Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

So no immunity hearing? O'Mara claims he's still waiting for Judge Nelson to rule on "combining" the hearing with the trial, but from I understand, Florida law says the immunity hearing has to happen no less than 45 days before trial, which is why she reserved April for it. Also, there's two evidentiary standards for the trial and the hearing. In the hearing, the onus is on the defense to prove self-defense, so the defendant usually has to testify. While in the trial, the onus is on the state. I don't see how you can combine these without creating a basis for appeal, since one of those standards will be violated.

So in effect, the defense has waived the immunity hearing but is working to obscure that fact for public consumption. This isn't too surprising, though, since I don't think anyone here thinks George would have won immunity, correct?

Not a clue if they can be combined, but I don't think GZ would have won an immunity hearing, mostly because I don't think there is enough evidence for either side to effectively prove their case.

 

[Unabogie]

I might agree with you, it may not be material.



However you interpreted my post to arrive at that conclusion, you've misinterpreted it.

Then why were you concerned about two standards and why were you saying that Witness 8 should be prosecuted under the same rule that Shellie was? I think you're just all over the place on this. On the one hand, you say that perjury is almost never prosecuted, and even if it were, Corey has no jurisdiction and shouldn't even be able to charge Shellie. And even then, you say she can't prove it without proving she knowingly lied and it can't be close or else it has to go Shellie's way at trial. But then you turn right around and say that Corey should charge Witness 8 over something you agree isn't even a material fact, even though it's open to the same ambiguousness defense that you've invented for Shellie, and then you wonder out loud why she isn't already charged?

I think you just want whatever helps George and your principles are squishy.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Here is the exchange in question.

BDLR:_ OK, did you end up going to the hospital or somewhere?

Dee Dee:_ Mmmm…Yeah, I had high blood pressure.

So granted, this isn't good for her credibility, and certainly witnesses who lie should not be believed (but don't forget that standard when George does it, okay?) But if you guys want to parse Shellie's obvious deception and blame it on ambiguous questions, I'm not sure why you wouldn't give DD the same benefit of the doubt? I do see a double standard here, but it seems to be yours.

You might be right, there is some ambiguity - did you go to the "hospital or somewhere ?" I wonder why BDLR would ask the question that way. Any thoughts ? Why would BDLR add 'or somewhere' ?

She clearly told everyone she had to go to the hospital. Sybrina said it, Crump said it. So she clearly lied, even if there is some ambiguity of whether she lied during the deposition or not.

I think this is the tip of the iceberg for DeeDees lies. Clearly the defense knew she hadn't gone to the hospital already. I think more lies will come out. I don't know if the state will find it helpful to call her as a witness now.

 

[Bob001]

Subject for discussion: Did GZ lock himself into his story too soon? He apparently told the first arriving police officer (paraphrasing) "I shot the suspect because I was in fear for my life." That really sounds like something he would have learned in one of his law enforcement or CWP classes. Suppose he had said something like, "I'm not sure what happened. We were tussling on the ground and he reached for my gun and I grabbed his hand and we were struggling and it just went off. This is terrible...." Etc. From what we know (or think we know), I find it hard to sympathize with his claim that he was reasonably in fear for his life from an unarmed teenager. But if he had claimed that the gun went off by accident during a struggle, I think it would be much more credible, and without eyewitnesses contradicting him it would be much harder for the prosecutors to challenge.

 

[Unabogie]

You might be right, there is some ambiguity - did you go to the "hospital or somewhere ?" I wonder why BDLR would ask the question that way. Any thoughts ? Why would BDLR add 'or somewhere' ?

She clearly told everyone she had to go to the hospital. Sybrina said it, Crump said it. So she clearly lied, even if there is some ambiguity of whether she lied during the deposition or not.

I think this is the tip of the iceberg for DeeDees lies. Clearly the defense knew she hadn't gone to the hospital already. I think more lies will come out. I don't know if the state will find it helpful to call her as a witness now.

So you're now of the opinion that if a witness lies about small things, we should discount everything else they say? Tell me more...

 

[Unabogie]

Subject for discussion: Did GZ lock himself into his story too soon? He apparently told the first arriving police officer (paraphrasing) "I shot the suspect because I was in fear for my life." That really sounds like something he would have learned in one of his law enforcement or CWP classes. Suppose he had said something like, "I'm not sure what happened. We were tussling on the ground and he reached for my gun and I grabbed his hand and we were struggling and it just went off. This is terrible...." Etc. From what we know (or think we know), I find it hard to sympathize with his claim that he was reasonably in fear for his life from an unarmed teenager. But if he had claimed that the gun went off by accident during a struggle, I think it would be much more credible, and without eyewitnesses contradicting him it would be much harder for the prosecutors to challenge.

He still runs into the problem of why he was there in the first place, since Trayvon was simply minding his own business when George invented, in his own mind, a character that was a criminal who "always got away" and a "*********** punk (or coon)". There was no good reason for him to follow Trayvon, and there was definitely no good reason to continue to follow him after the dispatcher asked him not to. So even if he claims it was all an accident, the whole situation was his doing unless he can prove that Trayvon attacked him for no reason.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Then why were you concerned about two standards and why were you saying that Witness 8 should be prosecuted under the same rule that Shellie was?

