|
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. |
The insanity of this situation is the fact that a normal citizen was walking around armed, following a suspicious stranger. With sound gun laws, this death would have most likely been avoided, and if not, it would have been a lot clearer about what had happened. In Sweden just carrying a gun would have been enough for a sentence. Then it would be a question of whether it was intended murder, or just reckless behaviour, but at the very least he would have gotten a sentence for reckless behaviour, which he deserves in my view. Even if he had stopped following the victim, the fact that he was following him to begin with means that he carried full responsibility for initiating the tense situation. If you tell someone to go screw themselves, and then they walk up to you and punch you in the face. Are you then entitled to shoot him out of self-defense? I know, he didn't say anything threatening in this case, but following someone can easily be perceived as threatening, so it's kind of the same thing. Beating someone up isn't a justified reaction to being followed, but neither is shooting someone who is trying to beat you up, atleast in my view, especially if the assaulter is unaware that you are armed, which it seems like he was in this case.
Even a swedish police could have possibly been convicted in a case like this, because we have laws that says that you shouldn't enforce order with a greater force than necessary. For instance, they aren't allowed to shoot against criminals who can't fire back. So, whether he had been convicted or not, would depend on how his sense of danger of the situation was, and how convincing that testimony was. But tbh, this would have never happened if the guy with the gun actually was a police, and considering he was doing the police's work, he should have been. Ppl don't jump on and try to beat up the police, so if Zimmerman had been a police, then Martin wouldn't have been as aggressive, in fact he probably wouldn't have felt threatened at all. The police also typically works as a duo, so that they can ensure that they can handle any criminal that is on his own, without needing to use lethal violence.
The reason why this happened is because of america's reckless gun laws, which allows regular citizens to walk around armed without anyone knowing that you're carrying a gun, but with rights that in some cases surpasses what the police have in other western countries. That's the insanity of this whole case. If you act threatful against the wrong person, you can get shot, in the land of freedom.
|
Alot of you guys miss the point alot. It's a tragedy the kid died agreed but.
Zimmernan gave up pursuing and was walking BACK to his car, he was then followed, confronted, jumped and punched to the floor by Martin.
I'd like to repeat he STOPPED pursuing, walked back, but Martin then came after him.
Martin was the aggressor.
|
In fairness, what you are saying is according to Zimmerman. Doesn't mean it's untrue, but you can't blame others who are less believing of Zimmerman. We can only piece together what we think happened, and naturally people will do that differently.
|
On April 09 2013 02:30 Kaitlin wrote:
In fairness, what you are saying is according to Zimmerman. Doesn't mean it's untrue, but you can't blame others who are less believing of Zimmerman. We can only piece together what we think happened, and naturally people will do that differently.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing that rebuts Zimmerman's story other than inconsistencies between various versions of the story that he has given, right? Presuming that's the case, the state won't win, and, frankly, they should just drop the charges and call it a day.
|
On April 09 2013 02:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:30 Kaitlin wrote:
In fairness, what you are saying is according to Zimmerman. Doesn't mean it's untrue, but you can't blame others who are less believing of Zimmerman. We can only piece together what we think happened, and naturally people will do that differently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing that rebuts Zimmerman's story other than inconsistencies between various versions of the story that he has given, right? Presuming that's the case, the state won't win, and, frankly, they should just drop the charges and call it a day.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just responding to the post above that made it seem like people were "missing the point" because they weren't agreeing 100% with how Zimmerman said it went down. I agree that there really is no evidence to counter that, and Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted, but I was just pointing out that because we only have one side of the story, doesn't mean that is exactly how it happened.
edit: In my eyes, this is a case more about the media than anything else.
By that, I mean, this wasn't a case at all until the media got involved. Initially, the media made it a racism case, where Zimmerman was a white guy and racist. Then we find out he's not white, and he had done various things to help blacks in his neighborhood including calling out the mistreatment of one by law enforcement. So, that kind of fell apart, then the media makes it all about that "terrible" stand your ground law. Well, as it turns out, the defense is focusing more on standard self-defense, so that stand your ground isn't panning out for them. The only reason this case started was because of the media and the only reason it's still on is because of the media. They have an agenda and they manipulate narratives of events to support them, whether they fit or not.
|
On April 09 2013 02:50 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:30 Kaitlin wrote:
In fairness, what you are saying is according to Zimmerman. Doesn't mean it's untrue, but you can't blame others who are less believing of Zimmerman. We can only piece together what we think happened, and naturally people will do that differently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing that rebuts Zimmerman's story other than inconsistencies between various versions of the story that he has given, right? Presuming that's the case, the state won't win, and, frankly, they should just drop the charges and call it a day. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just responding to the post above that made it seem like people were "missing the point" because they weren't agreeing 100% with how Zimmerman said it went down. I agree that there really is no evidence to counter that, and Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted, but I was just pointing out that because we only have one side of the story, doesn't mean that is exactly how it happened. edit: In my eyes, this is a case more about the media than anything else.
