Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

Point of order: NO DNA was found on Trayvon's sleeves or cuff foreign to TM.

Hard to imagine the hands segregating themselves from the cuff.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/TM-dna.jpg

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...0-n4-S&sig=AHIEtbSFpR0MEFdNBrQxlQS1qYFb79SwFg

Yeah, I saw that. Considering this and the absence of Zimmerman's blood under Martin's fingernails, the lack of swabs from his hands doesn't change my opinion. There's still a curious lack of blood evidence for someone who repeatedly punched and grappled with a bloody face and head.

 

[Unabogie]

I admit that I don't recall every single post but who's made racist speculations?

Really? You didn't see the links to "watermelon lean"? That was the nadir. People linked to posts which speculated that not only was Trayvon buying watermelon juice to mix with codeine, but that his father sent him to buy it. But people also posted links depicting Trayvon as gangster, bus driver assailant, and burglar (and raging drug addict!). There was plenty of speculation based on underlying assumptions about African Americans that had clearly racist bases. I would call those dog whistles, but go read any of those sites and the overt racists who comment there sure got the gist of it and don't hide their interpretations.

Certainly you may differ on this, but as De La Rionda said, this goes to the heart of the case. George saw Trayvon looking "suspicious" based on his assumptions about black kids in hoodies. MOM presented the 7/11 photos at the bond hearing with no comment. It was almost as if he assumed that you could just look at the photos and see the menace.

I have seen all sides go on the offense (myself included). It comes down to people getting hung up on being right, over being objective. I have, however, made many objections to the "team Zimmerman" statement. It seems to me, that your concern with civility is only in regards to how people talk to you. You tend to give a free pass to yourself and those who's opinons line up with yours.

Well, I actually you're half right. I only tend to respond to rudeness when people are being rude to me. I also don't generally jump into other people's pie fights, either. That's just me being me.

But I'll refrain from calling you "Team Zimmerman" and I apologize for that.

 

[Rare Truth]

I was always under the impression that judges had discretion when determining bond as opposed to being held to a legal standard or precedent.

However, I think there was a Florida law cited in the old thread that indicated the judge was required to grant bond, but I was unclear if it applied.

But if Zimmerman gets remanded until the trial - especially after the Supreme Court upheld ACA - it's going to be a rough summer for conservatives.

Because Z is being charged with a non-bondable offense, it really is up to the discretion of the Judge.

The Arthur hearing gives opportunity show the strength (or weakness) of the case.

Judge Lester made it clear he thought the evidence was strong for the charging offense.

What O'Mara was trying to do was, in the words of Judge Lester, a Reverse Arthur.

I completely agree with your last line.

 

[johnny karate]

I, for the life of me can see how wanting evidence before I decide someone is guity of murder 2 or even manslaughter is something you choose to present in a negative light.

You are, however, allowed to form an opinion, and change that opinion as more evidence comes to light.

I think what people like me find frustrating is the refusal from the Zimmerman side to acknowledge the inherent fishiness of his story.

Even before we learned about his casual relationship with honesty, the fact that Zimmerman concocted a version of events of his altercation with Martin that completely exonerated him of any wrongdoing is suspect in of itself.

Maybe Martin did attack him, and maybe Zimmerman was legitimately in fear for his life... but the idea that these events unfolded in a way in which Zimmerman the armed gung-ho neighborhood watch captain didn't in some way provoke the altercation with a teenage boy walking home from the store defies credulity.

And to listen to Zimmerman attempt to sanitize his story in the recordings of the police interrogations ("I wasn't following him. I was just going in the same direction he was.") only reinforces this point of view.

That being said, this doesn't mean Zimmerman is automatically - or even legally - guilty of the crimes for which he's been charged. And I don't think anyone here is demanding we fit Zimmerman for a lethal injection needle. He deserves all the fairness afforded by our legal system, and will hopefully get it.

But to refuse to acknowlege that this guy and his story are off strikes me as disingenuous.

