Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Cylinder]

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

ME-8C - the swabs taken from the cuff and lower sleeve of both hands - gave no indication for the presence of blood. [see round 1, page 106] We're still left with magic blood that only appears under the fingernails of Martin or a mechanism for trace blood being missed or removed from the body.

 

[Rare Truth]

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.

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 exercise 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.

You quoted it. You should be aware of the weakness of your defense:

"Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment"

Is GZ charged with a crime "punishable by life imprisonment" Ayup.

You really should read what you quote.

ETA: Oh, I know your problem; you still think Jeralyn is a mastermind lawyer.

Get over it. She aint.

 

[Dan O.]

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 started asking patrons to remove their hats and sunglasses when entering the bank around the same time that computerized facial identification became feasible. I don't think the tellers were particularly afraid of people wearing hats indoors. Though I haven't encountered any of those hotels restricting facial coverings, I imagine their requirement would also be driven by the technology and not some innate fear of a particular garb.

 

[johnny karate]

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.

Which means most likely we never will know exactly what happened. So all we have to go on is Zimmerman's word. And we have to determine the veracity of that is Zimmerman's credibility.

Can you honestly tell me you find Zimmerman to be a credible person?

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.

Yeah, I'm quite familiar with this logic by now, and how it influences the legality of the case. And as has been pointed out numerous times, it's completely ass-backwards for someone to be able to make any uncorroborated claim they want to, and have the burden be on someone else to disprove that claim. Especially in a situation that involves one person killing another.

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.

I'm not sure what you're going on about in reference to memory, but I have stated my position clearly and repeatedly. I've explained why I don't believe Zimmerman, and I've acknowledged my willingness to change my mind should evidence to the contrary be presented.

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.

Many inconsistencies in Zimmerman's narrative have been pointed out, but you and many others in this thread don't acknowledge them as instances of dishonesty.

My personal favorite:
Dispatcher: Are you following him.
Zimmerman: Yeah.

And then it becomes:
Zimmerman: I wasn't following him.

Two contradictory statements in a clear attempt by Zimmerman to cover his tracks and deny any culpability.

And all that is offered in response to this obvious contradiction is semantic sophistry.

Case in point:

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.

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.

Again, I find it completely nonsensical that the default position is to believe Zimmerman, and force others to disprove his story.

Speaking outside the bounds of legality, it's completely counter intuitive to not expect the person making a claim ("I shot him in self-defense") to substantiate that claim.

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?

Who's asking you to jump on any band wagon?

I only said it was frustrating that some people refuse to acknowledge Zimmerman's story is fishy. I've never expected anyone to completely reverse their position.

Please don't exaggerate things I've said.

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.

No one is asking you to.

Personally, I find this "You can never really know" brand of skepticism to be a cop-out. Definitive knowledge is rare, if it even exists at all. Reasonable-minded people can form opinions based on partial evidence, and that doesn't make them somehow wrong or biased as long as they are open to having their minds changed.

The O.J. Simpson case has been mentioned a few times, and serves as an excellent example of how expecting definitive knowledge of an event can be an unreasonable standard.

I doubt anyone in this thread defending Zimmerman thinks O.J. was innocent, despite the fact that he was proven so in a court of law, and we don't really know what happened the night those murders were committed.

 

[Rare Truth]

ME-8C - the swabs taken from the cuff and lower sleeve of both hands - gave no indication for the presence of blood. [see round 1, page 106] We're still left with magic blood that only appears under the fingernails of Martin or a mechanism for trace blood being missed or removed from the body.

Woo. Woo.

 

[triforcharity]

I'd be happy to explain more things to you. But before I do, I just want to make sure that you now understand and are acknowledging that nowhere did he say or intimate that only white people are capable of racism. Please confirm that. Otherwise it would be like moving on to subtraction lessons while you're still stuck on addition.

No, I want to understand what that sentence means. If YOU understand it, it should be very simple.

 

[johnny karate]

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.

I didn't.

I was simply making a point of my own before addressing the point you made.

And since you seemed to have missed it, I'll ask the question again:

Since when has there been a negative association with hoodies?

 

[Cylinder]

You quoted it. You should be aware of the weakness of your defense:

"Unless charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by life imprisonment"

Is GZ charged with a crime "punishable by life imprisonment" Ayup.

You really should read what you quote.

Wow. The word you're missing is and.

