed to do and let us know there was a problem with their witness. We now know it and have an opportunity to talk to her," he said. "Credibility is always an issue with any witness. And if it rises to the level where it is evidentiary, then we'll go from there. And if it doesn't rise to that level, we deal with it."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/06/teenage-witness-in-trayvon-martin-case-admits-misrepresented-herself/#ixzz2MzK5iwoR
|
On March 09 2013 06:47 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2013 06:44 tehemperorer wrote:On March 09 2013 06:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 07 2013 14:36 Kaitlin wrote:On March 07 2013 12:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
this is a really horrible case, especially because it seems the entire premiss is that Zimmerman must prove he is not guilty, rather than the prosecution prove he is guilty. has there been any evidence so far that he is guilty or is it still just a "what do you think?" game? Well, he did shoot and kill Trayvon Martin, and he admitted as much. What is else is there to prove other than whether it was justified or not ? why should it be his job to prove that though? what about innocent until proven guilty? if the prosecution can't prove that he didn't do it in self-defense than they should never have taken the case to court. He's guilty of murder by self-affirmation. There is no trial unless he can prove he was acting in defense under the Stand Your Ground law. That's what he has to prove right? thats incorrect. first, he is not guilty of anything just because he says he killed trayvon. prosecutor still has to meet its burden. further, the state, not defendant, has to prove he was not acting in self defense under Florida's self defense law.
Thanks for clarification!
|
On March 09 2013 06:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2013 06:55 xDaunt wrote:On March 09 2013 06:45 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 09 2013 06:43 xDaunt wrote:On March 09 2013 06:37 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 09 2013 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On March 09 2013 06:29 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 09 2013 06:22 ranshaked wrote:On March 09 2013 06:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Chief witness in Trayvon Martin case lied under oath The state's chief witness in the Trayvon Martin murder case lied under oath, prosecutors say.
The young woman who says she was on the phone with Martin when he encountered George Zimmerman lied about her whereabouts at another time, the prosecution told a judge Tuesday.
The woman, whose name has not been released, had told prosecutors that she was in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral. The defense then sought her medical records.
Letters to Zimmerman show split opinions on Trayvon Martin shooting
In court on Tuesday, the state said the woman, known as Civilian Witness 8, was not in the hospital, so there are no such records to be turned over.
Prosecutors did not immediately respond to a question Wednesday from CNN about the witness's credibility and how this may affect the case.
Questions have long surrounded the woman. Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump first played an audio recording of the woman a year ago at a news conference. The recording seemed to have very poor quality.
Police said that as of that point they had not interviewed her.
Trayvon Martin's parents ready to let jury decide fate of son's killer
Crump said the witness was 16 years old. But prosecutors have since said she was already 18 -- legally an adult -- on the night of the killing, February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida.
Martin, 17, was walking to the house of his father's fiancee after a trip to a nearby convenience store.
Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, has acknowledged shooting Martin.
Crump has accused Zimmerman of killing Martin "in cold blood."
Zimmerman says he acted in self-defense.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/us/florida-trayvon-martin-case/index.html Does this hurt her testimony in the eyes of the jurors at all? Honestly, this might bug me if I was a juror because if you're willing to lie about your age, and lie about being in the hospital when needed for questioning, then it is possible that she also lied, or "trumped" up her statements to police in order to bring justice to her bf. two issues that i would need to know: 1. when she lied. there is an issue of collateral impeachment (it may not even go into evidence under legal rules). 2. why she lied. if she has a good excuse then some people may be willing to accept that. however, there have apparently been numerous misrepresentations attributed to her so she is not looking like the best witness for the prosecutor. just a minor point, when zimmerman's wife lied, they arrested her for perjury. when trayvon's purported girlfriend/friend lied, did they arrest her for perjury? because if they arrested her, her credibility will be shot. The lie will come into evidence unless Florida has some weird evidentiary rules. Parties are given very long leashes to delve into any evidence that shows bias or motive. It would almost certainly be error to exclude evidence tending to show that the victim's girlfriend may be a serial fibber when it comes to what happened to her boyfriend. i referred specifically to collateral impeachment, which is not a "weird evidentiary rule." it is quite common. I wasn't referring to collateral impeachment as being a weird evidentiary rule. What I was saying is that this wouldn't be an issue of collateral impeachment because the issue goes straight to bias. how so? Where she was on the day of funeral and what she had previously testified to on that point is material to the quality of her relationship to Trayvon, which is evidence of bias.The Defense can spin it any number of ways. It will depend upon what else that they know about her and what she has said. The fact is that she is the State's key witness, which means that the judge is going to give the Defense a lot of leeway to go after her so long as there's a plausible bias argument to be made with regards to the evidence that they solicit on crossexamination. seems like a stretch to me without further information. also, zimmerman's counsel is equivocating about whether it is an issue: Show nested quote +O'Mara said he wanted to wait and take the girl's deposition later this month before commenting on whether her credibility could be an issue at trial.