Because I hadn't thought the matter through completely, and was just posting as I saw information as I watched the hearing.

I think you're just all over the place on this. On the one hand, you say that perjury is almost never prosecuted, and even if it were, Corey has no jurisdiction and shouldn't even be able to charge Shellie.

I said that Corey has no jurisdiction ? Where ?

And even then, you say she can't prove it without proving she knowingly lied and it can't be close or else it has to go Shellie's way at trial.

Yes, that's probably close enough to my position.

But then you turn right around and say that Corey should charge Witness 8 over something you agree isn't even a material fact,

You should review what I actually wrote:

I might agree with you, it may not be material.

even though it's open to the same ambiguousness defense that you've invented for Shellie, and then you wonder out loud why she isn't already charged?

You have no problem with the possibility that the state has known she was lying about the hospital for a while, but didn't think it was worth correcting ?

I think you just want whatever helps George and your principles are squishy.

Okay.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So you're now of the opinion that if a witness lies about small things, we should discount everything else they say? Tell me more...

Again with the strawmen ? Please stop it.

I think more lies will come out. I don't know if the state will find it helpful to call her as a witness now.

 

[Unabogie]

Because I hadn't thought the matter through completely, and was just posting as I saw information as I watched the hearing.

Fair enough.

I said that Corey has no jurisdiction ? Where ?

Didn't the defense file a motion on that very issue? Sorry, I thought it was you but it could have been another posted.

Yes, that's probably close enough to my position.

But it doesn't appear to be universal.

You should review what I actually wrote:

I might agree with you, it may not be material.

Weasel words are cheap.

You have no problem with the possibility that the state has known she was lying about the hospital for a while, but didn't think it was worth correcting ?

How do you know how long they knew about this, and if it's not a material fact, why would it be important?

 

[Unabogie]

Again with the strawmen ? Please stop it.

I think more lies will come out. I don't know if the state will find it helpful to call her as a witness now.

You didn't specify which lies. You cite one lie, which is about something you admit (or weaselly admit) wasn't material, but then you suggest other lies will come out. You insinuate that if there are enough lies, then she shouldn't be believed (or else why would the state not choose to use her?) which is a standard you clearly don't hold George to. He's free to lie about things such as the location of the fight, the dialogue that Trayvon used, and whether or not he immediately fell after a single punch because memory is unreliable and other excuses. I'm just calling you out on your double standard.

 

[Bob001]

.... There was no good reason for him to follow Trayvon, and there was definitely no good reason to continue to follow him after the dispatcher asked him not to......

"So we've had a lot of break-ins in the community recently and I saw this guy walking around looking in windows and I had never seen him before so I followed him just to see what he was up to and I know the dispatcher said they didn't need me to do that but I just wanted to help the police and I lost sight of the guy and I started walking back to my truck and all of sudden he jumped out of the bushes and knocked me down and then we were struggling....." It doesn't matter if any of it is true, it's plausible and hard to disprove.

 

[Unabogie]

"So we've had a lot of break-ins in the community recently and I saw this guy walking around looking in windows and I had never seen him before so I followed him just to see what he was up to and I know the dispatcher said they didn't need me to do that but I just wanted to help the police and I lost sight of the guy and I started walking back to my truck and all of sudden he jumped out of the bushes and knocked me down and then we were struggling....." It doesn't matter if any of it is true, it's plausible and hard to disprove.

But that's pretty much his story except he says he was looking for an address when he was attacked. The problem is that the evidence says he wasn't walking back to his truck, and that's where he'll get into trouble no matter what.

 

[Giz]

"So we've had a lot of break-ins in the community recently and I saw this guy walking around looking in windows and I had never seen him before so I followed him just to see what he was up to and I know the dispatcher said they didn't need me to do that but I just wanted to help the police and I lost sight of the guy and I started walking back to my truck and all of sudden he jumped out of the bushes and knocked me down and then we were struggling....." It doesn't matter if any of it is true, it's plausible and hard to disprove.

Exactly. Who knows what the result of a civil trial would be (where you just need 51% plausibility) but, based on what is in the public domain, there simply doesn't seem to be anywhere near enough to convict beyond reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal trial.

 

[johnny karate]

I might agree with you, it may not be material.

It's not material. At all.

And I predict you will continue being non-commital on this point, while never once making an argument as to how it could be material.

However you interpreted my post to arrive at that conclusion, you've misinterpreted it.

You said DeeDee lied and then wondered why she wasn't being held to the same standard as Shellie for those lies. That's a tacit admission that Shellie also lied.

You might be right, there is some ambiguity - did you go to the "hospital or somewhere ?" I wonder why BDLR would ask the question that way. Any thoughts ? Why would BDLR add 'or somewhere' ?

How interesting that you weren't as curious about O'Mara's similiarly ambiguous phrasing when questioning Shellie Zimmerman.

She clearly told everyone she had to go to the hospital. Sybrina said it, Crump said it. So she clearly lied, even if there is some ambiguity of whether she lied during the deposition or not.

