Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-dogged-disciplinary-problems-school/story?id=16011674
Martin's family attorney confirmed today that the teenager was suspended from his Miami school three times over the past year.

What percentage of students get suspended 3 times in the first half of a single school year ?

What percentage of students get suspended for illegal drugs ?

I don't know why you bothered looking up all those facts. If it was to make the case that TM was just a typical teen, I think your way wide of that mark.

Since you didn't bother looking it up for yourself, I did your work for you.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_...-marijuana-smoking-up-80-percent-among-teens/

One in three kids is smoking pot, and one in ten smokes it at least twenty times a month. In other words, teens smoke pot.

ETA: More stats, since Elvis seems to think that smoking pot and getting suspended is a rare and important bit of information.

In Texas, fully 60% of the kids have been suspended.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/ed...ent-of-Texas-7th-12th-graders-get-1471692.php

There's also evidence that shows that black kids get suspended more readily than white kids.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/education/14suspend.html?_r=0

In many of the nation’s middle schools, black boys were nearly three times as likely to be suspended as white boys, according to a new study, which also found that black girls were suspended at four times the rate of white girls.

School authorities also suspended Hispanic and American Indian middle school students at higher rates than white students, though not at such disproportionate rates as for black children, the study found. Asian students were less likely to be suspended than whites.

But hey, I'm sure these suspensions, none of which were for fighting, are totally worse than George assaulting a DEA officer, assaulting his fiance, raping his cousin over 10 years, and shooting an unarmed kid.

 

[Unabogie]

Let's continue looking at stats, shall we? What percentage of men are rapists? That's definitely a tough one, since the statistics are controversial. This site puts the number at 6% of all men. Whoa, you might say, that's pretty high! Perhaps, but that just makes George all the more rare. How many rapists also have an assault case on their record? How many also have been charged with murder? That George, he's just been so unfairly treated over the years. It makes him look like a monster!

Oh, well, I guess being accused of serial rape, murder, and assault is all part of God's plan. Of course, he never did any of this. The law is always out to get the sons of magistrates like George.

 

[johnny karate]

And he can still for for an immunity hearing. And there very well might be one.That's a fact, too.

But right now there isn't going to be one. And O'Mara is taking a very real risk that there won't be one at all.

And unless you understand the laws behind the immunity hearing, and you know the legal precedence of Judge Nelsons order, then you are just pulling a guess out of your ass. So that's why your guess of whether or not you think there will be an immunity hearing is worth no more or less than mine, and why actual legal knowledge is useful.

It's not about guessing whether or not there will an immunity hearing.

It's about pointing out the obvious risk O'Mara is taking in his approach. In canceling the hearing before he knows if he can get another one, he is risking there not being one at all.

That either means O'Mara is a) and incompetent attorney, or b) he's not really interested in having an immunity hearing.

And if the answer is b), the only logical conclusion one can draw from that choice is that O'Mara is afraid to put his client on the stand.

Well, if he lied, he would be disbarred and face criminal charges. Remember, you explained to me the whole reason about why MOM is truthful. So that seems to be a good reason to believe him.

That you conflate me pointing out that O'Mara would be unlikely to risk the factual and obvious repercussions for a lawyer who falsifies court documents with me saying he should be believed all the time in every circumstance only further establishes the disingenuousness of your approach.

So when I said that I believed they would put GZ on the stand in a combined trial/hearing, that wasn't really an explanation ?

No, because it doesn't explain why they wouldn't just put him on the stand in the already-scheduled immunity hearing and get it over with.

Apparently O'Mara needs more time to prepare, and requires expert testimony to make his case.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why O'Mara would need more preparation and expert testimony if the prosecution has no evidence and Zimmerman's story is so air-tight.

Just put Zimmerman on the stand, have him tell his story, and he gets acquitted, right? And all without the risk of conviction and the added bonus of being shielded from any potential civil suit. This whole thing could be over in an afternoon.

But you - nor anyone else defending Zimmerman - seems to be able to explain why the defense isn't taking this obvious and very simple course of action.

Nice generalization. Do you believe MOM when he states verifiable facts in the court ? Earlier you claimed he had to be telling the truth becuase he would be risking criminal charges, etc. But now if I believe what he says in court in a specific instance, suddenly all my prior arguments are now somehow based on what he has said. Neat trick, that.

