Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

So, you guys agree that in a criminal case, a civil attorney recorded coaching a witness and editing a recording of that coaching should be free from examination by a defendant?

I agree that a judge's two rulings on the matter take precedence over the opinions of self-appointed legal experts on internet forums.

 

[Darkman]

Good thing I don't live in Florida )))

some kinda mafia .. - do crooked things .. and all is fine and peachy with the judge

 

[Dancing David]

Perhaps GZ gave the white burglars a helping hand in carrying out the particularly heavy loot that would have been a strain on their backs.

This behavior that will get the thread on moderated status, it could be considered baiting. It is not helping the discussion in any way.

 

[Dancing David]

Katie .. I am done bickering about couple extra pounds "less" or "more"

Bottom line is evidence and who did what .. Who hit who in the nose, who was beating up on who, smashing one's head on concrete, ground, earth etc .. and who thought his life was in danger ...

The rest: lbs, gold teeth, tats etc .. are minor side details ... -- that simply show TM was not a little 13 year old innocent boy etc that MSM claimed at first.

How on earth does that make any sense, having a gold front or tat does not make someone prone to violence. So quite a ridiculous trolling attempt on your part.

Who on earth is MSM and when did they say that TM was 13?

 

[johnny karate]

So, you guys agree that in a criminal case, a civil attorney recorded coaching a witness and editing a recording of that coaching should be free from examination by a defendant?

Good thing I don't live in Florida )))

some kinda mafia .. - do crooked things .. and all is fine and peachy with the judge

I'm just going to leave these here for the next time the term "truther" gets thrown around...

 

[Dancing David]

You call it stalking .. and even if that occured .. even if GZ didn't turn back with TM jumping him / surprising him ... -- some other people might call it following, keep an eye on someone..

You tell me .... walking behind someone .. without phisically offending one .. since when that became an offense?

Or even approaching one and asking one: "What are you doing around here?"

Sinice when it's an offence (maybe not very nice.. but not illegal...)

Punching one however .. on the nose or elsewhere IS.

TM .. or say, if i was in his shoes, could have replied something like ... "what's your problem? ... I am staying over there .. at my Dad's G/F place .. Do you have a problem with that?

----- .. Nope .. we simply had bunch of break-ins here and i am with N. Watch and was concerned... Have a good night then..

---- Peace?

---- Peace.

Everyone is alive .. no one is beat-up .. no one is charged with murder.

And approaching people in the night is also not always a good thing, he may have had the right to ask. But did he do so in a threatening manner? We have no idea. It may be that TM reasonably perceived GZ's behavior as threatening, regardless of either of their rights.

It will be up to the jury to decide if GZ made a reasonable choice to get out of the car. He had no reason to do so and probably knew why he shouldn't. But it will be up to the jury.

This 'he had the right' crap is about a reasonable as any of the off subject posts. It was not a legal right that will be discussed , the question will be, given GZ's knowledge and history , was it reasonable.

Equally TM had a right to walk slowly or however he ************ wanted to walk. There is no evidence he was engaged in a crime, there is just GZ's suspicion. TM had every right to be there. The question will be first was GZ reasonable to get out of the car and then did he have a reasonable fear of loss of life or serious physical injury.

 

[phonebook]

This behavior that will get the thread on moderated status, it could be considered baiting. It is not helping the discussion in any way.

I was expressing myself through sarcasm in response to comments/opinions similar to the one below:

Of course I believe GZ called the NEN and followed TM because TM was black. GZ had a crime thing for young black males. You need only read his history of calls placed to the police, even before he move to RATL.

The above comment seems to imply GZ was only concerned about the potential illegal activities perpetrated by blacks, since blacks were the only ones reported in his previous calls (which isn't true). I'm not sure how complete my source is (HERE), but her suggestion that "You need only read his history of calls placed to the police, even before he move to RATL", specifically the highlighted part, isn't accurate. My source shows the only time race was specified, before he moved to the RATL, was when there were (2) Hispanic males, with (1) White male; and (1) White male which was GZ's former roommate.

 

[Dan O.]