She "clearly lied"? After the semantic hoops you jumped through to make the argument that Shellie Zimmerman didn't lie, how can you possibly make such a claim with a straight face?

 

[Giz]

He still runs into the problem of why he was there in the first place, since Trayvon was simply minding his own business when George invented, in his own mind, a character that was a criminal who "always got away" and a "*********** punk (or coon)". There was no good reason for him to follow Trayvon, and there was definitely no good reason to continue to follow him after the dispatcher asked him not to. So even if he claims it was all an accident, the whole situation was his doing unless he can prove that Trayvon attacked him for no reason.

I thought the "coon" thing had been debunked? And that the dispatch had said "e don't Need you to do that" NOT "stop doing that".

Anyway, even if gz was rash... Why would that matter? Residents should be able to get out of their trucks in there own neighborhood and they should be able to keep an eye on strangers passing through. Neither of those actions should make them responsible for a criminal assault being launched on them.

 

[Unabogie]

I thought the "coon" thing had been debunked? And that the dispatch had said "e don't Need you to do that" NOT "stop doing that".

Anyway, even if gz was rash... Why would that matter? Residents should be able to get out of their trucks in there own neighborhood and they should be able to keep an eye on strangers passing through. Neither of those actions should make them responsible for a criminal assault being launched on them.

True, but that's why it's important to examine his claims of being assaulted as well. You should be allowed to get out of your truck to keep an eye on something. But you don't have the right to try and detain someone who wasn't doing anything wrong, you should never go on NW patrols with a gun (something George admitted to) and you should not lie to the police after you shoot someone.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's not material. At all.

And I predict you will continue being non-commital on this point, while never once making an argument as to how it could be material.

Your prediction record isn't very good in this thread already.

You said DeeDee lied and then wondered why she wasn't being held to the same standard as Shellie for those lies. That's a tacit admission that Shellie also lied.

According to the state, who charged SZ, not me.

How interesting that you weren't as curious about O'Mara's similiarly ambiguous phrasing when questioning Shellie Zimmerman.

What would I be curious about ? According to you, inferring any impropriety in MOMs actions is irrational. I'm not curious, I think he phrased things explicitly so she could answer a certain way. Pretty sure I already stated that earlier in the thread.

She "clearly lied"? After the semantic hoops you jumped through to make the argument that Shellie Zimmerman didn't lie, how can you possibly make such a claim with a straight face?

Fine, or crump, sybrina fulton et all just made up that she was at the hospital themselves. Otherwise I assume they believe she was their because that's what she appears to have told them:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/20/cnr.03.html
In fact, she couldn't even go to his wake she was so sick. Her mother had to take her to the hospital. She spent the night in the hospital. She is traumatized beyond anything you could imagine.

Benjamin Crump and Sybrina Fulton interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show, March 21, 2012
Ms. FULTON: Yes, it can. She was distraught because of the situation that happened with Trayvon and that--the fact that she was on the phone with him when he--when the incident occurred--right before the incident occurred. So she was very distraught. She had to go to the hospital. She was hospitalized. She also mentioned to us that she had feelings for Trayvon, so it hurt her dearly to know that he has passed away.

 

[Bob001]

..... Neither of those actions should make them responsible for a criminal assault being launched on them.

Was TM engaged in a criminal assault, or defending himself against a suspicious character sneaking around behind him in the dark? Or did GZ actually grab TM first? Here's what I see as GZ's problem, or one of them. He says he was on his back with TM slamming his head repeatedly into a concrete sidewalk. Adults -- certainly 200-pound men -- have substantial neck muscles. I don't think it would be that easy to push a resisting man's head around like a rag doll. And if TM had both his hands on GZ's head, both of GZ's hands would have been free to punch, grab, gouge eyes, squeeze testicles, etc., etc., etc. And if TM had been straddling GZ with his hands on his head (meaning not on the ground), he would have been in an unstable position. It should have been possible for a cop wannabe and barroom brawler like GZ to throw him off and even get on top of him. GZ may well have been scared just because he was surprised, but the jury will be asked to decide whether it was reasonable for GZ to believe that his life was in danger and the use of deadly force was his only alternative. I think "It was all a terrible accident" would be easier to sell to a jury.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

True, but that's why it's important to examine his claims of being assaulted as well. You should be allowed to get out of your truck to keep an eye on something. But you don't have the right to try and detain someone who wasn't doing anything wrong,

I agree. And there is no clear evidence GZ tried to detain anyone, is there ?

you should never go on NW patrols with a gun (something George admitted to)

I don't think it's particularly relevant, but where did he admit this ?

and you should not lie to the police after you shoot someone.

I agree.

 

[johnny karate]

Anyway, even if gz was rash... Why would that matter? Residents should be able to get out of their trucks in there own neighborhood and they should be able to keep an eye on strangers passing through.

People should also be able to walk home from the store without being accosted by an armed and overzealous wannabe cop.

Neither of those actions should make them responsible for a criminal assault being launched on them.

And defending yourself against an aggressive stranger following you home shouldn't be a death sentence.