 

[sgtbaker]

Really? You didn't see the links to "watermelon lean"? That was the nadir. People linked to posts which speculated that not only was Trayvon buying watermelon juice to mix with codeine, but that his father sent him to buy it. But people also posted links depicting Trayvon as gangster, bus driver assailant, and burglar (and raging drug addict!). There was plenty of speculation based on underlying assumptions about African Americans that had clearly racist bases. I would call those dog whistles, but go read any of those sites and the overt racists who comment there sure got the gist of it and don't hide their interpretations.

Certainly you may differ on this, but as De La Rionda said, this goes to the heart of the case. George saw Trayvon looking "suspicious" based on his assumptions about black kids in hoodies. MOM presented the 7/11 photos at the bond hearing with no comment. It was almost as if he assumed that you could just look at the photos and see the menace.

I saw people link those pages and say the information is biased unreliable but it's the only source that has some piece of information they wanted to discuss. The theories on those sites have been made fun of (such as the melon juice and drugs, theory), by many. I thought you meant posting racist speculations as in someone here, invented racist stories, themselves and posted it.

I am not saying I agree with assuming that the hoodie means anything but banks and hotels don't allow you to wear hoodies, either. There is a reason that they have a negative association with people. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the color of the person's skin, wearing the hoodie.

Well, I actually you're half right. I only tend to respond to rudeness when people are being rude to me. I also don't generally jump into other people's pie fights, either. That's just me being me.

But I'll refrain from calling you "Team Zimmerman" and I apologize for that

Fair enough.

 

[johnny karate]

I am not saying I agree with assuming that the hoodie means anything but banks and hotels don't allow you to wear hoodies, either. There is a reason that they have a negative association with people. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the color of the person's skin, wearing the hoodie.

Banks and hotels are private businesses. Martin was wearing a hoodie in public.

Since it has been pointed out so often in this thread that Zimmerman had the legal right to carry a gun - which I would argue has a much more negative connotation than a hoodie - by that same token, Martin had the legal right to put his hood up on a rainy evening.

And since when has there been a negative association with hoodies? I see kids wearing hoodies all the time. It's been a popular fashion trend for some time now. Granted, I think it looks stupid to wear your hood up for no particular reason, but I've never found it threatening or menacing in any way.

 

[Unabogie]

I saw people link those pages and say the information is biased unreliable but it's the only source that has some piece of information they wanted to discuss. The theories on those sites have been made fun of (such as the melon juice and drugs, theory), by many. I thought you meant posting racist speculations as in someone here, invented racist stories, themselves and posted it.

I am not saying I agree with assuming that the hoodie means anything but banks and hotels don't allow you to wear hoodies, either. There is a reason that they have a negative association with people. It doesn't have to have anything to do with the color of the person's skin, wearing the hoodie.



Fair enough.

For the record, I, and many people in Portland, wear hoodies all the time. I have never been refused entry to my bank or to a hotel.

Ever.

Can you explain that further?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I saw people link those pages and say the information is biased unreliable but it's the only source that has some piece of information they wanted to discuss. The theories on those sites have been made fun of (such as the melon juice and drugs, theory), by many.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I like to visit banks wearing hoodies and keeping my both hands in my pockets and looking around nervously. I figure the bank tellers need a little excitement in their lives and it helps to keep them on their toes. It's not my problem if they're hoodists.

 

[sgtbaker]

You are, however, allowed to form an opinion, and change that opinion as more evidence comes to light.

My opinion has, and will likely always be; we do not know the key determining factors of guilt or innocence, in this case. We do not know, and short of a miraculous video showing up out of nowhere, if Trayvon really did reach for that gun. If he did, the shooting is justified. Life threatening situations do not have to be evidence by life threatening injuries, the "victim" only has to show the situation was reasonable to assume their life was in danger. It is probable that GZ knew this, ahead of time. That makes it no more or less likely that GZ was in fear of his life.

I think what people like me find frustrating is the refusal from the Zimmerman side to acknowledge the inherent fishiness of his story.

Well, I find a few things frustrating, as well. The acknowledgement, for one, that you've decided long ago, your position. You refuse to acknowledge how that can effect your viewing of evidence. I said pages ago, that memory is very suggestive. Memory is very easily manipulated. What comes out a few days ago? The questionable "memory recall" tactic that Serino used and how it can alter memory.