"The state did what it was supposed to do and let us know there was a problem with their witness. We now know it and have an opportunity to talk to her," he said. "Credibility is always an issue with any witness. And if it rises to the level where it is evidentiary, then we'll go from there. And if it doesn't rise to that level, we deal with it." http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/06/teenage-witness-in-trayvon-martin-case-admits-misrepresented-herself/#ixzz2MzK5iwoR
The last thing that I would do if I was Zimmerman's attorney would be to telegraph what I was thinking to the media about anything even remotely important, such as how to tear apart the State's key witness.
|
letter from "girlfriend" describing the events before trayvon's death. she is one of the DA's primary witnesses, and has also been accused of lying about her age and whereabouts during trayvon's funeral.
http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2013-03/174905720-29122808.pdf
George Zimmerman case: State reveals new letter from key witness in Trayvon Martin shooting
Attached to a state filing in the case against George Zimmerman on Thursday was a newly public piece of evidence from the young woman who says she was on the phone with Trayvon Martin just before his death.
Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda's pleading included as an exhibit a letter, apparently written by the young woman dubbed "Witness 8," to Trayvon's parents less than a month after he was shot Feb. 26, 2012.
The writing, dated March 19, 2012, was attached to de la Rionda's reply to a defense request for sanctions against the state for failing to reveal in a timely fashion that Witness 8 had made false statements.
The letter represents only the third statement by the key witness made public thus far. The state's filing denied any misconduct and accused the defense of grandstanding.
The one-page letter largely corroborates Witness 8's other accounts of what she heard on the phone: Trayvon was returning from the store when he noticed a man following him and fled.
Trayvon "turned around and said why are you following me!!" the girl's letter says. "Then I heard him fall, then the phone hung up," she writes, adding she thought "it was just a fight. Then I found out this tragic story."
Witness 8 is commonly described as Trayvon's girlfriend, but she has responded vaguely when asked about that, and she misspells his name throughout the letter.
Witness 8 came under fire after recent revelations she had misstated her age and lied about being hospitalized during Trayvon's wake.
De la Rionda's filing argues those statements have "nothing to do with [Zimmerman's] culpability" in the shooting and the defense is harping on them to "subject [Witness 8] to public ridicule."
In an interview with the Orlando Sentinel on Friday, defense attorney Mark O'Mara said he received the new letter March 13, the day he deposed Witness 8 in South Florida.
"I'm glad I have it now. I don't know when (the state) received it," O'Mara said, adding prosecutors would not say when they did.
Zimmerman faces a second-degree murder charge, accused of profiling, pursuing and killing Trayvon. Zimmerman says he fired in self-defense after he was attacked and beaten by the unarmed teen.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-03-29/news/os-trayvon-martin-girlfriend-letter-20130329_1_trayvon-martin-de-la-rionda-george-zimmerman
|
Zimmerman filed a petition to have the court of appeal review the trial court's decision not to allow him to depose the family's attorney concerning statements made by the "girlfriend" to him. that issue is only mildly interesting to non-lawyers, but of more interest is that he provides a summary of the case, which gives us a first view of how the defense will go:
http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf
|
Looks like the trial court fucked up to me. The deposition should be allowed. The only possible hangup would be a claim of attorney/client privilege, but that was clearly waived when Crump invited ABC to the recording session.
