Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

I think I see the the problem. Where exactly did the defense waive their right to file a motion for immunity ?

The problem is entirely yours. I never said the defense waived their right to file a motion for immunity.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The problem is entirely yours. I never said the defense waived their right to file a motion for immunity.

You are correct, I misread your statement. They 'waived' the hearing, telling judge Nelson they did not need the two weeks.

You would have to ask MOM why they did that, I don't have any special insight.

My guess is that they plan to combine the trial and the immunity hearing, thereby nullifying any advantage the defense might gain by having GZ testify first.

As far as defending my assertions about the lack of evidence, I'll just refer back to Inspector Gilbreath.

 

[johnny karate]

You are correct, I misread your statement. They 'waived' the hearing, telling judge Nelson they did not need the two weeks.

You would have to ask MOM why they did that, I don't have any special insight.

My guess is that they plan to combine the trial and the immunity hearing, thereby nullifying any advantage the defense might gain by having GZ testify first.

And giving up a free chance for acquittal, and leaving their client vulnerable to a civil suit.

I'm not seeing the strategic advantage, unless their case is weak.

As far as defending my assertions about the lack of evidence, I'll just refer back to Inspector Gilbreath.

You seem to have this habit of refusing to defend your assertions, and placing the responsibility for them onto someone else, as if they don't actually reflect your beliefs.

Again, you stated the prosecution had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story.

If that were true, the defense should have no problem putting Zimmerman on the stand in an immunity hearing.

They, however, are not doing that, thereby sacrificing a free bite at the acquittal apple and protection from a civil suit.

That you refuse to address this glaring bit dissonance between what you believe and what is actually happening doesn't at all surprise me.

 

[Unabogie]

As far as defending my assertions about the lack of evidence, I'll just refer back to Inspector Gilbreath.

You keep pointing to that one exchange as if that settles everything, yet the defense team is passing up an immunity hearing for no reason that you can articulate. All they need to do is point to some cuts and bruises, quote Mr. Gilbreath, and walk home. So why wouldn't they? Why did they say they couldn't prepare for the hearing and that they needed experts? All they need are pictures, Gilbreath, and a photocopy of the SYG law. It's the strongest case for self-defense since time immemorial.

They see something you don't, but you really can't just admit that they're chickening out here?

 

[AlBell]

"Travon Truthers". That's adorable.

Thanks. It fits well sfaics.

The difference between the truthfulness of DD's statements vs Zimmerman's statements has been addressed upthread.

Indeed, and Trayvon Truthers see a different outcome from the same facts.

ps. I have no particular dog in this ongoing cat-fight. Have fun while I wait for an actual trial.

 

[Dan O.]

Has anyone in Florida ever used the immunity hearing as a "get out of jail free" card after they had been convicted of the crime?

It sounds like MOM is trying to game the system. Of course, there is one little problem with that. The law only grants immunity from the prosecution. It says nothing about the conviction that results from that prosecution.

 

[KatieG]

Thanks. It fits well sfaics.


Indeed, and Trayvon Truthers see a different outcome from the same facts.

ps. I have no particular dog in this ongoing cat-fight. Have fun while I wait for an actual trial.

Actually, it's incredibly stupid and insulting but don't let that stop you from using that term. I do want the truth to come out but we don't have all the facts yet. Since you have no dog in this fight, it seems a little extreme to call people names.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And giving up a free chance for acquittal, and leaving their client vulnerable to a civil suit.

Why are you so concerned that they gave up days that had been reserved ? They still have "a free chance for acquittal."

I'm not seeing the strategic advantage, unless their case is weak.

Perhaps if you were a lawyer you would see the advantage.

You seem to have this habit of refusing to defend your assertions, and placing the responsibility for them onto someone else, as if they don't actually reflect your beliefs.

That's funny.

Again, you stated the prosecution had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story.

To be clear, I have stated that the prosecutions lead investigator testified that the state doesn't have any evidence as to who started the fight, and to disprove that GZ was walking back to his truck when he was assaulted.