Even before we learned about his casual relationship with honesty, the fact that Zimmerman concocted a version of events of his altercation with Martin that completely exonerated him of any wrongdoing is suspect in of itself.

Aside from his casual relationship with honesty, can you tell exactly which part is a flat out lie? The fact that his story makes him look innocent could either be a complete fabrication, or it could be how it really happened and he just happens to be innocent of A) instigating the fight and B) unjustifiably shooting Trayvon. As soon as you can prove Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon first and Zimmerman was not in fear of his life, I will jump to your side.

Maybe

Martin did attack him, and maybe Zimmerman was legitimately in fear for his life... but the idea that these events unfolded in a way in which Zimmerman the armed gung-ho neighborhood watch captain didn't in some way provoke the altercation with a teenage boy walking home from the store defies credulity.

Oh, so you can acknowledge that it's possible that he's telling the truth but find it frustrating that I refuse to jump on the bandwagon?

And to listen to Zimmerman attempt to sanitize his story in the recordings of the police interrogations ("I wasn't following him. I was just going in the same direction he was.") only reinforces this point of view.

And he said, behind Serino preventing him from "denial", "I thought he was long gone." I take that to mean, I wasn't following him as in "tailing him" I was following to see which direction he ran.

That being said, this doesn't mean Zimmerman is automatically - or even legally - guilty of the crimes for which he's been charged. And I don't think anyone here is demanding we fit Zimmerman for a lethal injection needle. He deserves all the fairness afforded by our legal system, and will hopefully get it.

But to refuse to acknowlege that this guy and his story are off strikes me as disingenuous

I am saying, as long as there is room for interpretation (which you admitted that there is), I can't jump in and say guilty.

 

[sgtbaker]

For the record, I, and many people in Portland, wear hoodies all the time. I have never been refused entry to my bank or to a hotel.

Ever.

Can you explain that further?

Right in the TAM section, a person complained about being asked to remove his hoodie, in the hotel. In the banks around my house, there are requests to remove your hood, hat, or face concealing gear, upon entrance.

For the record, there were discussions on hoodie bans, long before the Trayvon Martin shooting.

 

[sgtbaker]

Banks and hotels are private businesses. Martin was wearing a hoodie in public.

Since it has been pointed out so often in this thread that Zimmerman had the legal right to carry a gun - which I would argue has a much more negative connotation than a hoodie - by that same token, Martin had the legal right to put his hood up on a rainy evening.

And since when has there been a negative association with hoodies? I see kids wearing hoodies all the time. It's been a popular fashion trend for some time now. Granted, I think it looks stupid to wear your hood up for no particular reason, but I've never found it threatening or menacing in any way.

The question was about perception of wearing hoodies, not about if hoodies are allowed outdoors, in open public. Please don't twist this into me saying that Trayvon looked suspicious because he was wearing a hoodie because I said I didn't agree with it.

 

[Rare Truth]

You are, however, allowed to form an opinion, and change that opinion as more evidence comes to light.

I think what people like me find frustrating is the refusal from the Zimmerman side to acknowledge the inherent fishiness of his story.

Even before we learned about his casual relationship with honesty, the fact that Zimmerman concocted a version of events of his altercation with Martin that completely exonerated him of any wrongdoing is suspect in of itself.

Maybe Martin did attack him, and maybe Zimmerman was legitimately in fear for his life... but the idea that these events unfolded in a way in which Zimmerman the armed gung-ho neighborhood watch captain didn't in some way provoke the altercation with a teenage boy walking home from the store defies credulity.

And to listen to Zimmerman attempt to sanitize his story in the recordings of the police interrogations ("I wasn't following him. I was just going in the same direction he was.") only reinforces this point of view.

That being said, this doesn't mean Zimmerman is automatically - or even legally - guilty of the crimes for which he's been charged. And I don't think anyone here is demanding we fit Zimmerman for a lethal injection needle. He deserves all the fairness afforded by our legal system, and will hopefully get it.

But to refuse to acknowlege that this guy and his story are off strikes me as disingenuous.

A post so nice, it should be seen twice.

 

[Dancing David]

Thank you. I like the cut of your jib, too.