|
On April 05 2013 08:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Zimmerman filed a petition to have the court of appeal review the trial court's decision not to allow him to depose the family's attorney concerning statements made by the "girlfriend" to him. that issue is only mildly interesting to non-lawyers, but of more interest is that he provides a summary of the case, which gives us a first view of how the defense will go: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf
Wait, so this seems like the family lawyer was working WAY out of her bounds in having witness 8 come to the stand and also said that there were factual issues with what she said. That makes a lot of sense since it seems like the girl was lying since she couldn't even spell Trayvon correctly, spelling it "trevon" several times. Along with the fact that Zimmerman's attorney claims the interview of witness 8 was largely unintelligible, that is enough to throw out ALL of that evidence and severely hurt the Martin family's case. What are the bounds that they can hold Mr. Crump (the family lawyer) to? Is he held in contempt for blantantly and knowingly breaking the law and attempting Perjury?
|
On April 05 2013 08:37 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 08:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Zimmerman filed a petition to have the court of appeal review the trial court's decision not to allow him to depose the family's attorney concerning statements made by the "girlfriend" to him. that issue is only mildly interesting to non-lawyers, but of more interest is that he provides a summary of the case, which gives us a first view of how the defense will go: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf Wait, so this seems like the family lawyer was working WAY out of her bounds in having witness 8 come to the stand and also said that there were factual issues with what she said. That makes a lot of sense since it seems like the girl was lying since she couldn't even spell Trayvon correctly, spelling it "trevon" several times. Along with the fact that Zimmerman's attorney claims the interview of witness 8 was largely unintelligible, that is enough to throw out ALL of that evidence and severely hurt the Martin family's case. What are the bounds that they can hold Mr. Crump (the family lawyer) to? Is he held in contempt for blantantly and knowingly breaking the law and attempting Perjury?
Contempt would not apply because he has not violated any court orders. Perjury may be an issue given that Crump submitted an affidavit. Also, all lawyers are bound by independent codes of ethics -- the breach of which can lead to sanctions by the state bar. Reviewing the Defense's brief, I did wonder whether Crump might be grieved for violating some of those rules.
I also have to wonder about the prosecutor. I really, really hope that these charges don't turn out to be ginned up like the Duke Lacrosse case. There undeniably is a stink about the whole affair, particularly in light of Crump's alleged PR efforts.
|
On April 05 2013 08:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 08:37 docvoc wrote:On April 05 2013 08:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Zimmerman filed a petition to have the court of appeal review the trial court's decision not to allow him to depose the family's attorney concerning statements made by the "girlfriend" to him. that issue is only mildly interesting to non-lawyers, but of more interest is that he provides a summary of the case, which gives us a first view of how the defense will go: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf Wait, so this seems like the family lawyer was working WAY out of her bounds in having witness 8 come to the stand and also said that there were factual issues with what she said. That makes a lot of sense since it seems like the girl was lying since she couldn't even spell Trayvon correctly, spelling it "trevon" several times. Along with the fact that Zimmerman's attorney claims the interview of witness 8 was largely unintelligible, that is enough to throw out ALL of that evidence and severely hurt the Martin family's case. What are the bounds that they can hold Mr. Crump (the family lawyer) to? Is he held in contempt for blantantly and knowingly breaking the law and attempting Perjury? Contempt would not apply because he has not violated any court orders. Perjury may be an issue given that Crump submitted an affidavit. Also, all lawyers are bound by independent codes of ethics -- the breach of which can lead to sanctions by the state bar. Reviewing the Defense's brief, I did wonder whether Crump might be grieved for violating some of those rules. I also have to wonder about the prosecutor. I really, really hope that these charges don't turn out to be ginned up like the Duke Lacrosse case. There undeniably is a stink about the whole affair, particularly in light of Crump's alleged PR efforts.
