• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is the best you could do?

1) The "freedictionary.com" doesn't meet my stated requirement of a good dictionary anymore than wikipedia would pass muster as a quality research resource.

2) Even if it did, a colloquial descriptivist definition proffered by a dictionary is not the same thing as a precise, or even correct, usage of a term. Even if you accept the notion of biological differences between races (I do) there is still no such thing as a "German race" outside of the hazy vernacular. That would be like calling "American" a race. I defy anyone to find a reference to either "German" or "Mexican" as a race in a modern genetics/demography textbook or any reputable source.

3) Finally, I never said that "Mexican [couldn't] be used in discussions of race" I said that "Mexican" is not a race. Again, feel free to cite a legitimate scholarly source that says otherwise.


Ahh, the no true dictionary fallacy so early? :D (That link was to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, by the way).

Seriously, your opinion and what bugs you is all yours, and I respect that.

In the discussion of possible racism by or against Zimmerman, either hispanic or Mexican will do until a real racial term comes along.
 
Last edited:
Carefully planning our his diabolical murder plan of course! You know, the one where according to you TM has surrendered and is getting off him and GZ shoots him in cold blood. The guy's a criminal genius!

The Best Played Game of Red Light/Green Light in the History of the World!

Of course, Zimmerman is smart enough to only do the illegal stuff when no-one is looking/listening/recording. This is defeated simply by filling any gaps - however minor - with whatever wild speculation happens to be in fashoin at the moment and ignoring the actual independant witnesses who observed parts of the altercation.
 
Yes, that is correct. Initially smith, now verified by mead.

Sgt. Ceisla, (p.5) "He saw a flashlight near the 'T' intersection illuminated on the ground."

Ofc. Mead, (p. 11) "Officer Mead saw a flashlight 'on' at the intersection of the two walkways when he responded to the scene."
 
2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges

(a) Application. This rule applies only to county and circuit judges in all matters in all divisions of court. (b) Parties. Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

(c) Motion. A motion to disqualify shall:

(1) be in writing;

(2) allege specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant relies as the grounds for disqualification;

(3) be sworn to by the party by signing the motion under oath or by a separate affidavit; and

(4) include the dates of all previously granted motions to disqualify filed under this rule in the case and the dates of the orders granting those motions. The attorney for the party shall also separately certify that the motion and the client’s statements are made in good faith. In addition to filing with the clerk, the movant shall immediately serve a copy of the motion on the subject judge as set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080.

(d) Grounds. A motion to disqualify shall show:

(1) that the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge; or

(2) that the judge before whom the case is pending, or some person related to said judge by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, is a party thereto or is interested in the result thereof, or that said judge is related to an attorney or counselor of record in the cause by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or that said judge is a material witness for or against one of the parties to the cause.

(e) Time. A motion to disqualify shall be filed within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling. Any motion for disqualification made during a hearing or trial must be based on facts discovered during the hearing or trial and may be stated on the record, provided that it is also promptly reduced to writing in compliance with subdivision (c) and promptly filed. A motion made during hearing or trial shall be ruled on immediately.

(f) Determination — Initial Motion. The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify under subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action. If any motion is legally insufficient, an order denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue with the motion.

(g) Determination — Successive Motions. If a judge has been previously disqualified on motion for alleged prejudice or partiality under subdivision (d)(1), a successor judge shall not be disqualified based on a successive motion by the same party unless the successor judge rules that he or she is in fact not fair or impartial in the case. Such a successor judge may rule on the truth of the facts alleged in support of the motion.

(h) Prior Rulings. Prior factual or legal rulings by a disqualified judge may be reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion for reconsideration, which must be filed within 20 days of the order of disqualification, unless good cause is shown for a delay in moving for reconsideration or other grounds for reconsideration exist.

(i) Judge’s Initiative. Nothing in this rule limits the judge’s authority to enter an order of disqualification on the judge’s own initiative.

(j) Time for Determination. The judge shall rule on a motion to disqualify immediately, but no later than 30 days after the service of the motion as set forth in subdivision (c). If not ruled on within 30 days of service, the motion shall be deemed granted and the moving party may seek an order from the court directing the clerk to reassign the case.

It should be noted the Judge Recksiedler was disqualified under (d)(2) conflict of interest, so the current court will be limited to a finding of sufficiency and cannot comment (or even consider) the factual nature of the claim (f). Lester should rule "immediately, but no later than 30 days" (j) or, alternately, not rule at all and have the cleck of court reaasign the case.
 
Last edited:
Did they mark the location of the keys in a photo? I couldn't find one.

That OM-1. It should be in most sets.

css.jpg


ZimmermanCrimeScene06_540x405.jpg
 
It's in the Serino audio from the 29th. The one where he starts to pick apart the story and times the 84 seconds. He asks why George wasn't walking back by that point and George says it was because his flashlight wasn't working (again, they found a flashlight that was working) and that he was scared because it was dark back there.

ETA: Audio, not video.

Couldn't he just have been messing with the 'tactical' flashlight trying to get it working, then on failing to do that, realized he had the small flashlight on his keyring and decided to use that instead? That was what I assumed he'd done when I listened to the police interview, and it could easily have taken a minute or two. The fact he was using the crappy little flashlight at all supports the idea he didn't want to walk back without a light. I don't see why he'd have bothered with it otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Sgt. Ceisla, (p.5) "He saw a flashlight near the 'T' intersection illuminated on the ground."

Ofc. Mead, (p. 11) "Officer Mead saw a flashlight 'on' at the intersection of the two walkways when he responded to the scene."