You'll need to explain why you believe him in this one instance but not others if you want your assertions to be taken seriously. But you seem unwilling or unable to articulate your reasoning.

 

[sgtbaker]

If I could offer a theory about why O'Mara would opt not to have the immunity hearing; while it is certainly possible that O'Mara doesn't have as strong a case as he lets on, it's not the only logical conclusion as his reason for not having the immunity hearing. The immunity hearing is decided by one person, the judge. O'Mara has filed for an extension and requested that his client be removed from 24hr GPS monitoring and Nelson denied both. He may not feel he has a very good chance with that judge. That, itself is a risk. If the judge denies immunity, it can be brought up during the criminal trial. At this time, Zimmerman has a much better chance with a jury. While, I have stated that I don't think I would be able to vote guilty with the evidence at hand, that is entirely different than stating it's a slam dunk, sure win for Zimmerman.

Anyway, my opinion is based on an article from last summer, about Nelson. It's not fact but it's what I am thinking.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/30/2977516/zimmerman-gets-new-judge-but-lawyers.html

 

[Unabogie]

If I could offer a theory about why O'Mara would opt not to have the immunity hearing; while it is certainly possible that O'Mara doesn't have as strong a case as he lets on, it's not the only logical conclusion as his reason for not having the immunity hearing. The immunity hearing is decided by one person, the judge. O'Mara has filed for an extension and requested that his client be removed from 24hr GPS monitoring and Nelson denied both. He may not feel he has a very good chance with that judge. That, itself is a risk. If the judge denies immunity, it can be brought up during the criminal trial. At this time, Zimmerman has a much better chance with a jury. While, I have stated that I don't think I would be able to vote guilty with the evidence at hand, that is entirely different than stating it's a slam dunk, sure win for Zimmerman.

Anyway, my opinion is based on an article from last summer, about Nelson. It's not fact but it's what I am thinking.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/30/2977516/zimmerman-gets-new-judge-but-lawyers.html

Even if he's acquitted, he can still face a civil suit where the burden of proof is lower, just as OJ did. If he was successful at an immunity hearing, not only would be be free, but he'd be immune from a lawsuit. So he's leaving quite a bit on the table here, especially since his supporters claim the state's case is so weak and all evidence points to innocence, right? I don't think there's any downside for a person with a strong case to try for immunity. Also, I don't think you're correct that the fact that the judge denied immunity can be used against him in court. What can be used against him is his own testimony. And again, if his story is so airtight, then he'll testify in either venue and it doesn't follow that this should hurt him.

And yet it does.

 

[sgtbaker]

Even if he's acquitted, he can still face a civil suit where the burden of proof is lower, just as OJ did. If he was successful at an immunity hearing, not only would be be free, but he'd be immune from a lawsuit. So he's leaving quite a bit on the table here, especially since his supporters claim the state's case is so weak and all evidence points to innocence, right? I don't think there's any downside for a person with a strong case to try for immunity. Also, I don't think you're correct that the fact that the judge denied immunity can be used against him in court. What can be used against him is his own testimony. And again, if his story is so airtight, then he'll testify in either venue and it doesn't follow that this should hurt him.

And yet it does.

Again, you are conflating not strong evidence for guilt with a strong case for not guilty. I think risking a civil suit is a lot safer than risking the decision from the judge.

 

[johnny karate]

Again, you are conflating not strong evidence for guilt with a strong case for not guilty.

I don't believe you are one of the people in this thread who took a hard line on this issue, but it has been argued the prosecution has no evidence of guilt.

So I think we can all finally agree that Zimmerman's self-defense claim is in no way a slam dunk, or even an outside jump shot.

I think risking a civil suit is a lot safer than risking the decision from the judge.

I'm not following your logic on this particular point.

An immunity hearing is a free bite at the apple. It can grant an acquittal without the risk of conviction. Not to mention protection from a civil suit.

And the judge is obligated to follow the law. If the prosecution truly has no evidence to dispute Zimmerman's story, and his claim for self-defense is as strong as we have been told, it's not like the judge can ignore all of that and just not acquit him because she feels like it.

It's clear O'Mara doesn't want Zimmerman on the stand, and I don't blame him.

 

[Dancing David]

As a note from a sideliner, can I just make the suggestion that all sides take a breather for a minute? I'm definitely getting the impression that most, if not all, involved are delving a little into embellishment and hysterics. The discussion is starting to become unproductive.