The worst part of it is the media circus that immediately followed the incident. Now even if Zimmerman is found completely innocent, even without a mistrial, his life has probably been ruined. Everyone will remember the months long insanity, but no one will remember the 30 second announcement on MSNBC about his innocence. And the walking clumps of slime calling themselves journalists who passed off edited police recordings and grainy photos as undeniable proof Zimmerman was racist will get off scott-free. They should be punished as severely as Zimmerman could have been, its unforgivable.
|
On April 05 2013 09:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 08:57 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2013 08:37 docvoc wrote:On April 05 2013 08:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Zimmerman filed a petition to have the court of appeal review the trial court's decision not to allow him to depose the family's attorney concerning statements made by the "girlfriend" to him. that issue is only mildly interesting to non-lawyers, but of more interest is that he provides a summary of the case, which gives us a first view of how the defense will go: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf Wait, so this seems like the family lawyer was working WAY out of her bounds in having witness 8 come to the stand and also said that there were factual issues with what she said. That makes a lot of sense since it seems like the girl was lying since she couldn't even spell Trayvon correctly, spelling it "trevon" several times. Along with the fact that Zimmerman's attorney claims the interview of witness 8 was largely unintelligible, that is enough to throw out ALL of that evidence and severely hurt the Martin family's case. What are the bounds that they can hold Mr. Crump (the family lawyer) to? Is he held in contempt for blantantly and knowingly breaking the law and attempting Perjury? Contempt would not apply because he has not violated any court orders. Perjury may be an issue given that Crump submitted an affidavit. Also, all lawyers are bound by independent codes of ethics -- the breach of which can lead to sanctions by the state bar. Reviewing the Defense's brief, I did wonder whether Crump might be grieved for violating some of those rules. I also have to wonder about the prosecutor. I really, really hope that these charges don't turn out to be ginned up like the Duke Lacrosse case. There undeniably is a stink about the whole affair, particularly in light of Crump's alleged PR efforts. The worst part of it is the media circus that immediately followed the incident. Now even if Zimmerman is found completely innocent, even without a mistrial, his life has probably been ruined. Everyone will remember the months long insanity, but no one will remember the 30 second announcement on MSNBC about his innocence. And the walking clumps of slime calling themselves journalists who passed off edited police recordings and grainy photos as undeniable proof Zimmerman was racist will get off scott-free. They should be punished as severely as Zimmerman could have been, its unforgivable.
the worst offenders have been fired and sued by Zimmerman in civil court (i.e., the ones who used edited police recordings).
|
On April 05 2013 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 09:11 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 08:57 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2013 08:37 docvoc wrote:On April 05 2013 08:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Zimmerman filed a petition to have the court of appeal review the trial court's decision not to allow him to depose the family's attorney concerning statements made by the "girlfriend" to him. that issue is only mildly interesting to non-lawyers, but of more interest is that he provides a summary of the case, which gives us a first view of how the defense will go: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf Wait, so this seems like the family lawyer was working WAY out of her bounds in having witness 8 come to the stand and also said that there were factual issues with what she said. That makes a lot of sense since it seems like the girl was lying since she couldn't even spell Trayvon correctly, spelling it "trevon" several times. Along with the fact that Zimmerman's attorney claims the interview of witness 8 was largely unintelligible, that is enough to throw out ALL of that evidence and severely hurt the Martin family's case. What are the bounds that they can hold Mr. Crump (the family lawyer) to? Is he held in contempt for blantantly and knowingly breaking the law and attempting Perjury? Contempt would not apply because he has not violated any court orders. Perjury may be an issue given that Crump submitted an affidavit. Also, all lawyers are bound by independent codes of ethics -- the breach of which can lead to sanctions by the state bar. Reviewing the Defense's brief, I did wonder whether Crump might be grieved for violating some of those rules. I also have to wonder about the prosecutor. I really, really hope that these charges don't turn out to be ginned up like the Duke Lacrosse case. There undeniably is a stink about the whole affair, particularly in light of Crump's alleged PR efforts. The worst part of it is the media circus that immediately followed the incident. Now even if Zimmerman is found completely innocent, even without a mistrial, his life has probably been ruined. Everyone will remember the months long insanity, but no one will remember the 30 second announcement on MSNBC about his innocence. And the walking clumps of slime calling themselves journalists who passed off edited police recordings and grainy photos as undeniable proof Zimmerman was racist will get off scott-free. They should be punished as severely as Zimmerman could have been, its unforgivable. the worst offenders have been fired and sued by Zimmerman in civil court (i.e., the ones who used edited police recordings).