The media sensationalizing this case is shameful and disturbing, it just seems like they are trying to turn this case into something its not. Whether or not Zimmerman was wrong or right in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, I cannot say, however people need to stop making assumptions that this is some kind of race thing. There is a dearth of evidence supporting anything even remotely close to that, aside from the fact that one man is black and one is not. The media sucks.
|
On April 09 2013 02:50 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:30 Kaitlin wrote:
In fairness, what you are saying is according to Zimmerman. Doesn't mean it's untrue, but you can't blame others who are less believing of Zimmerman. We can only piece together what we think happened, and naturally people will do that differently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing that rebuts Zimmerman's story other than inconsistencies between various versions of the story that he has given, right? Presuming that's the case, the state won't win, and, frankly, they should just drop the charges and call it a day. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just responding to the post above that made it seem like people were "missing the point" because they weren't agreeing 100% with how Zimmerman said it went down. I agree that there really is no evidence to counter that, and Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted, but I was just pointing out that because we only have one side of the story, doesn't mean that is exactly how it happened. edit: In my eyes, this is a case more about the media than anything else.
Yeah, I'm acutely aware that people disagree with Zimmerman's story and don't believe it. I'm just pointing out that whether they believe him or not will be irrelevant when there's no alternative testimony. In fact, the case probably wouldn't even be decided the jury because the judge would have to direct a verdict in favor of Zimmerman. This, of course, begs the question of why the state is bothering to prosecute Zimmerman and what evidence is out there that we don't know about.
|
On April 09 2013 02:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:50 Kaitlin wrote:On April 09 2013 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:30 Kaitlin wrote:
In fairness, what you are saying is according to Zimmerman. Doesn't mean it's untrue, but you can't blame others who are less believing of Zimmerman. We can only piece together what we think happened, and naturally people will do that differently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing that rebuts Zimmerman's story other than inconsistencies between various versions of the story that he has given, right? Presuming that's the case, the state won't win, and, frankly, they should just drop the charges and call it a day. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just responding to the post above that made it seem like people were "missing the point" because they weren't agreeing 100% with how Zimmerman said it went down. I agree that there really is no evidence to counter that, and Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted, but I was just pointing out that because we only have one side of the story, doesn't mean that is exactly how it happened. edit: In my eyes, this is a case more about the media than anything else. Yeah, I'm acutely aware that people disagree with Zimmerman's story and don't believe it. I'm just pointing out that whether they believe him or not will be irrelevant when there's no alternative testimony. In fact, the case probably wouldn't even be decided the jury because the judge would have to direct a verdict in favor of Zimmerman. This, of course, begs the question of why the state is bothering to prosecute Zimmerman and what evidence is out there that we don't know about.
How about fear of what happens if they drop the case / or the prosecutors are as bad as the media, in that they are more about promoting an agenda than they are about doing their jobs.
|
On April 09 2013 02:57 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:50 Kaitlin wrote:On April 09 2013 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:30 Kaitlin wrote:
In fairness, what you are saying is according to Zimmerman. Doesn't mean it's untrue, but you can't blame others who are less believing of Zimmerman. We can only piece together what we think happened, and naturally people will do that differently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing that rebuts Zimmerman's story other than inconsistencies between various versions of the story that he has given, right? Presuming that's the case, the state won't win, and, frankly, they should just drop the charges and call it a day. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just responding to the post above that made it seem like people were "missing the point" because they weren't agreeing 100% with how Zimmerman said it went down. I agree that there really is no evidence to counter that, and Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted, but I was just pointing out that because we only have one side of the story, doesn't mean that is exactly how it happened. edit: In my eyes, this is a case more about the media than anything else. Yeah, I'm acutely aware that people disagree with Zimmerman's story and don't believe it. I'm just pointing out that whether they believe him or not will be irrelevant when there's no alternative testimony. In fact, the case probably wouldn't even be decided the jury because the judge would have to direct a verdict in favor of Zimmerman. This, of course, begs the question of why the state is bothering to prosecute Zimmerman and what evidence is out there that we don't know about. How about fear of what happens if they drop the case / or the prosecutors are as bad as the media, in that they are more about promoting an agenda than they are about doing their jobs.
Frankly, I'd be more scared of having my law license suspended or revoked for frivolous prosecution.
|
On April 09 2013 02:57 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:50 Kaitlin wrote:On April 09 2013 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:30 Kaitlin wrote:
In fairness, what you are saying is according to Zimmerman. Doesn't mean it's untrue, but you can't blame others who are less believing of Zimmerman. We can only piece together what we think happened, and naturally people will do that differently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing that rebuts Zimmerman's story other than inconsistencies between various versions of the story that he has given, right? Presuming that's the case, the state won't win, and, frankly, they should just drop the charges and call it a day. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just responding to the post above that made it seem like people were "missing the point" because they weren't agreeing 100% with how Zimmerman said it went down. I agree that there really is no evidence to counter that, and Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted, but I was just pointing out that because we only have one side of the story, doesn't mean that is exactly how it happened. edit: In my eyes, this is a case more about the media than anything else. Yeah, I'm acutely aware that people disagree with Zimmerman's story and don't believe it. I'm just pointing out that whether they believe him or not will be irrelevant when there's no alternative testimony. In fact, the case probably wouldn't even be decided the jury because the judge would have to direct a verdict in favor of Zimmerman. This, of course, begs the question of why the state is bothering to prosecute Zimmerman and what evidence is out there that we don't know about. How about fear of what happens if they drop the case / or the prosecutors are as bad as the media, in that they are more about promoting an agenda than they are about doing their jobs.