What is this, a fashion show?

 

[tsig]

Imagine a world where all a person has to say is...I was in fear of imminent death and great bodily harm, and if there are no witnesses, you get to off someone, scot free.

What a bizarre *********** law.

If all you have to do is be in fear of your life it seems you could blow away any body at any time then say "I was sincerely in fear of my life". How could your state of mind be disputed?

 

[Cylinder]

Does anyone know the precedence of a judge taking a recess to decide a bond?

MOM submitted a pile of evidence via sworn statements and recordings. The judge has to review it. One of the thresholds for bond in this case is the state has supplied proof evident or presumtion great. I wouldn't read much into his decision to issue a written order as opposed to one from the bench.

You have to remember that the judge in this case has less evidence before him than we do as people interested in the trial. The first time he sees it is when it's submitted by one of the parties. For instance, he probably hasn't read statements from W6 until they were offered during the bond hearing - we've been examining every nuance for weeks.

 

[sgtbaker]

If all you have to do is be in fear of your life it seems you could blow away any body at any time then say "I was sincerely in fear of my life". How could your state of mind be disputed?

I believe the law is worded as it must be reasonable. It is unreasonable to walk up to someone and blow them away, completely unprovoked.

 

[crimresearch]

If all you have to do is be in fear of your life it seems you could blow away any body at any time then say "I was sincerely in fear of my life". How could your state of mind be disputed?

That's why courtrooms all have those mind reading machines...

Or something.

 

[Cylinder]

Because Z is being charged with a non-bondable offense, it really is up to the discretion of the Judge.

Florida is different than other states. They have an affirmative right to bond in most circumstances - not just the right to bond process.

From the Florida constitution.

SECTION 14. Pretrial release and detention.—Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment and the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great, every person charged with a crime or violation of municipal or county ordinance shall be entitled to pretrial release on reasonable conditions. If no conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from risk of physical harm to persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial process, the accused may be detained.

Judge Lester made it clear he thought the evidence was strong for the charging offense.

If the evidence against Zimmerman is strong, he is required to be released on bond unless other circumstances exist. State v. Wyche:

It "is actually a greater degree of proof than that which is required to establish guilt merely to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt." ... Even when the prosecution's evidence is sufficient to convict on a capital or life offense, but there is some doubt arising from other evidence, contradictions, or discrepancies, this exacting standard is not met and the accused is entitled to reasonable bail.

Thus a Florida defendant charged with a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment has a substantive constitutional entitlement to bail unless the prosecution can show that proof of his guilt is evident or presumption of his guilt great, i.e., unless the prosecution can, at a pretrial hearing, establish the defendant's culpability to a standard higher even than that required for a sustainable conviction at trial.

State v. Perry

Further, where the State's evidence is sufficient to convict for a capital or life offense but is arguably impeached in substantial respects by other evidence or is replete with substantial contradictions and discrepancies, the proof does not meet the standard. Accordingly, the accused in such a case would be entitled to pretrial bail as a matter of right for such offense.

There's a ton of case law on point, since judges often like to exercise discretion.

What O'Mara was trying to do was, in the words of Judge Lester, a Reverse Arthur.

The burden is on the state to supply proof evident, presumption great. MOM had no burden to disprove anything. Since the court made a ruling on the strength of the evidence, that allows Zimmerman to rebut that assertion. The process was just an opening for O'Mara to get exculpatory evidence and argument before the media and give the court a gentle reminder about the correct standard for bond.

 

[crimresearch]

Florida is different that other states. They have an affirmative right to bond in most circumstances - not just the right to bond process.

From the Florida constitution.






If the evidence against Zimmerman is strong, he is required to be released on bond unless other circumstances exist. State v. Wyche:



State v. Perry



There's a ton of case law on point, since judges often like to excessive discretion.



The burden is on the state to supply proof evident, presumption great. MOM had no burden to disprove anything. Since the court made a ruling on the strength of the evidence, that allows Zimmerman to rebut that assertion. The process was just an opening for O'Mara to get exculpatory evidence and argument before the media and give the court a gentle reminder about the correct standard for bond.

Well put.