But the public generally doesn't know that. Everyone who Zimmerman meets in the future will know he shot Martin, and because of the media circus they may still think he's guilty of murder. But no one knows who those journalists are. Besides some financial problems caused by the law suits and firings, they'll get off way easier than Zimmerman.
|
On April 05 2013 09:11 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 08:57 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2013 08:37 docvoc wrote:On April 05 2013 08:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Zimmerman filed a petition to have the court of appeal review the trial court's decision not to allow him to depose the family's attorney concerning statements made by the "girlfriend" to him. that issue is only mildly interesting to non-lawyers, but of more interest is that he provides a summary of the case, which gives us a first view of how the defense will go: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf Wait, so this seems like the family lawyer was working WAY out of her bounds in having witness 8 come to the stand and also said that there were factual issues with what she said. That makes a lot of sense since it seems like the girl was lying since she couldn't even spell Trayvon correctly, spelling it "trevon" several times. Along with the fact that Zimmerman's attorney claims the interview of witness 8 was largely unintelligible, that is enough to throw out ALL of that evidence and severely hurt the Martin family's case. What are the bounds that they can hold Mr. Crump (the family lawyer) to? Is he held in contempt for blantantly and knowingly breaking the law and attempting Perjury? Contempt would not apply because he has not violated any court orders. Perjury may be an issue given that Crump submitted an affidavit. Also, all lawyers are bound by independent codes of ethics -- the breach of which can lead to sanctions by the state bar. Reviewing the Defense's brief, I did wonder whether Crump might be grieved for violating some of those rules. I also have to wonder about the prosecutor. I really, really hope that these charges don't turn out to be ginned up like the Duke Lacrosse case. There undeniably is a stink about the whole affair, particularly in light of Crump's alleged PR efforts. The worst part of it is the media circus that immediately followed the incident. Now even if Zimmerman is found completely innocent, even without a mistrial, his life has probably been ruined. Everyone will remember the months long insanity, but no one will remember the 30 second announcement on MSNBC about his innocence. And the walking clumps of slime calling themselves journalists who passed off edited police recordings and grainy photos as undeniable proof Zimmerman was racist will get off scott-free. They should be punished as severely as Zimmerman could have been, its unforgivable.
A lot of people would consider the fact that he killed the kid as the determining factor as to how they view him. A court saying "not guilty", especially in Florida, for something involving a gun means very little to people outside the state. The crazy shit people can get away with in Florida is maddening. As long as the fact remains that he shot a kid more than he needed to, after actively pursuing him against the advice of law enforcement, he's got the same label in my book.
|
On April 05 2013 09:37 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:11 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 08:57 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2013 08:37 docvoc wrote:On April 05 2013 08:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Zimmerman filed a petition to have the court of appeal review the trial court's decision not to allow him to depose the family's attorney concerning statements made by the "girlfriend" to him. that issue is only mildly interesting to non-lawyers, but of more interest is that he provides a summary of the case, which gives us a first view of how the defense will go: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf Wait, so this seems like the family lawyer was working WAY out of her bounds in having witness 8 come to the stand and also said that there were factual issues with what she said. That makes a lot of sense since it seems like the girl was lying since she couldn't even spell Trayvon correctly, spelling it "trevon" several times. Along with the fact that Zimmerman's attorney claims the interview of witness 8 was largely unintelligible, that is enough to throw out ALL of that evidence and severely hurt the Martin family's case. What are the bounds that they can hold Mr. Crump (the family lawyer) to? Is he held in contempt for blantantly and knowingly breaking the law and attempting Perjury? Contempt would not apply because he has not violated any court orders. Perjury may be an issue given that Crump submitted an affidavit. Also, all lawyers are bound by independent codes of ethics -- the breach of which can lead to sanctions by the state bar. Reviewing the Defense's brief, I did wonder whether Crump might be grieved for violating some of those rules. I also have to wonder about the prosecutor. I really, really hope that these charges don't turn out to be ginned up like the Duke Lacrosse case. There undeniably is a stink about the whole affair, particularly in light of Crump's alleged PR efforts. The worst part of it is the media circus that immediately followed the incident. Now even if Zimmerman is found completely innocent, even without a mistrial, his life has probably been ruined. Everyone will remember the months long insanity, but no one will remember the 30 second announcement on MSNBC about his innocence. And the walking clumps of slime calling themselves journalists who passed off edited police recordings and grainy photos as undeniable proof Zimmerman was racist will get off scott-free. They should be punished as severely as Zimmerman could have been, its unforgivable. the worst offenders have been fired and sued by Zimmerman in civil court (i.e., the ones who used edited police recordings). But the public generally doesn't know that. Everyone who Zimmerman meets in the future will know he shot Martin, and because of the media circus they may still think he's guilty of murder. But no one knows who those journalists are. Besides some financial problems caused by the law suits and firings, they'll get off way easier than Zimmerman.