If one takes a long hard look at the history of the Floridian justice system, I think it becomes clear why the prosecution has handled the Martin case as it has. To put it simply, they are incredibly incompetent 
|
On April 08 2013 17:49 BigFan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Well, I finally read through this whole thread and a bit of the closed one lol. It was amazing to see how opinions changed as the case progressed. I have to say that this case is a tough one though. Originally, when I started reading the case, I was convinced that Zimmerman is guilty as charged. I mean, he got out of his car, chased Trayvon, got into a conflict and then murdered him. I didn't think it was intended so it wasn't first degree for sure but just the act of not taking the advice of the police dispatcher and following Trayvon was enough for me. I think the media and how they twisted the whole case was the real catalyst and I'm sure most would agree. They were showing pictures of Zimmerman in a jumpsuit and a younger picture of Trayvon where you wouldn't believe he would hurt a fly(I dunno if he would this day or not). The way everything was presented including the racism angle just piled up and I found it hard to believe that Trayvon was in any way or form responsible for the final outcome and that it was Zimmerman who did everything. Hearing the 911 calls of someone screaming for help figuring it must've been Trayvon(never heard either of their voices at this point) and seeing how the police didn't arrest him(figured that maybe his dad had a hand, conspiracy right?  ) also strengthened my thoughts that Zimmerman should be put away. Let's also not forget that NBC messed around with the audio recording for the police dispatcher and removed that whole question the police dispatcher asked about race which only fuelled the fire. As more stuff got released, my opinion slowly started to change. The tapes after his arrest were released by ABC and were debated for pages on end on here. Some claimed that they hid their logo on top of the head wounds including a website (DN? or ND?) zoomed in and enhanced the image that shows something on his head. Others, myself included couldn't see anything in the video since it was poor quality and figured that maybe the injuries were possibly made up(no evidence so far as it was). We eventually got the pictures 8 months or so after it happened but they fit into his story. The witnesses at the scene, most describing something that was either neutral or in Zimmerman's favour(he was on the bottom getting punched MMA style by Trayvon etc...) also had a role. Then we heard their histories. Zimmerman's history of trying to help the community and succeeded in some cases leading to him becoming the neighbourhood watch captain to his anger management classes that he took after he pushed a cop around that wanted to arrest his friend to his problems with his ex-wife and the restraining orders they got against each other. It seemed like he was in general, a guy that was trying to help as much as he could but he could be hot headed at times(he told the cop he didn't care that he was one when he found out about it). Trayvon's history of a young adult(incase kid insults anyone lol) going to school, doing career aptitude tests, SAT tests but also possibly dealing and using drugs. Overall though, some suspensions, some mishaps but it wasn't anything that was unexpected for someone his age(I don't condone drugs for the record lol). Overall, they both had their ups and downs so far and none seemed to have the upper hand although I did find Zimmerman's history of trying to do good in his community maybe slightly more touching seeing as how the community was terrorized by the constant robbers etc... Fast forward, then we have all these odds stuff happening. He gets charged with second degree murder but there are a lot of holes in that charge. We hear about the witnesses changing their statement that weakened Zimmerman's original case. Then just recently, the important witness of the prosecutor is caught lying which imo is going to hit their already weak case very hard considering that can come into play when she is being questioned. I mean, if she lied about her age and where she was on his funeral day, why can't she lie to boost his story? As it stands, it's hard for anyone to know what happened in the confrontation aside from what Zimmerman and Trayvon's girlfriend implied happened. What I think happened: From my understanding, Zimmerman felt responsible for the neighbourhood. It must've given him pride to be able to catch the robbers and be a watchful eye. He respected law enforcement as long as they were fair(he bashed them hard when some police officer's son beat a black homeless guy) and he probably took it upon himself to watch the community to make sure its safe since the police were always getting there late for robberies and such. For anyone that missed it, he originally bought his gun because some dog kept on hounding his wife and it was based on a recommendation by a police man(he originally opted for pepper spray as I recall). That night, when he went to Target, he was in his car when he saw Trayvon leave the convenience store. Seeing him walking a little wobbly, slowly in the rain checking houses out and not recognizing him in the community made him suspicious so he called the non-emergency line to inform the police. He didn't want him to get away so he followed him against the advice of the emergency personnel then he stopped as is evident by his breathing returning to normal. From Trayvor's side, he said that he saw Zimmerman stare at him in the car then get out and follow him. According to his girlfriend's account, he ran until he couldn't anymore. He eventually lost Zimmerman and that may have been due to Zimmerman stopping the pursuit so at this point, they are separate. What happens next is the unknown part and most confusing. According to Zimmerman's account, Trayvon saw him, went into a dark sidewalk then came back circling his car then left again. From reading his account, he didn't say he was scared but I think it was talked about that he said he was terrified so I find it a bit hard to swallow that he left his vehicle to find out what street he was on(not disagreeing with finding street name, just leaving safety of car). I disagree with this since from the call, we can see that he chased