Relax, take a breather, have some coffee, and relax again. The thread will still be here when you return.

Good advice, the urine to signal ratio has been very high for quite a while.

 

[Dancing David]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-dogged-disciplinary-problems-school/story?id=16011674
Martin's family attorney confirmed today that the teenager was suspended from his Miami school three times over the past year.

What percentage of students get suspended 3 times in the first half of a single school year ?

What percentage of students get suspended for illegal drugs ?

I don't know why you bothered looking up all those facts. If it was to make the case that TM was just a typical teen, I think your way wide of that mark.

And the link between school suspension to something relevant to the trial of GZ is what?

Please don't spray urine at me, there is little if any relevance to the case. The case will not rest upon TM's history (which is very minor, getting suspended three times is no big deal), it will rest upon the facts of what happened that evening when TM got shot by GZ.

TM's history will have no bearing whatsoever, it was not known to GZ and could not have influenced his decision to fire. TM will not be testifying at the trial, so his credibility as witness will not be a character issue.

Getting suspended three times is no big whoop, I work in a district with 14,000 students, at the middle school I worked at 6 years ago, we had 30 students who passed that bar in one quarter, not a year,.

I know of grade school kids well past that bar.

Expulsion for battery, now that is a good bar, criminal charges (which my school district does press) now that is a good bar. And still irrelevant.

 

[sgtbaker]

I don't believe you are one of the people in this thread who took a hard line on this issue, but it has been argued the prosecution has no evidence of guilt.

So I think we can all finally agree that Zimmerman's self-defense claim is in no way a slam dunk, or even an outside jump shot.



I'm not following your logic on this particular point.

An immunity hearing is a free bite at the apple. It can grant an acquittal without the risk of conviction. Not to mention protection from a civil suit.

And the judge is obligated to follow the law. If the prosecution truly has no evidence to dispute Zimmerman's story, and his claim for self-defense is as strong as we have been told, it's not like the judge can ignore all of that and just not acquit him because she feels like it.

It's clear O'Mara doesn't want Zimmerman on the stand, and I don't blame him.

The judge is obligated to follow the law but rulings (this and any other ruling) is still judge discretion. Look at Lester, for example. O'Mara originally asked him to recuse himself, accusing Lester of showing extreme bias. Lester disagreed but the appeals court ruled in favor of O'Mara's motion. Nobody was breaking a law, they were just interpreting the argument differently. O'Mara did what a lot of defense attorneys do, he judge shopped but ended up with a judge who is historically shown to favor the prosecution. I liked what Baez had to say in the article I linked, "Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't." I am just guessing here but I think O'Mara had the SYG hearing in mind when he asked Lester to recuse himself and ended up worse off with Nelson.
The difference between the SYG hearing and a criminal trial has been discussed. In the SYG hearing, the burdon of proof is on the defense. This, I stress, is entirely opinion based on my understanding: the prosecution is going to have a difficult time proving he wasn't in fear for his life because the defense can easily argue; what is reasonable? I suspect the prosecution is going to rely heavily on who initiated the confrontation because that is the only applicable part in question; one cannot, according to FL law, claim SYG if they initiated the confrontation. In the SYG hearing, the defense is going to have a difficult time proving that element. Even if the judge heard all the evidence and believed Zimmerman's story, I don't see a judge ruling in favor of the motion because it's a difficult case to prove. Having their motion denied, limits their manuverability in the criminal trial. Like I said earlier, we will know the evidence before the trial, what we don't know is how they are going to present it. Personally, if a defendant doesn't take the stand, I tend to lean in favor of guilt, but depending on the way the prosecution does their presentation of facts, it might be a better option for Zimmerman to not take the stand; we can only speculate, at this point.