im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed.
|
On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 09:37 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 09:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 05 2013 09:11 Millitron wrote:On April 05 2013 08:57 xDaunt wrote:On April 05 2013 08:37 docvoc wrote:On April 05 2013 08:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Zimmerman filed a petition to have the court of appeal review the trial court's decision not to allow him to depose the family's attorney concerning statements made by the "girlfriend" to him. that issue is only mildly interesting to non-lawyers, but of more interest is that he provides a summary of the case, which gives us a first view of how the defense will go: http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0413/petition.pdf Wait, so this seems like the family lawyer was working WAY out of her bounds in having witness 8 come to the stand and also said that there were factual issues with what she said. That makes a lot of sense since it seems like the girl was lying since she couldn't even spell Trayvon correctly, spelling it "trevon" several times. Along with the fact that Zimmerman's attorney claims the interview of witness 8 was largely unintelligible, that is enough to throw out ALL of that evidence and severely hurt the Martin family's case. What are the bounds that they can hold Mr. Crump (the family lawyer) to? Is he held in contempt for blantantly and knowingly breaking the law and attempting Perjury? Contempt would not apply because he has not violated any court orders. Perjury may be an issue given that Crump submitted an affidavit. Also, all lawyers are bound by independent codes of ethics -- the breach of which can lead to sanctions by the state bar. Reviewing the Defense's brief, I did wonder whether Crump might be grieved for violating some of those rules. I also have to wonder about the prosecutor. I really, really hope that these charges don't turn out to be ginned up like the Duke Lacrosse case. There undeniably is a stink about the whole affair, particularly in light of Crump's alleged PR efforts. The worst part of it is the media circus that immediately followed the incident. Now even if Zimmerman is found completely innocent, even without a mistrial, his life has probably been ruined. Everyone will remember the months long insanity, but no one will remember the 30 second announcement on MSNBC about his innocence. And the walking clumps of slime calling themselves journalists who passed off edited police recordings and grainy photos as undeniable proof Zimmerman was racist will get off scott-free. They should be punished as severely as Zimmerman could have been, its unforgivable. the worst offenders have been fired and sued by Zimmerman in civil court (i.e., the ones who used edited police recordings). But the public generally doesn't know that. Everyone who Zimmerman meets in the future will know he shot Martin, and because of the media circus they may still think he's guilty of murder. But no one knows who those journalists are. Besides some financial problems caused by the law suits and firings, they'll get off way easier than Zimmerman. im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed.
This about sums up how I feel about the situation. I don't believe he is legally culpable, however I still think he is a jackass for doing what he did leading up to it.
|
On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed.
What is the age cut-off at which one shouldn't shoot a person punching their face and beating their head into the cement? Let's even assume he's saying stuff like, "You're gonna die tonight" "I'm going to kill you."
I ask for clarification. The stupid position.. Are you talking about the night it happened or just that fact he's on trial? Also.. what are you meaning by kid? Are we talking like a "child" or the "a person younger than me"?