him and this corroborates with Trayvon's girlfriend's account. I think he chased him then he stopped close to the area of the shooting. Trayvon ran then got tired and walked. I think Zimmerman just walked around after he stopped talking with the dispatcher and ended up bumping into Trayvon in that area. Why Trayvon didn't just run back home when he had something like 2-3 minutes is beyond me but he tells his gf that he sees Zimmerman again, that he doesn't plan on running because he's tired(implied, girlfriend also says this) and that Zimmerman is getting closer to him. At this point, he asks Zimmerman, "why are you following me?" and Zimmerman responds with "what are you doing here?". After this, it gets even more blurry. His girlfriend says that she believes there was some struggle before the phone disconnected. Personally, I think the conversation got heated. Maybe Trayvon told him that it's not his concern or something and Zimmerman mentioned that he called the police on him so if he doesn't tell him anything, he'll have to tell them. Maybe Zimmerman tried to use a citizen arrest while the police arrived and Trayvon resisted for obvious reasons. Either way, from Zimmerman's injuries and Trayvon's knuckle wound, I think that Trayvon beat up on Zimmerman. I guess for me, I think it's quite possible that after words were exchanged, Zimmerman said what he wanted to say and decided to walk to his car then Trayvon jumped him or maybe it happened before he even turned out. Eventually, Zimmerman was getting beaten up, called for help and then fired his gun when he panicked since no one was responding and he felt that his life was threatened. Sorry for the really long text, but I wanted to see if anyone sees it from my perspective based on the evidence we have and I didn't think a small summary on how things unfolded even though the order isn't perfectly timed would be a bad idea lo l
seems like a reasonable enough interpretation to me. the fuzzy part is when they first interacted. its likely the conversation got heated and the fight resulted from that. but who said and did what will never be known without doubt associated with zimmerman's testimony.
On April 08 2013 18:46 BigFan wrote:^Ya, I have a similar opinion aside from him going back to the car right away. I think he might've just walked a bit more in the area and stumbled onto Trayvon(if Trayvon wasn't waiting for him). Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 18:30 Aerisky wrote:
Good post BigFan, you seem like one of the few who tried to maintain a level head and build your opinion from not only reading but also trying to logically interpret sources (as opposed to getting locked into some mentality and sticking around just to call people who disagree stupid... though there are certainly a number of those, perhaps including said accusers).
As for me, I'm doomed to the hottest place in hell according to Dante, because I don't really have an opinion yet, nor do I know too much about the specifics. I'll have to bug daphreak on irc to enlighten me sometime ;P thanks, it took literally forever to read all the comments and the reports/listen to everything lol before I finally formed the opinion. I do have to say that I think that even engaging in a conversation with Trayvon as is evident by Trayvon's gf's record was a bad idea. He should've just called the dispatcher and went back home. Yes, I agree! Doomed to hottest place in hell for not having an opinion yet, shame on you! lol. I think not having an opinion is a good thing, means you are still open to either possibility although with an opinion, you can always debate it :D Never been on irc, so unfortunately, I can't bug daphreak for enlightenment about the law XD
i put the jury instructions in the OP for people to search the law. if you have any specific questions, i can see what i can do. i am not a Florida lawyer though so take it with a grain of salt.
|
On April 09 2013 03:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:57 Kaitlin wrote:On April 09 2013 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:50 Kaitlin wrote:On April 09 2013 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:30 Kaitlin wrote:
In fairness, what you are saying is according to Zimmerman. Doesn't mean it's untrue, but you can't blame others who are less believing of Zimmerman. We can only piece together what we think happened, and naturally people will do that differently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing that rebuts Zimmerman's story other than inconsistencies between various versions of the story that he has given, right? Presuming that's the case, the state won't win, and, frankly, they should just drop the charges and call it a day. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just responding to the post above that made it seem like people were "missing the point" because they weren't agreeing 100% with how Zimmerman said it went down. I agree that there really is no evidence to counter that, and Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted, but I was just pointing out that because we only have one side of the story, doesn't mean that is exactly how it happened. edit: In my eyes, this is a case more about the media than anything else. Yeah, I'm acutely aware that people disagree with Zimmerman's story and don't believe it. I'm just pointing out that whether they believe him or not will be irrelevant when there's no alternative testimony. In fact, the case probably wouldn't even be decided the jury because the judge would have to direct a verdict in favor of Zimmerman. This, of course, begs the question of why the state is bothering to prosecute Zimmerman and what evidence is out there that we don't know about. How about fear of what happens if they drop the case / or the prosecutors are as bad as the media, in that they are more about promoting an agenda than they are about doing their jobs. Frankly, I'd be more scared of having my law license suspended or revoked for frivolous prosecution.
You would be. However, others, especially when they've been in the game a long time and have relationships with judges, have less fear of such consequences. Mike Nifongs are more common than we wish.
|
Seminole clerk: I'm gonna unseal settlement with Trayvon Martin's parents
That secret homeowners association settlement with Trayvon Martin's family may not remain secret much longer.