 

[johnny karate]

The judge is obligated to follow the law but rulings (this and any other ruling) is still judge discretion. Look at Lester, for example. O'Mara originally asked him to recuse himself, accusing Lester of showing extreme bias. Lester disagreed but the appeals court ruled in favor of O'Mara's motion. Nobody was breaking a law, they were just interpreting the argument differently. O'Mara did what a lot of defense attorneys do, he judge shopped but ended up with a judge who is historically shown to favor the prosecution. I liked what Baez had to say in the article I linked, "Sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't." I am just guessing here but I think O'Mara had the SYG hearing in mind when he asked Lester to recuse himself and ended up worse off with Nelson.
The difference between the SYG hearing and a criminal trial has been discussed. In the SYG hearing, the burdon of proof is on the defense. This, I stress, is entirely opinion based on my understanding: the prosecution is going to have a difficult time proving he wasn't in fear for his life because the defense can easily argue; what is reasonable? I suspect the prosecution is going to rely heavily on who initiated the confrontation because that is the only applicable part in question; one cannot, according to FL law, claim SYG if they initiated the confrontation. In the SYG hearing, the defense is going to have a difficult time proving that element. Even if the judge heard all the evidence and believed Zimmerman's story, I don't see a judge ruling in favor of the motion because it's a difficult case to prove. Having their motion denied, limits their manuverability in the criminal trial. Like I said earlier, we will know the evidence before the trial, what we don't know is how they are going to present it. Personally, if a defendant doesn't take the stand, I tend to lean in favor of guilt, but depending on the way the prosecution does their presentation of facts, it might be a better option for Zimmerman to not take the stand; we can only speculate, at this point.

What I'd like to see is evidence that simply losing an immunity hearing is detrimental to one's chances for acquittal in the subsequent trial.

 

[remirol]

And if the answer is b), the only logical conclusion one can draw from that choice is that O'Mara is afraid to put his client on the stand.

Of course O'Mara is afraid to put his client on the stand. Probably the fastest way to get George convicted is to let a prosecuting attorney cross-examine him and drag him through the mud in front of the jury about all the inconsistencies in his story, not to mention that it should be trivial to induce George into a nice, tidy little rage in the process, and a jury would just eat that up.

It's almost standard procedure in criminal trials: you NEVER put your defendant on the stand unless you've already lost the case without his testimony. As long as it doesn't look like the prosecution has enough to prove that George violated any of the criteria for SYG/self-defense, then there's absolutely nothing good that can happen from putting George up there and making him a target.

If the prosecution can break the defense without George's testimony, though... then it's a whole different ball of wax. Not to mention that a defendant on the stand looks guilty as hell just for being there in the first place. "Innocent until proven guilty" is an excellent principle, but you're still dealing with 12 (six, apparently) humans in a jury trial, and they typically start out slightly predisposed towards "Why are you here if you didn't do something wrong?"

The outcome of this case is nowhere near settled, _especially_ if it goes to trial.

 

[Rare Truth]

...but you're still dealing with 12 humans in a jury trial...

Tiny aside that has nothing to do with your greater point: There will only be six jurors at the trial.

 

[Dan O.]

What I'd like to see is evidence that simply losing an immunity hearing is detrimental to one's chances for acquittal in the subsequent trial.

The detriment is not in loosing the hearing. In the immunity hearing, the defendant has the burden of proof. In the trial, the defendant is presumed innocent so has to prove nothing. Failing to prove innocence in the hearing will carry no weight in the trial.

However, since George is the only witness to the whole event, George would have to take the stand in the hearing to give his side of the story under oath. He would also be subject to cross examination while under oath and this is what the defense is afraid of.

Prior to George taking the stand, the prosecution has the burden to prove that under any circumstance that was possible that night, George did not have a reasonable fear for his life. Once they get George on the stand, they get to eliminate all but the single scenario that George claims happened and only have to prove that under that scenario George would not be in reasonable fear for his life or that George is lying about what happened which gives the prosecution a wider opening to present their own scenario.

The Stand Your Ground law is intended to give the innocent victim that is forced to defend themselves an easy path out of the legal turmoil that is sure to follow. But there is a trade off. In order to gain the protections of SYG, you have to present your story and defend it. O'mara is trying to game the system to get the protections of SYG without the risks of this trade off. If he can do this, SYG itself has to go. It makes SYG too easy to abuse.

 

[sgtbaker]

What I'd like to see is evidence that simply losing an immunity hearing is detrimental to one's chances for acquittal in the subsequent trial.

I don't think that's something that can be proven. We are dealing with interpretation of evidence and I am only sharing my opinion. If MOM decides not to put GZ on the stand, the prosecution still has the testimony from the hearing. I think it was a strategic decision. It's much safer to put the burden of proof on the prosecution.