I have repeatedly asked what new evidence might exist, what new evidence regarding those events was uncovered in discovery ... and get answered with silence.

If that were true, the defense should have no problem putting Zimmerman on the stand in an immunity hearing.

Yes, they should.

They, however, are not doing that, thereby sacrificing a free bite at the acquittal apple and protection from a civil suit.

How do you know they aren't going to do that ?

That you refuse to address this glaring bit dissonance between what you believe and what is actually happening doesn't at all surprise me.

I have addressed it. I am not MOM, I am not in his head - how do you expect me to justify his actions ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You keep pointing to that one exchange as if that settles everything,

I don't think it settles everything. You want to go back and explain what you meant when you claimed gilbreath was just playing coy ?

yet the defense team is passing up an immunity hearing for no reason that you can articulate.

They haven't passed up the opportunity to file for immunity.

All they need to do is point to some cuts and bruises, quote Mr. Gilbreath, and walk home. So why wouldn't they? Why did they say they couldn't prepare for the hearing and that they needed experts? All they need are pictures, Gilbreath, and a photocopy of the SYG law. It's the strongest case for self-defense since time immemorial.

You just can't stay away from attacking strawmen, can you ?

They see something you don't, but you really can't just admit that they're chickening out here?

I don't know what they are doing or thinking. But I'm glad you have the legal insight to know they are "chickening out"

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Actually, it's incredibly stupid and insulting but don't let that stop you from using that term. I do want the truth to come out but we don't have all the facts yet. Since you have no dog in this fight, it seems a little extreme to call people names.

Do you agree that calling GZ and anyone associated with him names is also stupid, wrong, and extreme ?

 

[Dan O.]

Do you agree that calling GZ and anyone associated with him names is also stupid, wrong, and extreme ?

Read the Membership Agreement.

 

[WildCat]

I didn't conflate anything, but merely pointed out the disparity between claiming to have strong case, but then refusing an opportunity to present it.




It is good information, but none of it addresses my query.

It has been asserted in this thread that the prosecution has no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's story, and that any inconsistencies in his story are immaterial.

The information you cited referes to the necessity of a preponderance of evidence. Well, I'm pretty sure no evidence wouldn't qualify as a preponderance.

So since the prosecution has no evidence - let alone a preponderance - again I ask, why don't Zimmerman's lawyers just put him on the stand in an immunity hearing, and crack open the champagne?

Because as we've all learned in the last decade innocent people never get convicted of murder on pathetically weak cases. Prosecutors always act with nothing but the highest integrity in their seach for justice, they would never prosecute and get convictions solely for political reasons. Not in the USA!

 

[Giz]

Because as we've all learned in the last decade innocent people never get convicted of murder on pathetically weak cases. Prosecutors always act with nothing but the highest integrity in their seach for justice, they would never prosecute and get convictions solely for political reasons. Not in the USA!

Let me explain, gun owner = bad. How much more evidence do you need?

 

[Unabogie]

I don't think it settles everything. You want to go back and explain what you meant when you claimed gilbreath was just playing coy ?

I don't think is settles anything. It's a meaningless exchange in a meaningless hearing because it didn't stop the prosecution from moving forward. I said that the state presents a minimalist case at a PC hearing and so not seeing more wouldn't tell you much, yet you want to read into that, which is foolish.

They haven't passed up the opportunity to file for immunity.

And yet they won't have a hearing. You haven't given a single reasonable explanation for that despite repeated prodding.

You just can't stay away from attacking strawmen, can you ?

You keep making wild assertions, but then when you get called on them you cry "straw man". How about you explain which of those things you don't believe and stop suggesting that none of the views you espouse are really yours.

I don't know what they are doing or thinking. But I'm glad you have the legal insight to know they are "chickening out"

Why would it take legal insight to know that they just declined to go forward with a hearing that would free their client and protect him from a civil suit? You think they are going to "combine" the trial with an immunity hearing and then if George is convicted the judge will just let him walk and also declare him immune from a civil lawsuit? Seriously? Can you name another case that happened that way? I'm genuinely curious. What judge has ever done that?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Read the Membership Agreement.

