Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

Maybe more than you calling it a bizarre denial.

You might want to go back and read that post. I was specifically referring to your consternation over the mystery of Shellie Zimmerman's perjury charge.

But hey, if you've got to overreach a bit to score yourself a little personal victory, you go right ahead. Don't let reality stop you.

No, I have note determined if she committed perjury. Have you already determined that she is guilty ? I think they are planning to have a court case so the state can attempt to prove she committed perjury. I understand it requires more than contradictory statements, but since it appears you already know she's guilty, maybe you can explain it to us ?

She lied under oath during a court proceeding. If there is some other aspect to committing perjury of which I am not aware, feel free to educate me.

It's cute how you have to go back a few months to keep misrepresenting my views.

Not nearly as cute as the way you pretend this perjury charge is some kind of unfathomable mystery of which we can never know the truth.

 

[triforcharity]

ROTLFMAO.

Here comes the denial. The immunity hearing is the same whether you call it self defense or SYG. But you go ahead and start working on the backpedaling. We all know what you said and meant.

So, are you, an internet poster, saying that MOM is wrong, that the coming hearing will be a SYG hearing, and not a traditional self defense hearing, as MOM has just said?

Interesting. Tell me more.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No. It's. not.

And you know it.

THIS is what I said, and you "marked."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8523252&postcount=3743

[ Originally Posted by Rare Truth [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif[/qimg]
Perils of GZ going the immunity hearing route:

1. He almost necessarily has to take the stand. No one can testify to what Z felt, what he reasonably believed was fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

2. Opens himself up to cross.

3. What is revealed in the immunity hearing can be used against him at a jury trial. Two whacks at the apple for the prosecution.

Can he refuse to testify at an immunity hearing? Sure. How much weight do you think the same judge who was duped by a "potted palm" primrose-path style will give that refusal?

I've predicted long ago there will be no immunity hearing. I'll repeat what I said then: Mark it. Not gonnah happen.

/QUOTE]

A traditional self-defense trial does NOT carry the immunity of the SYG defense - and you know it.

"The facts don't seem to support a `stand your ground' defense," O'Mara said."
Live with it.

ROTLFMAO.

Here comes the denial. The immunity hearing is the same whether you call it self defense or SYG. But you go ahead and start working on the backpedaling. We all know what you said and meant.

So, are you, an internet poster, saying that MOM is wrong, that the coming hearing will be a SYG hearing, and not a traditional self defense hearing, as MOM has just said?

Interesting. Tell me more.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...P5hRHw?docId=2b755d5ead6346f2bc6a2e6262af6319

The facts don't seem to support a 'stand your ground' defense," O'Mara said.
Still, he said Monday that the defense team will try to get the case dismissed during a 'stand your ground' hearing.

"My concern with even calling it a 'stand your ground' hearing is we need to be more realistic," O'Mara said. "I've said from Day 1 we need to wait until all the evidence comes out."

O'Mara said he thinks people have a perception about the law that isn't accurate.

"People look at 'stand your ground' and immediately think somebody's standing there with deadly force — be it a gun or a weapon — and having the opportunity to back up but not having the need to under the statute," he said. "I think the evidence in this case suggests that my client was reacting to having his nose broken and reacted to that by screaming out for help.

"He wasn't in position where I think there was any suggestion where he could retreat, which he is allowed to do under the statute."

If a judge were to side with Zimmerman in a pretrial hearing under the state's self-defense statute, the murder charge would be dismissed immediately. O'Mara said that he would not have to invoke any part of the "stand your ground" statute under the strategy he plans to use.

to invoke any part of the "stand your ground" statute under the strategy he plans to use.
"I think the facts seem to support that though we have a stand-your-ground immunity hearing, what this really is, is a simple, self-defense immunity hearing," the defense attorney said.

Now you can explain to me how MOM is wrong, and it really isn't an immunity hearing. Hopefully without cherry picking quotes from MOM, like Rare Truth did.

 

[KatieG]

Reading this might help with the confusion some seem to be having.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trendin...-arrest-questions-stand-ground-043707411.html

 

[Cylinder]

Reading this might help with the confusion some seem to be having.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trendin...-arrest-questions-stand-ground-043707411.html

That (early) article seems to be making the same mistake that many others have been making today. Statutory immuninty does not require a stand your ground claim - it is available for a claim of traditional self defense, defense of home and defense of others as well.