If we are talking ms it might be a big deal but I am not sure if it adds or takes away too much. I can say I listened to that audio a lot of times and I hear, "He's runnin? Which way is he runnin?" I don't hear him say "in which way," However, with the extra syllable added in the audio lines up perfectly.

Go here to view the high resolution audio charts. https://sites.google.com/site/trayvonmartinwiki/zimmerman-nen-call

Another clue to unraveling this issue is when George says "Ah". Here he is formulating his answer to the question just asked. He doesn't need to leave the vehicle to answer the dispatchers question and in fact we hear the chime for some time afterwards.

There was an earlier question about the delay between George saying "**** he's running" and the clicks. This would be explained if the truck was moving at the time and George needed to pull over and stop before putting the shifter into park. We presume George was following behind trayvon from the club house down to the cut through so naturally his truck would be moving.

 

[phonebook]

Another clue to unraveling this issue is when George says "Ah". Here he is formulating his answer to the question just asked. He doesn't need to leave the vehicle to answer the dispatchers question and in fact we hear the chime for some time afterwards.

I think it's partly him exerting force to get out of his vehicle at the time, and perhaps partly him getting ready to respond to the dispatcher, perhaps with some contemplation thrown in. I think it's possible we hear the chime because this is when GZ is grabbing the flashlight (wherever it may have been). I think he does actually need to leave the vehicle to answer the dispatcher's question to his own satisfaction (just me trying to put myself into his shoes) as he couldn't really see exactly where the suspect was headed from his current vantage point.

There was an earlier question about the delay between George saying "**** he's running" and the clicks. This would be explained if the truck was moving at the time and George needed to pull over and stop before putting the shifter into park. We presume George was following behind trayvon from the club house down to the cut through so naturally his truck would be moving.

It would also be explained if GZ was mulling over whether or not to get out of his truck, and the dispatcher's question was all the extra motivation he needed to actually get out. His truck would have moved at some point; I don't think it was moving at the time though. He could have been in drive, with his foot on the break, not going anywhere. When GZ says "****, he's running", TM had (supposedly) just made the right, south down the T, which was quite a ways away from the road. Compared to where GZ said TM circled his car, it doesn't look like GZ could have moved very far forward (if he moved at all) after that point, so he may have been stationary the entire time.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This behavior that will get the thread on moderated status, it could be considered baiting. It is not helping the discussion in any way.

You missed one..

Off in the distance, the tears of impotent rage can be heard splatting on the ground..

 

[Giz]

It will be up to the jury to decide if GZ made a reasonable choice to get out of the car. He had no reason to do so and probably knew why he shouldn't. But it will be up to the jury.

This 'he had the right' crap is about a reasonable as any of the off subject posts. It was not a legal right that will be discussed , the question will be, given GZ's knowledge and history , was it reasonable.

Hmmm, I think some people might have a problem with: "you are not permitted to go out onto your neighborhood street if there might possibly be a bad person there… because if they were to attack you and you defended yourself, you would then be legally liable for them launching an unprovoked assault." I mean, that would completely negate the validity of (police-approved) neighborhood watch patrols… after all the watch is either going to not see anyone "bad", in which case the patrol isn't needed, or, they will see a "bad" person, in which case they shouldn't be walking the dangerous streets anyway!!

Anyway:

Rights:
1- To get out of one's truck
2- To walk along the public sidewalk

Not a right:
3- To try and detain someone against their will
4- To assualt someone who is not an immediate danger to you

We know that GZ did "1" and TM did "2". GZ may have done "3" and TM may have done "4" (but we don't know).

 

[Darkman]

Dancing David,

Careful with the "trolling" comments there ... No need to get personal, as it goes against any forum's rules.

and please don't twist my words around .... -- I already said what i said .. (that gold teeth, tats etc is simply side detail ... it, in no ways, is evidence ... as to 13 year old .. - i did't say TM was 13 year old ... all i meant was that MSM originally showed innocent pics of Trayvon when he was 13 year old or so, when i reality he didn't look like that .. and was much older / older looking that on those pics.

P.S. and please don't try to bully me (cuz I am new here, or for any other reason). I don't like bullies in general and will always stand up for the ones who are being bullied, and for myself, especially

Peace...