Why ? The MA won't answer the question of what katieg's opinion is.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don't think is settles anything. It's a meaningless exchange in a meaningless hearing because it didn't stop the prosecution from moving forward. I said that the state presents a minimalist case at a PC hearing and so not seeing more wouldn't tell you much, yet you want to read into that, which is foolish.

So you also agree SZ testimony under oath was a "meaningless exchange in a meaningless hearing " ? If not, why don't you explain what's different. I still don;t understand what you mean by play coy:

No, don't be obtuse. You have to realize that what Gilbreath said was meaningless for the reasons I described. The PC hearing is where cops play coy so they don't say anything that can be used later.

Isn't that exactly what SZ did ... play coy ?

And yet they won't have a hearing. You haven't given a single reasonable explanation for that despite repeated prodding.

A reasonable explanation for what ? Why they told the judge they didn't need the days set aside ? Yes, I did, I said:
My guess is that they plan to combine the trial and the immunity hearing, thereby nullifying any advantage the defense might gain by having GZ testify first.

You keep making wild assertions, but then when you get called on them you cry "straw man".

What wild assertions did I make ? Quote me and address what I said, not what you think I said.

You keep pointing to that one exchange as if that settles everything¹, yet the defense team is passing up an immunity hearing for no reason that you can articulate². All they need to do is point to some cuts and bruises, quote Mr. Gilbreath, and walk home³. So why wouldn't they? Why did they say they couldn't prepare for the hearing and that they needed experts? All they need are pictures, Gilbreath, and a photocopy of the SYG law. It's the strongest case for self-defense since time immemorial⁴.

1. I never claimed it settles everything
2. MOM articulated reasons, you even give them later on in your post.
3. to win an immunity hearing ? according to who ?
4. no one here claimed that

I'm sorry you think you shouldn't be called out when you constantly attack strawmen.

How about you explain which of those things you don't believe and stop suggesting that none of the views you espouse are really yours.

I think MOM should file for an immunity hearing. If he can combine it with the trial, it seems like a shrewd legal move to me. I never claimed it was all as simple as you portray ebove - that's why you aren't quoting what I said, but instead mkaing up outlandish claims that are easy to knock down..

Why would it take legal insight to know that they just declined to go forward with a hearing that would free their client and protect him from a civil suit? You think they are going to "combine" the trial with an immunity hearing and then if George is convicted the judge will just let him walk and also declare him immune from a civil lawsuit? Seriously?

No, I don't. Did I ever say that ? No. Yet another strawman.

Can you name another case that happened that way? I'm genuinely curious. What judge has ever done that?

Why would I, it's not what I claimed would happen.

Can you name a law that prohibits MOM from combining an immunity hearing with a trial ?

 

[12AX7]

Isn't that exactly what SZ did ... play coy ?

Is SZ a cop?

 

[Cylinder]

Is SZ a cop?

Please tell me you're not asserting that police should be held to a lesser standard of integrity in testimony than citizens. Please.

 

[12AX7]

Please tell me you're not asserting that police should be held to a lesser standard of integrity in testimony than citizens. Please.

I'm asking whether or not SZ is a cop.

Please tell me you are aware that police are often held to a lesser standard of integrity in testimony than citizens.

Please.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm asking whether or not SZ is a cop.

Please tell me you are aware that police are often held to a lesser standard of integrity in testimony than citizens.

Please.

SZ = Shellie Zimmerman.

And I always thought police were supposed to be held to a higher standard.

ETA: I guess you knew who SZ was and were tying to make a point about police being held to a lesser standard of integrity ... That seems very counter-intuitive to me.

Also, did you plan on answering the post below ?

The SPD concluded it was GZ who was screaming.

Tracy Martin judged it was not the voice of his son screaming.

Witness 6 says GZ was the one screaming for help.

What's the evidence that it was TM screaming ?

It seems like the preponderance of the evidence is that it is GZ screaming.