A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,

 

[This is The End]

Considering evidence was put forth months ago in this thread showing why it would be a regular self-defense immunity hearing and not a Stand Your Ground immunity hearing, who in the world was in control of that press release at gzlegalcase.com last week that used the wrong word?

Very weird.

If you look at it though, you will notice that they used "quotes" around it every single time. They didn't miss one. Perhaps they were just using the term they knew the media loved. Then a week later MOM had to walk it back because of the confusion.

It'll still be interesting when and if it happens. Z will be open to cross. And unlike all other hearings, stuff from that hearing will be allowed in the trial. (AFAIK)

 

[Cylinder]

It's just important to realize that a tradition self-defense claim is available at what the media has been calling a SYG hearing. It's not two different processes. The only change here is MOM reiterating (which really means it isn't a change at all) that Zimmerman's claim isn't that he had an avenue of retreat that he chose not to use. Whether you beleive him or not - that has never been part of his claim.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

She lied under oath during a court proceeding. If there is some other aspect to committing perjury of which I am not aware, feel free to educate me.

http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2005/TitleXLVI/ch0837.html

You tell me if the only criteria for perjury is lying under oath during a court proceeding or not.

Not nearly as cute as the way you pretend this perjury charge is some kind of unfathomable mystery of which we can never know the truth.

Stating I am not sure she is guilty is now somehow the same as 'an unfathomable mystery of which we can never know the truth ?'

It must be nice to live in your little world where you already know all the answers and there are no shades of grey.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Considering evidence was put forth months ago in this thread showing why it would be a regular self-defense immunity hearing and not a Stand Your Ground immunity hearing, who in the world was in control of that press release at gzlegalcase.com last week that used the wrong word?

Very weird.

If you look at it though, you will notice that they used "quotes" around it every single time. They didn't miss one. Perhaps they were just using the term they knew the media loved. Then a week later MOM had to walk it back because of the confusion.

It'll still be interesting when and if it happens. Z will be open to cross. And unlike all other hearings, stuff from that hearing will be allowed in the trial. (AFAIK)

You forgot to answer my questions ... again. It's very difficult to discuss the case when you won't answer any questions.

No, we didn't discuss it for two whole pages. You just kept asserting things without backing them up. Would you like to quote to where you linked to some evidence to back up your claims ?

But, just to clarify, so I can understand, when you say "Reasonable for the court to conclude does not mean the same thing as reasonable for us to conclude" ...Do you find JKLs conclusion reasonable in the non-legal sense (whatever that means) ?

Also - please link to your described evidence that was put forth ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

ANyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyone who heard her testimony under oath and saw the jailhouse transcripts knew she was guilty.

Geezus. It's like watching a dude shoot someone in cold blood right before our very eyes, then afterwards saying, "hey, innocent until proven guilty, dude."

Yes, that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing is a crock of ****.

 

[johnny karate]

http://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2005/TitleXLVI/ch0837.html

You tell me if the only criteria for perjury is lying under oath during a court proceeding or not.

Why would I do your work for you?

If I'm wrong, go right ahead and cite the part of the law that establishes that.

Stating I am not sure she is guilty is now somehow the same as 'an unfathomable mystery of which we can never know the truth ?'

It's called sarcasm.

The woman lied under oath.

That is irrefutable.

But for some reason you just can't decide if she's guilty.

Now, if only she had been caught with a screwdriver and some jewelry...

Open and shut case, right?

It must be nice to live in your little world where you already know all the answers and there are no shades of grey.

She lied under oath. There is direct evidence of that.

What "shade of grey" do you imagine exists here?

Yes, that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing is a crock of ****.

I don't think anyone wants to deny Shellie Zimmerman due process.

But the facts are the facts.

I'm sorry if this is so troublesome for you. I guess not everything can be as simple as determining if a kid with a screwdriver and jewelry was involved in a burglary.

 

[triforcharity]

Yes, that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing is a crock of ****.

Yes, in a court of law, that applies. In the court of public opinion.....

Question for you. If she went to trial, and you were on the jury, would you convict her of lying to the courts?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why would I do your work for you?

If I'm wrong, go right ahead and cite the part of the law that establishes that. .