Seminole County Clerk of Courts Maryanne Morse has written a letter to Trayvon's family attorney, Benjamin Crump, telling him that she doesn't think it meets the standard of a confidential filing so she intends to make it public in 10 days.
Even so, the total dollar figure paid out by the association will likely remain a secret. That's because Crump edited it out before he put the 12-page document in the court file Thursday.
It's believed to be more than $1 million.
Part of the 12-page settlement popped into public view for a few minutes Friday. The day before, Crump had made it part of the official court record in the second-degree murder case against former Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman.
Crump had instructed the clerk's office to seal the settlement, but for a few minutes Friday morning, the first five pages were available for public review. The clerk's office then blacked out all but the first page, which is a cover sheet filed by Crump.
After further consideration, however, Morse decided that none of it should be kept secret, so she wrote Crump, telling him she would unseal it in 10 days.
Why Crump had it placed in the file in the first place remains a mystery. He did not return phone calls from the Orlando Sentinel. But his clients, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, were deposed last month by Zimmerman's attorneys and were likely asked about the settlement.
In an interview last month, when asked if the settlement was a specific figure between $1 million and $2 million, Crump would not say.
"I have no comment on the subject," he said. "I know you didn't get that from me."
Trayvon's parents did not sue the homeowner's association. They settled before their wrongful death claim reached that point.
The association was a target because Zimmerman had organized a Neighborhood Watch group on its behalf, saying there had been a series of break-ins in his Sanford townhome community.
The evening that he shot Trayvon, Zimmerman had called Sanford police using a non-emergency phone number that the agency had advised him, as a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, to use.
Zimmerman told a dispatcher that evening that he was watching a suspicious person and asked police to respond.
A few minutes later, Zimmerman shot Trayvon, an unarmed 17-year-old. Zimmerman told police that he acted in self-defense after the teenager knocked him to the ground, breaking his nose, then climbed on top and repeatedly banged his head on a sidewalk.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-trayvon-hoa-settlement-not-confidential-20130408,0,5675871.story
|
On April 09 2013 03:14 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:57 Kaitlin wrote:On April 09 2013 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:50 Kaitlin wrote:On April 09 2013 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:30 Kaitlin wrote:
In fairness, what you are saying is according to Zimmerman. Doesn't mean it's untrue, but you can't blame others who are less believing of Zimmerman. We can only piece together what we think happened, and naturally people will do that differently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing that rebuts Zimmerman's story other than inconsistencies between various versions of the story that he has given, right? Presuming that's the case, the state won't win, and, frankly, they should just drop the charges and call it a day. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just responding to the post above that made it seem like people were "missing the point" because they weren't agreeing 100% with how Zimmerman said it went down. I agree that there really is no evidence to counter that, and Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted, but I was just pointing out that because we only have one side of the story, doesn't mean that is exactly how it happened. edit: In my eyes, this is a case more about the media than anything else. Yeah, I'm acutely aware that people disagree with Zimmerman's story and don't believe it. I'm just pointing out that whether they believe him or not will be irrelevant when there's no alternative testimony. In fact, the case probably wouldn't even be decided the jury because the judge would have to direct a verdict in favor of Zimmerman. This, of course, begs the question of why the state is bothering to prosecute Zimmerman and what evidence is out there that we don't know about. How about fear of what happens if they drop the case / or the prosecutors are as bad as the media, in that they are more about promoting an agenda than they are about doing their jobs. Frankly, I'd be more scared of having my law license suspended or revoked for frivolous prosecution. You would be. However, others, especially when they've been in the game a long time and have relationships with judges, have less fear of such consequences. Mike Nifongs are more common than we wish.
Well, keep in mind that trial judges are not responsible for sanctioning attorneys for ethical misconduct. Typically those cases are handled by a specialized and independent branch of the state supreme court that is made up of "prosecutors" for lack of a better word.
But yes, there are a ton of attorneys who run their practices without any real concern for ethical obligations or even malpractice. They basically operate on the basis of serendipity. It never ceases to amaze me how shitty most attorneys are.
|
Ugh, I thought we were done with all this. Other than some inconsistencies (oh no, he's human) I don't believe there's anything against his statements. If there is I'm more than happy to hear it- I'm pretty neutral on the issue. I'm just tired of hearing about a case that's wasting people's time/resources.
|
Everytime I see this thread I think of how tragic it is that some poor kid lost his life and some random shmuck has to live with that on his conscious for the rest of his life.. Then I remember - this is why you don't go looking for death folks. No matter which end you're on.
