WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
They did confiscate the weapon that very night, and they still have it.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice
- Thread starter Dancing David
- Start date
- Status
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Bear in mind that official weather records are taken in a specific location. Here in Chicago, for example, the official weather station is at O'Hare airport - at the extreme northwest corner of the city. But there's days where it pours in much of the city, while O'Hare gets not a single drop. So officially there was no precipitation in Chicago that day, but those with flooded basements might disagree.
If the subdivision was also the site of the official weather station it would be relevant, but otherwise it's not very useful because rain is often scattered.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Does a skeptic take an anonymous source over the 1st hand account by the person in question?
I thought so as well. I read that it was unusually low in several stories, I think. But I do believe it is true that most defendants charged with murder are remanded. So it remains true that the prosecution would have to be stupid to hold back damning evidence if they had it. And that was really the only point I was trying to make in the posts where I (apparently mistakenly) said that the bond was unusually low. I apologize for unwittingly repeating an inaccuracy, but I think that my belief that we basically have all of the prosecution's case is still well-founded. If Zimmerman did in fact kill Martin in cold blood, and the prosecution had evidence to prove it, then it would be highly irresponsible to intentionally and substantially increase the likelihood that such a dangerous person might be released on bail pending trial. Especially since the prosecution wouldn't really have much, if anything, to gain by doing so.
As for not disclosing the money, I don't think the amount of money the defendant has is supposed to be considered in setting bail, at least not as a factor unto itself. Generally there are only limited factors that may be considered, and the amount of the defendant's assets would be significant only to the extent that it bears on one or more of those factors. For instance, greater wealth might make the defendant a greater flight risk, both because he has the money to skip town and because a higher amount might be required in order to ensure a wealthy defendant will appear (it has to be enough to matter to the defendant).
I'm not sure about Florida law in particular on that score, so take my impression with an appropriate grain of salt. But unless the defendant's financial means are allowed to be directly considered for the purpose of ensuring he can afford the bond, I don't think it would make a difference in terms of what appropriate bail would have been. Zimmerman isn't going anywhere, and he isn't going to have that money for long anyway, since all of it and more will be spent on his defense. So he won't be spending that money on hookers and blow, that's for sure.
If the judge set the bail lower than he otherwise would have simply because he wanted it to be low enough for Zimmerman to afford it, well, I don't think he was supposed to do that. Maybe Florida law says otherwise. I'll try to find out.
Of course, anyone who actually lied to the court about his means would be in trouble. I think the judge is mad not because he would have set the bond higher, but because he feels there may have been intentional deception. That would be an independent ground for revoking bail, but only if Zimmerman himself lied.
Last edited:
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
Sure! Sorry for being confusing.
Cylinder said:
In response to this data, you wrote:
The judge just had the defense give information the prosecution asked for, that's business as usual, it would be strange if he denied it. The state asked for an increase in bail, which the judge didn't grant.
However, you indicated you agreed with the prosecution, that the bond should be raised. You called Zimmerman a liar, you thought he should be further investigated and then possibly charged again and thrown in jail. You have now exceeded even the demands of the prosecution in regards to this issue, despite knowing that the judge did not agree.
That strikes me as a swift leap to an extreme conclusion, it ignores the judge and surpasses even the prosecution demand. What I am wondering is if you find out that this is indeed actually meaningless, would you then look askance at the prosecution for trying to prejudice you against the defendant with misleading actions that impugn Zimmerman's integrity?
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,459
To offer a contrary view, the opinion stated below is what I've heard from legal experts several times now. I really think we need to differentiate between your typical 2nd degree murder charge with is often filed against violent or habitual criminals and a case like this where the person being charged turned himself in and has no previous convictions of serious crimes.
Last edited:
Thanks, that makes sense. Still, if the prosecution had presented strong evidence refuting the self-defense claim, I doubt Zimmerman would have been granted bail. Which makes me think they don't have an ace in the hole, as some have speculated. That's all I'm saying.
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,459
Agree 100%. Or as Alan Dershowitz said, this isn't a poker game where you hide your cards. if the prosecution had the evidence they would have brought it forth, both in the affidavit and the bond hearing. In fact, even though grand juries will rubber stamp almost anything, you have to wonder if the reason Cory didn't take it to a grand jury is that she was worried they wouldn't indict.
Speaking of which, I know this was discussed earlier in the thread, but don't remember it being answered. Doesn't Omara get to ask the judge to at some point to declare this a valid use of SYG and to throw the case out? Will that likely happen and if so soon? Or not in a another year or two when the trial actually starts?