I've provided you with the information. It's up to you to use it or not. You seem convinced you understand the legal definition of perjury and that SZ committed it. That's fine.

It's called sarcasm.

That would sum up the majority of your posts content.

The woman lied under oath.

That is irrefutable.

But for some reason you just can't decide if she's guilty.

Now, if only she had been caught with a screwdriver and some jewelry...

Open and shut case, right?

Way to conflate two separate issues and continue beating a dead horse.

She lied under oath. There is direct evidence of that.

What "shade of grey" do you imagine exists here?

Whether what she said is actually perjury or not.

I don't think anyone wants to deny Shellie Zimmerman due process.

More sarcasm...

But the facts are the facts.

I'm sorry if this is so troublesome for you. I guess not everything can be as simple as determining if a kid with a screwdriver and jewelry was involved in a burglary.

And continuing with conflating two different issues.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, in a court of law, that applies. In the court of public opinion.....

Question for you. If she went to trial, and you were on the jury, would you convict her of lying to the courts?

That would depend on the evidence presented and the defense presented.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

In his latest blog post Saturday, Leatherman must have been really digging for something to post, because this is what he came up with:

That led me to think that someone was in the truck ... If I’m right, the police have the phone records, they know who the second person was and this would be one of the facts that they probably would withhold until the last possible moment for maximum strategic value.

Now whom might that person have been?

I’ll hazard a guess that, if it was not Frank Taffee, ... it was the first person who arrived at the crime scene carrying a flashlight and a cell phone with which he took a photo of the back of GZ’s head.

Yup, he's right on par with Jeralyn at talk left...

Oops. I guess I missed that Leatherman also believes that:

http://frederickleatherman.wordpres...of-the-useless-press-conference/#comment-9177

He wasn’t on his back when he fired the fatal shot. The photograph of the back of his head and the forensics establish that.

Between the extra person riding with GZ and claiming that the shooting didn't occur while TM was on top of GZ, I think Leatherman has some whole kind of alternate universe thing going on.

 

[johnny karate]

I've provided you with the information. It's up to you to use it or not. You seem convinced you understand the legal definition of perjury and that SZ committed it. That's fine.

You provided me with a link to a website and sent me on a fishing expedition.

If I'm wrong and you are right, it should be too difficult for you to simply offer a cite.

That would sum up the majority of your posts content.

It's a shame you have to resort to personalzing the discussion.

Way to conflate two separate issues and continue beating a dead horse.

It's not a conflation of issues, it's a demonstration of a double standard.

Whether what she said is actually perjury or not.

She lied under oath. That's perjury. Feel to offer a cite that proves me wrong.

More sarcasm...

No sarcasm at all.

You seem to think I'm arguing Shellie Zimmerman doesn't have the right to a fair trial and all the legal protections afforded here. I'm not.

She has all those rights and protections.

She also committed perjury.

And continuing with conflating two different issues.

Again, not a conflation. Just a demonstration of your double standard.

 

[Cylinder]

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You provided me with a link to a website and sent me on a fishing expedition.

If I'm wrong and you are right, it should be too difficult for you to simply offer a cite.

837.02 Perjury in official proceedings.--
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

It's a shame you have to resort to personalzing the discussion.

It was simply an observation of the sarcasm-to-content ratio in your recent posts.

It's not a conflation of issues, it's a demonstration of a double standard.

You are conflating two wildly different issues and misrepresenting my views. It can hardly be a double a standard if the situations are so different the same standard does not apply.

She lied under oath. That's perjury. Feel to offer a cite that proves me wrong.

Perjury has more requirements than that.

No sarcasm at all.

You seem to think I'm arguing Shellie Zimmerman doesn't have the right to a fair trial and all the legal protections afforded here. I'm not.

She has all those rights and protections.

She also committed perjury.

That remains to be proven.

Again, not a conflation. Just a demonstration of your double standard.

You are conflating two wildly different issues and misrepresenting my views.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Petition for Writ of Prohibition

Seems to me to sum up the judges behavior quite well, I'm still somewhat amazed that a judge is behaving in this manner, most of the judges I have observed do a much better job of at at least pretending to be impartial.

 

[Cylinder]

O'Mara needs to read JREF more often. Somehow he's suffering under an impression that the judge found the Zimmerman was planning to flee and only thwarted by GPS monitoring.