|
On April 09 2013 03:27 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 03:14 Kaitlin wrote:On April 09 2013 03:00 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:57 Kaitlin wrote:On April 09 2013 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:50 Kaitlin wrote:On April 09 2013 02:46 xDaunt wrote:On April 09 2013 02:30 Kaitlin wrote:
In fairness, what you are saying is according to Zimmerman. Doesn't mean it's untrue, but you can't blame others who are less believing of Zimmerman. We can only piece together what we think happened, and naturally people will do that differently. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing that rebuts Zimmerman's story other than inconsistencies between various versions of the story that he has given, right? Presuming that's the case, the state won't win, and, frankly, they should just drop the charges and call it a day. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just responding to the post above that made it seem like people were "missing the point" because they weren't agreeing 100% with how Zimmerman said it went down. I agree that there really is no evidence to counter that, and Zimmerman shouldn't be convicted, but I was just pointing out that because we only have one side of the story, doesn't mean that is exactly how it happened. edit: In my eyes, this is a case more about the media than anything else. Yeah, I'm acutely aware that people disagree with Zimmerman's story and don't believe it. I'm just pointing out that whether they believe him or not will be irrelevant when there's no alternative testimony. In fact, the case probably wouldn't even be decided the jury because the judge would have to direct a verdict in favor of Zimmerman. This, of course, begs the question of why the state is bothering to prosecute Zimmerman and what evidence is out there that we don't know about. How about fear of what happens if they drop the case / or the prosecutors are as bad as the media, in that they are more about promoting an agenda than they are about doing their jobs. Frankly, I'd be more scared of having my law license suspended or revoked for frivolous prosecution. You would be. However, others, especially when they've been in the game a long time and have relationships with judges, have less fear of such consequences. Mike Nifongs are more common than we wish. Well, keep in mind that trial judges are not responsible for sanctioning attorneys for ethical misconduct. Typically those cases are handled by a specialized and independent branch of the state supreme court that is made up of "prosecutors" for lack of a better word. But yes, there are a ton of attorneys who run their practices without any real concern for ethical obligations or even malpractice. They basically operate on the basis of serendipity. It never ceases to amaze me how shitty most attorneys are.
But judges do make rulings on the case, and determine credibility of witnesses in hearings. If a witness says the sky is purple, and the judge finds them to be a credible witness, that's really all the judge has to do. It's pretty hard to pursue prosecutorial misconduct against a prosecutor when a judge validates what they've done.
Let's suppose the following:
Bob is a guy who prosecution has been trying to put behind bars, but they can never get anything to stick. Bob visits an attorney to determine the legality of a particular course of action. After this meeting, the attorney, a friend of judges and prosecutors, is aware of how badly Bob is sought after, meets with a prosecutor friend and they devise a scheme to setup Bob. Now, as an attorney, you know what is about to happen is completely fucked up because Bob has established an attorney client relationship with the attorney, and any government intrusion into that is a due process violation, and prosecutorial misconduct on the prosecutor.
The prosecutor and attorney arrange a sting of Bob, after which, Bob is arrested and prosecuted. The attorney testifies that Bob wasn't asking for legal advice, but was arranging a conspiracy to do something illegal and that the attorney was only reporting this illegal conspiracy to the government. Now, as part of the process, Bob files a motion claiming outrageous government conduct in interfering in an attorney client relationship. Judge holds a hearing, and it's the attorney's word against Bob. The attorney, in his testimony says that he was never asked for legal advice, and only an illegal conspiracy was contemplated. He also says the sky was purple that day. The judge makes a ruling, based on finding the attorney to be credible and Bob not credible, that no attorney client relationship was formed and the case goes on.
So, how does this separate entity make a finding of an ethics violation on the prosecutor when everything in the trial said it was not ?
Something to think about...
|
On April 09 2013 03:43 Kaitlin wrote:
But judges do make rulings on the case, and determine credibility of witnesses in hearings. If a witness says the sky is purple, and the judge finds them to be a credible witness, that's really all the judge has to do. It's pretty hard to pursue prosecutorial misconduct against a prosecutor when a judge validates what they've done.
If the State has no independent evidence of what happened between Trayvon and Zimmerman, then the Judge will simply direct a verdict for the defense. There really isn't a lot of gray area here. That's why I am so curious as to what the State's basis for proceeding is. The girlfriend's testimony definitely isn't enough to get them over the hump. The only other possibility that immediately comes to mind is forensic evidence.
Let's suppose the following:
Bob is a guy who prosecution has been trying to put behind bars, but they can never get anything to stick. Bob visits an attorney to determine the legality of a particular course of action. After this meeting, the attorney, a friend of judges and prosecutors, is aware of how badly Bob is sought after, meets with a prosecutor friend and they devise a scheme to setup Bob. Now, as an attorney, you know what is about to happen is completely fucked up because Bob has established an attorney client relationship with the attorney, and any government intrusion into that is a due process violation, and prosecutorial misconduct on the prosecutor.
The prosecutor and attorney arrange a sting of Bob, after which, Bob is arrested and prosecuted. The attorney testifies that Bob wasn't asking for legal advice, but was arranging a conspiracy to do something illegal and that the attorney was only reporting this illegal conspiracy to the government. Now, as part of the process, Bob files a motion claiming outrageous government conduct in interfering in an attorney client relationship. Judge holds a hearing, and it's the attorney's word against Bob. The attorney, in his testimony says that he was never asked for legal advice, and only an illegal conspiracy was contemplated. He also says the sky was purple that day. The judge makes a ruling, based on finding the attorney to be credible and Bob not credible, that no attorney client relationship was formed and the case goes on.
So, how does this separate entity make a finding of an ethics violation on the prosecutor when everything in the trial said it was not ?
Something to think about...