 

[remirol]

Tiny aside that has nothing to do with your greater point: There will only be six jurors at the trial.

Noted. I am unfamiliar with this concept so I can't say whether a half-jury would lean more towards conviction or acquittal; though I would note that this is six fewer people who can get "stuck" and render the whole thing hung.

 

[Rare Truth]

The detriment is not in loosing the hearing. In the immunity hearing, the defendant has the burden of proof. In the trial, the defendant is presumed innocent so has to prove nothing. Failing to prove innocence in the hearing will carry no weight in the trial.

However, since George is the only witness to the whole event, George would have to take the stand in the hearing to give his side of the story under oath. He would also be subject to cross examination while under oath and this is what the defense is afraid of.

Prior to George taking the stand, the prosecution has the burden to prove that under any circumstance that was possible that night, George did not have a reasonable fear for his life. Once they get George on the stand, they get to eliminate all but the single scenario that George claims happened and only have to prove that under that scenario George would not be in reasonable fear for his life or that George is lying about what happened which gives the prosecution a wider opening to present their own scenario.

The Stand Your Ground law is intended to give the innocent victim that is forced to defend themselves an easy path out of the legal turmoil that is sure to follow. But there is a trade off. In order to gain the protections of SYG, you have to present your story and defend it. O'mara is trying to game the system to get the protections of SYG without the risks of this trade off. If he can do this, SYG itself has to go. It makes SYG too easy to abuse.

^ 100% in agreement.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't think that's something that can be proven. We are dealing with interpretation of evidence and I am only sharing my opinion. If MOM decides not to put GZ on the stand, the prosecution still has the testimony from the hearing. I think it was a strategic decision. It's much safer to put the burden of proof on the prosecution.

I think you're right. It would be foolish to put George on the stand any more than necessary, and while the rewards are great in an immunity hearing, there are risks. I think what you're seeing here is a reaction to prior posters who appeared to boast how easy an immunity hearing was going to be due to the inherent weakness in the state's case. While I don't think either side has it easy, I think the weight of the evidence is against the defendant. People who were saying how the prosecution had ZERO evidence and that all the witnesses supported the defendant and how Witness 8 was a "nightmare for the prosecution" and how Corey was unethical in even BRINGING the case have to somehow explain why in THAT circumstance an immunity hearing isn't the way to go.

The only thing that can hurt you from that is your own testimony, so if you're in the right, and there's no evidence to the contrary, why not explain that to the judge? So the conclusion is that you don't do that if it's not quite as easy for George as they claimed before.

 

[sgtbaker]

I think you're right. It would be foolish to put George on the stand any more than necessary, and while the rewards are great in an immunity hearing, there are risks. I think what you're seeing here is a reaction to prior posters who appeared to boast how easy an immunity hearing was going to be due to the inherent weakness in the state's case. While I don't think either side has it easy, I think the weight of the evidence is against the defendant. People who were saying how the prosecution had ZERO evidence and that all the witnesses supported the defendant and how Witness 8 was a "nightmare for the prosecution" and how Corey was unethical in even BRINGING the case have to somehow explain why in THAT circumstance an immunity hearing isn't the way to go.

The only thing that can hurt you from that is your own testimony, so if you're in the right, and there's no evidence to the contrary, why not explain that to the judge? So the conclusion is that you don't do that if it's not quite as easy for George as they claimed before.

A lot of people in this thread have made some good calls and some bad calls. We've all argued what we thought and quite often it was based on absence of evidence. I, personally, don't see the evidence as damning as you do. That doesn't mean I know how a judge or jury is going to see the evidence.

Some of the things that won't help GZ's case are how politicized this case is, the judges history of being pro prosecution, and the media coverage of this case. There is a lack of evidence in favor of SYG application but it is the same lack of evidence against his claim. Neither side seems to have the evidence to, prove beyond a reasonable doubt, who started the altercation.

 

[Mumbles]

I got suspended quite frequently from school myself when I was in high school. Not due to malfeasance myself, but from fights with bullies. My school preferred to just suspend anyone involved in an altercation, antagonist or not. And since I was a frequent target, I was frequently suspended.

At this point, we're putting little kids in handcuffs for throwing tantrums, and suspending them for biting Pop-Tarts into the shape of a gun. I think it's safe to say that being suspended is meaningless as far as wrongdoing goes.