As for tears, I'll save those for those animal abuse commercials. I mean honestly, some people are monsters.
|
On April 05 2013 23:05 AmericanNightmare wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2013 10:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
im finding it very hard to shed a tear for zimmerman after he shot and killed an unarmed kid. whether he is guilty is something entirely different from the fact that he apparently put him himself in an incredibly stupid position and caused a chain of events leading to trayvon's death. maybe the facts at trial will say something different, but as of now, no tears will be shed. What is the age cut-off at which one shouldn't shoot a person punching their face and beating their head into the cement? Let's even assume he's saying stuff like, "You're gonna die tonight" "I'm going to kill you." I ask for clarification. The stupid position.. Are you talking about the night it happened or just that fact he's on trial? Also.. what are you meaning by kid? Are we talking like a "child" or the "a person younger than me"? As for tears, I'll save those for those animal abuse commercials. I mean honestly, some people are monsters.
you appear to be new to this thread and do not appear to have read the hundreds of posts i have made here. nevertheless, i will humor you.
i said that whether he is guilty of murder or acted in self defense is a separate matter than whether he acted reasonably. i do not feel he reacted reasonably and i call bullshit on his after the fact rationalization of what happened that night. trayvon is a kid (personally i think everyone below 22 is immature and a kid, but it is a case by case basis) that was unarmed (even zimmerman isnt arguing he thought trayvon was armed) who was going to the store to get skittles and iced tea. he was allowed to be where he was, and he had broken no laws.
so, how did trayvon being an innocent citizen lawfully present on the premises turn into trayvon being dead? zimmerman. zimmerman considers himself this neighborhood hero protecting the neighborhood from criminals. was he successful in the past? yes. was he doing a good job? apparently, although some people in the neighborhood disagreed. should neighborhood watchmen walk around with guns? not in my book; nobody should, but thats my personal opinion. should neighborhood watchmen do anything beyond contacting the police? not in my book. if they are going to confront people in their neighborhood, should they announce themselves beforehand to prevent misunderstandings? yes, but everything in this case so far makes me think that zimmerman didn't.
now, zimmerman's allegations that trayvon caused the confrontation and said he was going to kill him, etc. etc. i don't believe zimmerman. i think he is lying. period. zimmerman and his attorneys have done their best to drag trayvon's reputation through the mud, and trayvon isnt an angel. is he a murderer? no. does he even have a criminal record? not that i have seen. so, how does this kid go from buying skittles to telling a dude that he is going to murder him? zimmerman is lying. he killed someone and he doesnt want to go to prison for it. did he intend to kill someone? hell no. did he cause the circumstances that led to the killing? most likely, yes.
so, why dont i think zimmerman should be rotting in jail? i dont think there is enough evidence to prove that he didnt act in self defense. all we know is that there was a confrontation, trayvon appeared to be getting the upper hand and zimmerman shot him. who started the confrontation, why it escalated, etc. we don't really know. i also dont think murder is an appropriate charge in this situation. manslaughter is a maybe, second degree murder is reaching.
the fact that you are accusing me of railroading zimmerman because he is on trial is absurd beyond belief. you should really read more than just the last post in a thread so you have an ounce of context before you completely humiliate yourself.
|
Trayvon wasn't a kid...
Dude was as big as most men, if not bigger.
And I think it's stupid to just assume Zimmerman is lying because he had a gun. (Basically the argument you put forward).
|
On April 06 2013 08:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Trayvon wasn't a kid...
Dude was as big as most men, if not bigger.
And I think it's stupid to just assume Zimmerman is lying because he had a gun. (Basically the argument you put forward).
we'll have to agree to disagree, i think immature adolescents and young adults (even in college) are still kids. trayvon is a kid in my mind. his size is of little relevance to my consideration.
i don't assume zimmerman is lying because he had a gun, nor did i put that argument forward. maybe read a little more carefully. i think he is lying because his story doesn't make any sense.
|
On April 06 2013 08:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Trayvon wasn't a kid...
Dude was as big as most men, if not bigger.
And I think it's stupid to just assume Zimmerman is lying because he had a gun. (Basically the argument you put forward).
Wait, are you really putting forth the idea that Trayvon's physical size mitigates his status as an immature minor? Based on what has been released in terms of Trayvon's Facebook amongst other things, I'd say it is very safe to say that he was still a "kid".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