Last edited:
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,459
Thanks.
Rare Truth
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 1,612
There's a good chance O'Mara won't even use the SYG defense.
And I'll tell you why I think he won't.
In the immunity hearing there are extremely good odds Zimm will need to take the stand.
That opens him up to cross -exam.
And a defense lawyer crapping his pants as that happens.
And I'll tell you why I think he won't.
In the immunity hearing there are extremely good odds Zimm will need to take the stand.
That opens him up to cross -exam.
And a defense lawyer crapping his pants as that happens.
you're welcome. Here's George Zimmerman Legal Case facebook page, started by O'Mara presumably.
https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase
like and discuss.
Also twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/GZlegalCase
https://www.facebook.com/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase
like and discuss.
Also twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/GZlegalCase
Having the defendant take the stand is always a risk for the defense, but I'm not sure there's really much choice when you're claiming self-defense. The jury expects to hear from a defendant claiming self defense, and not testifying will incline the jury against the defendant.
Also, I think that asserting an affirmative defense requires the defendant to present at least some evidence in support of that defense (otherwise the judge would disallow the defense). I don't see how that could be done if Zimmerman doesn't testify.
Rare Truth
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 1,612
I'm going to make a prediction now and say O'Mara is not going to go the SYG route.
GZ is way too much of a loose cannon.
All those inconsistencies with the evidence the state talked about as well will be hammered but good.
Nope. No SYG defense. This is going to trial. You heard it here first.
GZ is way too much of a loose cannon.
All those inconsistencies with the evidence the state talked about as well will be hammered but good.
Nope. No SYG defense. This is going to trial. You heard it here first.
I'm going to make a prediction now and say O'Mara is not going to go the SYG route.
GZ is way too much of a loose cannon.
All those inconsistencies with the evidence the state talked about as well will be hammered but good.
Nope. No SYG defense. This is going to trial. You heard it here first.
That's certainly possible. This case has reasonable doubt written all over it if Zimmerman asserts self-defense at trial. In my opinion, though, he will have to testify at trial to succeed on that defense. So concern about cross examination would not be reason enough, by itself, to forgo the hearing.
But O'Mara might decide that, while establishing reasonable doubt to a jury is highly likely, he does not have the evidence to convince a judge by a preponderance that it was self-defense. At trial, he only has to establish reasonable doubt. If he opts for this pre-trial hearing, he would have to convince a judge that it is at least ever so slightly more likely than not that it was self-defense. He would have the burden of proof at the hearing. And it would give the prosecutor an extra crack at Zimmerman.
But it will ultimately be Zimmerman's decision. While O'Mara's opinion will certainly have great influence on Zimmerman, don't forget that it would save Zimmerman tens of thousands of dollars (at least) if he is successful at the pre-trial hearing.
Last edited:
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,459
I hope this doesn't disappoint you but I don't feel like I'm getting any rare truth from youI'm going to make a prediction now and say O'Mara is not going to go the SYG route.
GZ is way too much of a loose cannon.
All those inconsistencies with the evidence the state talked about as well will be hammered but good.
Nope. No SYG defense. This is going to trial. You heard it here first.
.Rare Truth
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 1,612
Don't worry. You will.
You'll thank me later.
You'll thank me later.
TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
No, my first question was about Tracy Martin, not you. And there were others. But honestly, you seem a bit too emotionally invested in this case to have much of a discussion about it.
Zimmerman doesn't seem to be asserting any defense other than traditional justification - i.e. reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Statutory immunity is also part of the new law that has come to be known as Stand Your Ground, but you don't have to assert that particular facet of justification to be eligible for that immunuty. The law states that any person who uses justified force is immune from prosecution.
O'Mara will assert immunity - to do otherwise would deny his client due process - even if he's certain that it would fail. The question is whether or not he will subject Zimmerman to cross-examination in an immunity hearing. The judge will have to weigh the evidence and would be much more like to overcome the (unconstitutional) prejudice of Zimmerman asserting his right against self-incrimination.
Last edited:
Unless I am mistaken, the reference to SYG was merely referring to the immunity and the right to a hearing to weigh the evidence. That right was created as part of the same bill, which was called the "Stand Your Ground" law when it was debated and passed. You are right that this is really a traditional self-defense claim.
I agree the defense will ask for the pre-trial hearing. If they do, Zimmerman will testify. There is absolutely zero doubt about that.
Last edited:
- Status