Well, that's a rather incredible hypothetical. However, I guarantee you that an ethics panel would determine that the attorney did have an attorney-client relationship with Bob under those circumstances. Attorneys get nailed all of the time as a consequence of doing something or failing to do something when they erroneously believed that there was no attorney-client relationship.
Also, whatever the trial court determines is not binding upon the ethics board. Sure, they'll look at everything and consider what the trial court considered and decided, but if something is awry, they'll do something about it. In this particular hypothetical, I could see the ethics board investigating the judge to see what he was thinking when he issued his decision (judges are subject to the board, too).
Circling back to the Zimmerman case, I don't see anything that looks like prosecutorial misconduct right now, much less anything that arises to the level of a Nifong. However, the apparent lack of distinct evidence regarding what happened other than Zimmerman's account gives me concern.
EDIT: Just as an aside, attorneys do have some discretion to breach the attorney client privilege in some circumstances (like to prevent a violent crime).
|
On April 09 2013 03:57 xDaunt wrote:
Well, that's a rather incredible hypothetical. However, I guarantee you that an ethics panel would determine that the attorney did have an attorney-client relationship with Bob under those circumstances. Attorneys get nailed all of the time as a consequence of doing something or failing to do something when they erroneously believed that there was no attorney-client relationship.
Also, whatever the trial court determines is not binding upon the ethics board. Sure, they'll look at everything and consider what the trial court considered and decided, but if something is awry, they'll do something about it. In this particular hypothetical, I could see the ethics board investigating the judge to see what he was thinking when he issued his decision (judges are subject to the board, too).
Well, I assure you, while obviously this is not the complete story, such a scenario is not hypothetical. It did happen, in Federal court no less. In real life, the attorney was actually disciplined, but not the prosecutors or judge. As much as you know about how the law "should" work, I have knowledge about how it "can" (although shouldn't) work.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On April 09 2013 03:02 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 17:49 BigFan wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Well, I finally read through this whole thread and a bit of the closed one lol. It was amazing to see how opinions changed as the case progressed. I have to say that this case is a tough one though. Originally, when I started reading the case, I was convinced that Zimmerman is guilty as charged. I mean, he got out of his car, chased Trayvon, got into a conflict and then murdered him. I didn't think it was intended so it wasn't first degree for sure but just the act of not taking the advice of the police dispatcher and following Trayvon was enough for me. I think the media and how they twisted the whole case was the real catalyst and I'm sure most would agree. They were showing pictures of Zimmerman in a jumpsuit and a younger picture of Trayvon where you wouldn't believe he would hurt a fly(I dunno if he would this day or not). The way everything was presented including the racism angle just piled up and I found it hard to believe that Trayvon was in any way or form responsible for the final outcome and that it was Zimmerman who did everything. Hearing the 911 calls of someone screaming for help figuring it must've been Trayvon(never heard either of their voices at this point) and seeing how the police didn't arrest him(figured that maybe his dad had a hand, conspiracy right? ) also strengthened my thoughts that Zimmerman should be put away. Let's also not forget that NBC messed around with the audio recording for the police dispatcher and removed that whole question the police dispatcher asked about race which only fuelled the fire. As more stuff got released, my opinion slowly started to change. The tapes after his arrest were released by ABC and were debated for pages on end on here. Some claimed that they hid their logo on top of the head wounds including a website (DN? or ND?) zoomed in and enhanced the image that shows something on his head. Others, myself included couldn't see anything in the video since it was poor quality and figured that maybe the injuries were possibly made up(no evidence so far as it was). We eventually got the pictures 8 months or so after it happened but they fit into his story. The witnesses at the scene, most describing something that was either neutral or in Zimmerman's favour(he was on the bottom getting punched MMA style by Trayvon etc...) also had a role. Then we heard their histories. Zimmerman's history of trying to help the community and succeeded in some cases leading to him becoming the neighbourhood watch captain to his anger management classes that he took after he pushed a cop around that wanted to arrest his friend to his problems with his ex-wife and the restraining orders they got against each other. It seemed like he was in general, a guy that was trying to help as much as he could but he could be hot headed at times(he told the cop he didn't care that he was one when he found out about it). Trayvon's history of a young adult(incase kid insults anyone lol) going to school, doing career aptitude tests, SAT tests but also possibly dealing and using drugs. Overall though, some suspensions, some mishaps but it wasn't anything that was unexpected for someone his age(I don't condone drugs for the record lol). Overall, they both had their ups and downs so far and none seemed to have the upper hand although I did find Zimmerman's history of trying to do good in his community maybe slightly more touching seeing as how the community was terrorized by the constant robbers etc... Fast forward, then we have all these odds stuff happening. He gets charged with second degree murder but there are a lot of holes in that charge. We hear about the witnesses changing their statement that weakened Zimmerman's original case. Then just recently, the important witness of the prosecutor is caught lying which imo is going to hit their already weak case very hard considering that can come into play when she is being questioned. I mean, if she lied about her age and where she was on his funeral day, why can't she lie to boost his story? As it stands, it's hard for anyone to know what happened in the confrontation aside from what Zimmerman and Trayvon's girlfriend implied happened. What I think happened: From my understanding, Zimmerman felt responsible for the neighbourhood. It must've given him pride to be able to catch the robbers and be a watchful eye. He respected law enforcement as long as they were fair(he bashed them hard when some police officer's son beat a black homeless guy) and he probably took it upon himself to watch the community to make sure its safe since the police were always getting there late for robberies and such. For anyone that missed it, he originally bought his gun because some dog kept on hounding his wife and it was based on a recommendation by a police man(he originally opted for pepper spray as I recall). That night, when he went to Target, he was in his car when he saw Trayvon leave the convenience store. Seeing him walking a little wobbly, slowly in the rain checking houses out and not recognizing him in the community made him suspicious so he called the non-emergency line to inform the police. He didn't want him to get away so he followed him against the advice of the emergency personnel then he stopped as is evident by his breathing returning to normal. From Trayvor's side, he said that he saw Zimmerman stare at him in the car then get out and follow him. According to his girlfriend's account, he ran until he couldn't anymore. He eventually lost Zimmerman and that may have been due to Zimmerman stopping the pursuit so at this point, they are separate. What happens next is the unknown part and most confusing. According to Zimmerman's account, Trayvon saw him, went into a dark sidewalk then came back circling his car then left again. From reading his account, he didn't say he was scared but I think it was talked about that he said he was terrified so I find it a bit hard to swallow that he left his vehicle to find out what street he was on(not disagreeing with finding street name, just leaving safety of car). I disagree with this since from the call, we can see that he chased him and this corroborates with Trayvon's girlfriend's account. I think he chased him then he stopped close to the area of the shooting. Trayvon ran then got tired and walked. I think Zimmerman just walked around after he stopped talking with the dispatcher and ended up bumping into Trayvon in that area. Why Trayvon didn't just run back home when he had something like 2-3 minutes is beyond me but he tells his gf that he sees Zimmerman again, that he doesn't plan on running because he's tired(implied, girlfriend also says this) and that Zimmerman is getting closer to him. At this point, he asks Zimmerman, "why are you following me?" and Zimmerman responds with "what are you doing here?". After this, it gets even more blurry. His girlfriend says that she believes there was some struggle before the phone disconnected. Personally, I think the conversation got heated. Maybe Trayvon told him that it's not his concern or something and Zimmerman mentioned that he called the police on him so if he doesn't tell him anything, he'll have to tell them. Maybe Zimmerman tried to use a citizen arrest while the police arrived and Trayvon resisted for obvious reasons. Either way, from Zimmerman's injuries and Trayvon's knuckle wound, I think that Trayvon beat up on Zimmerman. I guess for me, I think it's quite possible that after words were exchanged, Zimmerman said what he wanted to say and decided to walk to his car then Trayvon jumped him or maybe it happened before he even turned out. Eventually, Zimmerman was getting beaten up, called for help and then fired his gun when he panicked since no one was responding and he felt that his life was threatened. Sorry for the really long text, but I wanted to see if anyone sees it from my perspective based on the evidence we have and I didn't think a small summary on how things unfolded even though the order isn't perfectly timed would be a bad idea lo l seems like a reasonable enough interpretation to me. the fuzzy part is when they first interacted. its likely the conversation got heated and the fight resulted from that. but who said and did what will never be known without doubt associated with zimmerman's testimony.
Thanks for reading! ya, I agree. This interpretation is the only one that makes sense to me and tries to take into account both of their stories(zimmerman's and Trayvon's gf's phone call). Well, all we have is what the girlfriend said she heard which seems reasonable imo since it doesn't seem like how it started(Trayvon's asking him) is out of the blue and in Zimmerman's case, there was no talk which seems highly unlikely imo.
Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 18:46 BigFan wrote:^Ya, I have a similar opinion aside from him going back to the car right away. I think he might've just walked a bit more in the area and stumbled onto Trayvon(if Trayvon wasn't waiting for him). On April 08 2013 18:30 Aerisky wrote:
Good post BigFan, you seem like one of the few who tried to maintain a level head and build your opinion from not only reading but also trying to logically interpret sources (as opposed to getting locked into some mentality and sticking around just to call people who disagree stupid... though there are certainly a number of those, perhaps including said accusers).
As for me, I'm doomed to the hottest place in hell according to Dante, because I don't really have an opinion yet, nor do I know too much about the specifics. I'll have to bug daphreak on irc to enlighten me sometime ;P thanks, it took literally forever to read all the comments and the reports/listen to everything lol before I finally formed the opinion. I do have to say that I think that even engaging in a conversation with Trayvon as is evident by Trayvon's gf's record was a bad idea. He should've just called the dispatcher and went back home. Yes, I agree! Doomed to hottest place in hell for not having an opinion yet, shame on you! lol. I think not having an opinion is a good thing, means you are still open to either possibility although with an opinion, you can always debate it :D Never been on irc, so unfortunately, I can't bug daphreak for enlightenment about the law XD i put the jury instructions in the OP for people to search the law. if you have any specific questions, i can see what i can do. i am not a Florida lawyer though so take it with a grain of salt.
ya, no worries. Still way more knowledgeable than I am on the subject matter lol so if anything comes to mind, I'll let you know but so far, just going to wait and watch the trial
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