 

[12AX7]

Who on earth is MSM and when did they say that TM was 13?

That's an acronym for "mainstream media". You know, any broadcast, print, or online news sources that Zimmerman supporters, conservatives, Christians and/or gun owners disagree with.

 

[AlBell]

That's an acronym for "mainstream media". You know, any broadcast, print, or online news sources that Zimmerman supporters, conservatives, Christians and/or gun owners disagree with.

Or more succintly, any news organization that isn't Fox, or Drudge, or Breitbart, or Townhall, etc.

 

[johnny karate]

Hmmm, I think some people might have a problem with: "you are not permitted to go out onto your neighborhood street if there might possibly be a bad person there… because if they were to attack you and you defended yourself, you would then be legally liable for them launching an unprovoked assault."

I don't think anyone is making that particular claim.

You frame it as if Zimmerman was minding his own business, got out of his car, and was suddenly attacked out of nowhere.

Even in his sanitized, self-serving version of events, he admits to following Martin (well, at least in some of those versions).

I mean, that would completely negate the validity of (police-approved) neighborhood watch patrols… after all the watch is either going to not see anyone "bad", in which case the patrol isn't needed, or, they will see a "bad" person, in which case they shouldn't be walking the dangerous streets anyway!!

Most neighborhood watch guidelines are pretty clear in their instructions to not do what Zimmerman did.

So I think any neighborhood watch patrols that have the common sense and self-control to actually follow the guidelines will actually fare just fine.

 

[Darkman]

Zimmerman prosecutor: O'Mara is a grandstander

Bernie de la Rionda says his office should not be sanctioned for hiding witness misstatement.

By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel
5:30 p.m. EDT, March 28, 2013

Assistant state attorney Bernie de la Rionda during a status hearing in the George Zimmerman case, in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, March 5, 2013. (Joe Burbank, Orlando Sentinel / March 5, 2013)

In an angry, sarcastic, insult-laden pleading, the lead prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case today called defense attorney Mark O'Mara a "craven" duplicitous grandstander who "courts anything resembling a microphone or camera".

He also suggested that O'Mara was either unethical or so stupid, he doesn't know the meaning of one of the most common words in a defense attorney's vocabulary: exculpatory, an adjective used to describe a piece of evidence that tends to prove a suspect's innocence.

Bernie de la Rionda's pleading came four days after O'Mara asked Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson to fine de la Rionda several thousand dollars, accusing him of hiding a key secret for seven months: the fact that his most important witness had lied under oath in April.

In his response filed today, de la Rionda admitted that he'd failed to disclose that until three weeks ago but said O'Mara hasn't shown any actual damage and thus, his office should be off the hook.

"No misconduct has occurred, nor should sanction be rewarded to compensate counsel," de la Rionda wrote.

Read more: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...an-sanction-response-20130328,0,4684144.story
​

 

[Darkman]

De la Rionda has not yet responsed to a second motion O'Mara filed this week, asking a judge to sanction and fine de la Rionda for a second reason: delaying the same witness' deposition for five hours by refusing to let defense attorneys video record it.

Check back for more.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...an-sanction-response-20130328,0,4684144.story

 

[johnny karate]

He also suggested that O'Mara was either unethical or so stupid, he doesn't know the meaning of one of the most common words in a defense attorney's vocabulary: exculpatory, an adjective used to describe a piece of evidence that tends to prove a suspect's innocence.

De la Rionda makes a pretty good point.

I have yet to see anyone demonstrate or explain how the testimony in question is exculpatory.

 

[Darkman]

State's response to defendant's motion for sanctions for discovery violations: (in PDF format)

http://tmwarriors.files.wordpress.c...s-office-for-discovery-violations-3-28-13.pdf

 

[WildCat]

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did.

Errr....I never claimed irrefutable truth. That's a bit different than pointing out that Zimmerman had smeared blood on his face. You know, right by his mouth and nose.

TRAYVON TRUTH #53: The arrow does not point to smeared blood.

So it's smeared blood because... you say it is?

Smudge =/= "smeared blood". Nice try, though.