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.

For non-life felonies, the strength of evidence is not a factor.

For pretrial detention the state must show both that the charge is a life felony and proof evident, presumption great.

 

[triforcharity]

That whole Sherman Ware thing bears a striking resemblance to an iceberg's tip. Wonder how many of the officer's involved that night were also on duty the night Trayvon Martin was killed?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...1_sherman-ware-justin-collison-jerry-hargrett

Gotta love the video of the cop's kid blindsiding the vicitim, while his friend can be heard screaming 'Justin!! Justin!!, What is wrong with you??'

And you'll tell us how the Sherman Ware incident is relevant to the George Zimmerman case sometime soon, right?


Right?

And maybe before that you'll explain this.
"Since the defendant is every bit as non-white as the victim"

You and NBS get together and figure out how you can try to weasel out of that comment....I'll wait....

 

[johnny karate]

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.

I guess that depends. If you do so in a dark alley somewhere out of sight from any witnesses, you can make up any story you like after the fact.

Suddenly, "unreasonable" magically becomes "reasonable".

 

[Rare Truth]

Wow. The word you're missing is and.

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.

For non-life felonies, the strength of evidence is not a factor.

For pretrial detention the state must show both that the charge is a life felony and proof evident, presumption great.

AND....
wait for it folks....



The judge determined ...the evidence was strong.

du dud du da!

 

[triforcharity]

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

My limited knowledge derived from Law & Order reruns indicates it's usually a relatively quick procedure.

(I love that show BTW)

Usually, bond hearings are quick. 15-30 minutes, maybe an hour, decision ruled right away, next case.

In high profile, complex cases like this, it may be unusual, but it's understandable. Judge Lester has a lot of information to consider. Not just bond, but evidence too. He will need to take all of that into consideration, and most likely wants to "sleep on it" so he can make the most informed, unbiased decision possible. He's also (most likely) looking at other cases for some guidance.

 

[Rare Truth]

Wow.
....

Wasn't it you who said Zimmerman would give his testimony "in camera - off the record and out of view."

Oh yeah, it was.

You really need to stop getting advice from the Timothy McVeigh defense team.

 

[triforcharity]

Wow. The word you're missing is and.

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.

For non-life felonies, the strength of evidence is not a factor.

For pretrial detention the state must show both that the charge is a life felony and proof evident, presumption great.

RT, Cylinder is right. The "and" part is very important.

He is charged with a PBL felony, correct. Now the judge must decide if the evidence is strong that he had some criminal involvement with the crime.

 

[triforcharity]

Wasn't it you who said Zimmerman would give his testimony "in camera - off the record and out of view."

Oh yeah, it was.

You really need to stop getting advice from the Timothy McVeigh defense team.

He might have, via letter or some other form to the judge.

 

[Rare Truth]

RT, Cylinder is right. The "and" part is very important.

He is charged with a PBL felony, correct. Now the judge must decide if the evidence is strong that he had some criminal involvement with the crime.

The judge said explicitly, and I quote: "The evidence is strong."

 

[Rare Truth]

He might have, via letter or some other form to the judge.

Well, he didn't.

So there's that.

O'Mara looked foolish during the entire episode. He turned it into a mini-trial, and you could tell the judge was losing patience with him. O'Mara even had the audacity to ask the judge something that has never been asked before a trial: Allocution.

He actually wanted Zimmerman to go on the stand and not deal with what every other defendant must contend with if he takes the stand: cross-examination. You could almost hear the judge chuckling, as if to say: you want me to grant what???

Lester nipped that sucker down but good.

And he most certainly can keep him on No Bond status. Murder 2 is a non-bondable charge. It is up to the discretion of the judge, and Z has shown, in the words of the judge: Zimmerman has no respect for the law or the judicial system.

 

[johnny karate]

The judge said explicitly, and I quote: "The evidence is strong."

Good point.

Unless the judge changes his mind, he seems to have already decided that "the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great", so it seems a bit silly to consider that a hurdle at this point.

 

[Rare Truth]

Just so it is on record (again) here, these are the words of Judge Lester:

"This is a serious charge for which life may be imposed; the evidence against him is strong;

he has been charged with one prior crime, for which he went through a pre-trial diversion program;

and has had an injunction lodged against him ...

Most importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process."

 

[johnny karate]

Clearly, Judge Lester is not a fan.