Wouldn't that be funny if what officer mead actually said was he saw a flashlight on (a keychain) but the OCR messed it up. Wouldn't it be funnier if this was like dejavous because we already had this discussion. But my mind plays tricks on me sometimes where I remember things that haven't happened yet. Maybe you could dig up a link to that document while I go review the rules for the MDC.
 
No one doubts the prosecution's burden, by why do you think this same rigid legal standard must apply to casual discussion of the case?

Do you personally think Casey Anthony was innocent of the crimes for which she was charged?

How about O.J.?

Or is forcing the discussion into the confines of legal standards just a convenient way to avoid thinking too hard about a complex issue?

How it works around here is that the person making the claim has the burden of proving that claim.

Zimmerman has a made a positive claim with a lot of specific details, and there are people here who defend that claim.

Just because the legal system is set up counter intuitively so that the prosecution must disprove that positive claim doesn't mean that's how it must work in any debate about the case.

If someone came here and claimed to have seen Bigfoot and demanded those who doubted must disprove that claim, they'd be laughed off the forum.

But for some reason, there are lazy thinkers in this thread who would rather fall back on a legal standard irrelevant to this discussion than actually provide evidence for the claim they are defending.
A post worthy of reposting.
 
Does anyone have a link directly to the pdf? I don't have a scribd account. Thanks in advance.

Weird how they include this:

[at the June 29th bond hearing] "The State did not offer evidence to rebut Mr. Zimmerman's self-defense claim."

What in the world???

And what about this gem:

"Generally, a statement by the judge that he feels a party has lied in a case indicates bias against the party."

That tells you all you need to know about this motion. It's the defense preaching to their choir.

That is an amazing statement by O'Mara.
 
2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges



It should be noted the Judge Recksiedler was disqualified under (d)(2) conflict of interest, so the current court will be limited to a finding of sufficiency and cannot comment (or even consider) the factual nature of the claim (f). Lester should rule "immediately, but no later than 30 days" (j) or, alternately, not rule at all and have the cleck of court reaasign the case.

I think Lester will be disqualified, but I don't agree with it. That's just absurd. So GZ should be allowed to lie in court, and attempt to "game the system", and the judge should continue to have to show no bias? I think it shows a reasonable bias.

What would be even funnier, is if a new judge is assigned, he revokes his bond and charges him with perjury. Since any and all motions are up for reconsideration.

Basically GZ and MOM are continuing to game the system. They've lied to the judge, and the judge not will (most likely) be removed from the case. What happens if they come in and do it to another judge?

I don't think that GZ should be allowed to ask for the removal of the judge. The reason the judge doesn't trust what GZ says, is because of HIS own actions. Plain and simple.

Potted palm....I still laugh!!
 
He had two flashlights. The one they found ON was apparently working. But it still doesn't explain why he stood there for 84 seconds, on the phone with the dispatcher, in front of the homes on RVC and never told the dispatcher an address, since the only thing going through that mind of his was finding an address, any address, must...find...address...for...dispatcher!

You seemed to doubt that the flashlight was working and I explained why I believe him when he said he was having difficulty with the flashlight.

I think that is why NBS keeps making posts about this being premeditated. The situations that are being used to prove GZ is lying tend to be situations that unfolded during the phone call with the dispatcher. People question how he could not know the name of the street, when you can clearly hear him having difficulty giving directions. People think he is lying about the flashlight because the officer said it was working when you can hear him fumbling with the address and hitting a flashlight. Those situations, as far as I am concerned, are either honest or part of a set up. Since we all agree that he probably didn't leave the car with the intent to kill Trayvon, the logical conclusion, at least to me, is that he is telling the truth about the address and the flashlight. That doesn't mean everything that came out of his mouth is honest, it just means I have a hard time doubting that he a) can't give an exact address and b) he had difficulty with the flashlight. That is all I am saying.
 
You seemed to doubt that the flashlight was working and I explained why I believe him when he said he was having difficulty with the flashlight.

I think that is why NBS keeps making posts about this being premeditated. The situations that are being used to prove GZ is lying tend to be situations that unfolded during the phone call with the dispatcher. People question how he could not know the name of the street, when you can clearly hear him having difficulty giving directions. People think he is lying about the flashlight because the officer said it was working when you can hear him fumbling with the address and hitting a flashlight. Those situations, as far as I am concerned, are either honest or part of a set up. Since we all agree that he probably didn't leave the car with the intent to kill Trayvon, the logical conclusion, at least to me, is that he is telling the truth about the address and the flashlight. That doesn't mean everything that came out of his mouth is honest, it just means I have a hard time doubting that he a) can't give an exact address and b) he had difficulty with the flashlight. That is all I am saying.

And yet he never found an address.
 
I think Lester will be disqualified, but I don't agree with it. That's just absurd. So GZ should be allowed to lie in court, and attempt to "game the system", and the judge should continue to have to show no bias? I think it shows a reasonable bias.

What would be even funnier, is if a new judge is assigned, he revokes his bond and charges him with perjury. Since any and all motions are up for reconsideration.

Basically GZ and MOM are continuing to game the system. They've lied to the judge, and the judge not will (most likely) be removed from the case. What happens if they come in and do it to another judge?

I don't think that GZ should be allowed to ask for the removal of the judge. The reason the judge doesn't trust what GZ says, is because of HIS own actions. Plain and simple.

Potted palm....I still laugh!!

Discussed here:

http://frederickleatherman.wordpres...am-for-help-punctuated-by-a-gunshot/#comments

They don't think George will be able to forum shop.
 
Um, the judge may or may not agree with the change of judges. His reasons for the statement are clear. Now to avoid appeal problems in the future, I assume some consultation will occur, especially with other judges.

And then we will know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom