Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[lionking]

It's not a lack of confidence in the entire justice system (or maybe it is, to some extent), and it won't be in a blatant manner. I don't believe this judge for this trial would be willing to burden all the "blame" for allowing GZ to go free, regardless of the evidence. It wouldn't be blatant though, as there's enough circumstantial evidence to make it appear that GZ may have done something illegal, etc., but there isn't enough direct evidence to prove one way or the other. This could potentially change if GZ were to take the stand and somehow become his brother, capable of clear, consistent dialogue. Based on how confusing GZ's attempts are at making a coherent story, and how quickly this causes people to conclude that his failed attempts equate to him being intentionally deceitful, instead of taking the time to actually try to make sense of what he's saying, I think this would only serve to give the prosecution more "ammo" (in the form of his statements on the stand at the pre-trial hearing) that they could then use against him at the jury trial.

In the end, it's still a judgement call by the judge. Unless there was like multiple-angle, multiply-sourced video evidence of TM assaulting GZ, and essentially behaving in nearly the same way GZ has described, I don't think Judge Nelson's personal decision (which it is her personal decision whether the defense has presented a preponderance of the evidence or not) to move the case forward to a trial, especially with how much public pressure there is FOR a trial, would be heavily scrutinized, and she likely knows that.

Got all bases covered, haven't you?

If GZ is acquitted, justice has been done, if convicted, it's a conspiracy. Because, despite a number of weasel words, this is what you are saying in this post.

 

[Mister Earl]

Boy, did this thread ever pick up!

Anyone know when the trial goes, and if it'll be televised? Gotta set the Tivo...

 

[Unabogie]

Here's another little lie George told. Witness 13, the "flashlight" guy, came upon George after the murder. George says he was holding the victim down trying to restrain him and asked Witness 13 to help him. He says he asked him "are you the police?" and Witness 13 said no, he was calling the police, and George said "don't call the police, help me restrain this guy".

Witness 13, however, says that when he happened upon the killer, George was already up, walking towards the T, and apparently on the phone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ep_5BT53Mf8

Just add it to the pile of little lies that George told to make it seem like the kid he'd just killed needed restraining and how no one would help him. All of his embellishments serve the same purpose: they cast him as the helpless victim, the actual victim as an aggressive monster, and the witnesses as helpful to him.

June will be fun times. It will just be a series of witnesses being shown these interviews and videos and being asked "is that how it happened?".

 

[phonebook]

I guess this article needs to be reposted every time we're told that an immunity hearing would be so very difficult to win, especially for an innocent guy like George.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133



Amazingly, all of these guys held their immunity hearings and their motions for immunity were granted. You'd think, and I'm just spitballing here, that an innocent guy like George would be a lock for dismissal. And get this, if he gets immunity, those money grubbing Martins and the Scheme Team can't sue them!!!

It's a win for all god fearing Neighborhood Watch Heroes around the world.

I just can't seem to understand why O'Mara didn't try. This conspiracy is deeper than any of us can ever know.

ETA: This quote sums it up.

Odd that I haven't heard of any of those stories. Did any of them make the national (or even international) news? Did any of them prompt protests in various cities nationwide for the arrest of the shooter/killer? Did any of them spark concerns for riots (no justice, no peace)?

Do a Google search for "George Zimmerman", then for "Trayvon Martin". Combined, there are ~8 million results (that's when put within quotes, it's ~183 million without quotes). Find me one example from the above list that has even 1/10 of the public interest that this case has, and make sure the results predate this case, so as to not to return results of stories like the one(s) you found that were only published/made in the first place because of this case.

Youtube, Trayvon Martin - 195,000 results. George Zimmerman - 124,000 results.

Find a case even remotely similar to this case.

ETA: Show another case where a famous actor/director (Spike Lee) posts to twitter the address he/she believes is for the alleged criminal.

Show another case where the New Black Panthers issue a $10,000 "Wanted: Dead or Alive" reward.

This can go on and on...

ETA2: Or how about one where the President of the United States is asked about the case, clearly is familiar with the case, and comments about the case?

 

[Mister Earl]

I can see why there's this much interest in the case. On the face of it, it appears to be a brazen murder that the local law enforcement didn't bother to investigate. People think Zimmerman got away with murder.

 

[phonebook]

Got all bases covered, haven't you?

If GZ is acquitted, justice has been done, if convicted, it's a conspiracy. Because, despite a number of weasel words, this is what you are saying in this post.

I was referring to the immunity hearing... he can't be convicted there.

 

[phonebook]

I can see why there's this much interest in the case. On the face of it, it appears to be a brazen murder that the local law enforcement didn't bother to investigate. People think Zimmerman got away with murder.

If you and I have the same idea of what "on the face of it" means, then I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Mister Earl]

If you and I have the same idea of what "on the face of it" means, then I'm inclined to agree.

Yes, I think we can. I meant "On the face of it" as "an initial look not involving significant amount of detail" or "at a quick glance."

 

[Amazer]

It goes beyond implicating the judges (Zimmerman is on his third one).

It has been argued there isn't enough evidence against Zimmerman to even warrant a charge, let alone a conviction.

Do some googling. Start with Alan Dershowitz. Review the posts in the original thread from last June.

There was outcry over the supposedly unethical and baseless probable cause affidavit. More than one person opined the charges would be dismissed and Corey would be sanctioned.

And yet almost a year later, we're heading into trial. No motion for dismissal was ever even filed. And then an opportunity for an immunity hearing was declined.

People are caterwauling about the governor, prosecutors, and judges, but the real villain in this alleged conspiracy is Mark O'Mara.

He is the one person who is supposed to be advocating for Zimmerman and acting in his best interests, and he is the one person who has the means to make these allegedly bogus charges go away.

And he has done nothing to that end.

Nothing.

From what I understand of their position, it is that MOM's hands are tied. Since even if he tried to make these charges go away, the judge(s) will somehow disregard the law and deny GM.

 

[Mumbles]

Odd that I haven't heard of any of those stories. Did any of them make the national (or even international) news? Did any of them prompt protests in various cities nationwide for the arrest of the shooter/killer? Did any of them spark concerns for riots (no justice, no peace)?

And, again, the strange claim that the vocally nonviolent protests were set to turn into riots...it's bizarre.

Do a Google search for "George Zimmerman", then for "Trayvon Martin". Combined, there are ~8 million results (that's when put within quotes, it's ~183 million without quotes). Find me one example from the above list that has even 1/10 of the public interest that this case has, and make sure the results predate this case, so as to not to return results of stories like the one(s) you found that were only published/made in the first place because of this case.

And given the above, we should be happy that the protesters managed to shine a light on an important issue with Florida's judicial system.

I'm not at all shocked to hear that people related to the Martin case took their view to the media. In my view, that's not a problem at all. Yes, Zimmerman does deserve a fair trial. But when you are recorded actively following a person who was just walking down the street, and you're confessing to shooting and killing that same person minutes later, I think you should go on trial. The fact that this required protests and media coverage is absurd.

ETA: Show another case where a famous actor/director (Spike Lee) posts to twitter the address he/she believes is for the alleged criminal.

Show another case where the New Black Panthers issue a $10,000 "Wanted: Dead or Alive" reward.

This can go on and on...

ETA2: Or how about one where the President of the United States is asked about the case, clearly is familiar with the case, and comments about the case?

Let's be honest - Obama was also asked about when Professor Gates was arrested for yelling at a cop, and about his birth certificate back when actually important things were happening. The DC press club is filled with idiots.

Spike let's retweet was wrong, and he settled with the family that he helped to antagonize.

The NBPP is a fringe group, and their bounty was mocked due to the fact that nobody believes that they actually have ten thousand dollars.

 

[phonebook]

From what I understand of their position, it is that MOM's hands are tied. Since even if he tried to make these charges go away, the judge(s) will somehow disregard the law and deny GM.

A judge is supposed to base his/her decisions on the law, but judges aren't robots with the exact same software. Where one judge might rule one way in a certain case, another judge, when faced with the exact same case and evidence, might rule another way. Because of the circumstantial evidence in this case, if Judge Nelson were to deny immunity (in other words, conclude that the defense hadn't met the "preponderance of evidence" burden) at an immunity hearing, her ruling would not be questioned by higher authorities, especially in such a case that has a great percentage of the population demanding a trial. That is, unless the defense were to somehow present something extremely exculpatory in GZ's favor, which hasn't yet been revealed, at an immunity hearing, and it was clear Judge Nelson showed no apparent consideration for it.

 

[Rare Truth]

Well said, Rare Truth. Sometimes it's necessary to sit back and take a deep breath

Thank you, and agreed.

I can see why there's this much interest in the case. On the face of it, it appears to be a brazen murder that the local law enforcement didn't bother to investigate. People think Zimmerman got away with murder.

It's absolutely fascinating, and I have never been a trial junky before, but this case has me glued. It's damn addictive, I tell you. (and my work situation has suffered from it. Thank God I'm self employed. Or not. I've lost some damn money looking up evidence and bouncing off theories here when I should have been enterprisin' it up. Ug.)

and it's been this way since the start. I think it's all the wild elements and personalities combined with the intriguing dynamics of a case where discovery information and court hearings are so readily available, and for those inquisitive amongst us, (part of my business involves research, so it's in my blood to research!) an opportunity to utilize our detective skills.

With the many websites discussing it, and near ~everyone~ with a strong opinion on it by now, it just feeds the machine as we all wait for some new strong piece of evidence or a tidbit that will bend the limbs enough to change the narrative...and of course, we all await that trial with heightened anticipation.

That said (thanks for the read so far...) one little thing I'm throwing out, and not directed at you, but if anyone knows...

We know Chief Lee was at the crimescene within the hour of Z being brought to the station.

Singleton interviewed Z that night while Detective Serino was at the crime scene and interviewed some witnesses.

In the 7th discovery, page 12f, That same night, only hours after the shooting, Serino is contacted at 23:29:12 to call:
the State's Attoney's office. (see entry on page 12, activity starting with the line at)
---> REM S3010 \\REQ ON DUTY HOMICIDE STATE ATTORNEY CALL HIM

In Serino's report, we see at 11:45PM he did make a call to the State's Attorney's office.

What I want to know, is it unusual for a lead detective, who has not even interviewed a person who has just shot and killed someone (recall Singleton is a narcotics officer) -- to call the States Attorney - just before midnight?

How could they - at that point even begin to know if they had probable cause to arrest?

I might be over thinking it, and perhaps forgotten something, but -- I do recall this other statement made from SA office:

"Police officers can make an arrest at virtually any dadgum point they feel they have enough probable cause to make an arrest," Bumpus-Hooper [spokesman for Wolfinger] said. "They do not need our permission and they do not seek our permission."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-usa-florida-shooting-prosecutor-idUSBRE83116420120402

​

So why the call at 11;45PM?

 

[phonebook]

And, again, the strange claim that the vocally nonviolent protests were set to turn into riots...it's bizarre.

Did the L.A. riots occur before or after the trial and verdict? People don't riot before there is finality. They were protesting before the investigation had been completed.

And given the above, we should be happy that the protesters managed to shine a light on an important issue with Florida's judicial system.

I'm not at all shocked to hear that people related to the Martin case took their view to the media. In my view, that's not a problem at all. Yes, Zimmerman does deserve a fair trial. But when you are recorded actively following a person who was just walking down the street, and you're confessing to shooting and killing that same person minutes later, I think you should go on trial. The fact that this required protests and media coverage is absurd.

Why is a trial necessary? What's wrong with a thorough investigation? An investigation is for the purpose of finding out whether or not a crime was committed in the first place. A trial takes place after the prosecution determines that the evidence is sufficient for a conviction at trial. Not only did the "special" prosecutor determine there was enough evidence for manslaughter, she found evidence for Murder 2!

Let's be honest - Obama was also asked about when Professor Gates was arrested for yelling at a cop, and about his birth certificate back when actually important things were happening. The DC press club is filled with idiots.

Spike let's retweet was wrong, and he settled with the family that he helped to antagonize.

The NBPP is a fringe group, and their bounty was mocked due to the fact that nobody believes that they actually have ten thousand dollars.

The poster I replied to was presenting other self-defense, or SYG cases where, "on the face of it", it appears that immunity would not have been granted, and he(?) was implying that if those cases could conclude with the defendant receiving immunity, then why couldn't this one? He's attempting to put those cases and this case on completely equal footing, which as I showed is simply not the case.

 

[Cylinder]

who has just shot and killed someone (recall Singleton is a narcotics officer) -- to call the States Attorney - just before midnight?

How could they - at that point even begin to know if they had probable cause to arrest?

I might be over thinking it, and perhaps forgotten something, but -- I do recall this other statement made from SA office:

"Police officers can make an arrest at virtually any dadgum point they feel they have enough probable cause to make an arrest," Bumpus-Hooper [spokesman for Wolfinger] said. "They do not need our permission and they do not seek our permission."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-usa-florida-shooting-prosecutor-idUSBRE83116420120402

​

So why the call at 11;45PM?

The police use the SAO on call as a legal advisor for potential criminal cases. I would be shocked if SPD policy did not require SPD to contact SAO in all cases of homicide.

 

[Cylinder]

And, again, the strange claim that the vocally nonviolent protests were set to turn into riots...it's bizarre.

Maybe is has something to do with the NBPP bounty and the SPD car being shot up near the crime scene.

 

[Rare Truth]

The police use the SAO on call as a legal advisor for potential criminal cases. I would be shocked if SPD policy did not require SPD to contact SAO in all cases of homicide.

That night? Before a homicide detective has even talked to the potential arrestee?


"Police officers can make an arrest at virtually any dadgum point they feel they have enough probable cause to make an arrest," Bumpus-Hooper [spokesman for Wolfinger] said. "They do not need our permission and they do not seek our permission."

 

[johnny karate]

Here, you're arguing there isn't enough evidence against Zimmerman to warrant a trial:

Why is a trial necessary? What's wrong with a thorough investigation? An investigation is for the purpose of finding out whether or not a crime was committed in the first place. A trial takes place after the prosecution determines that the evidence is sufficient for a conviction at trial. Not only did the "special" prosecutor determine there was enough evidence for manslaughter, she found evidence for Murder 2!

Here, you're arguing that Zimmerman couldn't win acquittal at an immunity hearing, despite the lack of evidence against him:

A judge is supposed to base his/her decisions on the law, but judges aren't robots with the exact same software. Where one judge might rule one way in a certain case, another judge, when faced with the exact same case and evidence, might rule another way. Because of the circumstantial evidence in this case, if Judge Nelson were to deny immunity (in other words, conclude that the defense hadn't met the "preponderance of evidence" burden) at an immunity hearing, her ruling would not be questioned by higher authorities, especially in such a case that has a great percentage of the population demanding a trial. That is, unless the defense were to somehow present something extremely exculpatory in GZ's favor, which hasn't yet been revealed, at an immunity hearing, and it was clear Judge Nelson showed no apparent consideration for it.

Put it all together, and you have a conspiracy to railroad an innocent man for a crime there is no evidence he committed.

A conspiracy that his own attorneys are going along with, and about which the legal community at large has been utterly silent.

 

[phonebook]

That night? Before a homicide detective has even talked to the potential arrestee?

GZ was arrested. I imagine the homicide detective was privy to information that other investigators had already acquired, such as GZ admitting he had shot and killed someone, and some of the witness' statements on scene. Like the quote you supplied, officers have a lot of leeway with regard to being able to make an arrest based on probable cause, all they have to do is "feel" they have enough evidence.

REQ ON DUTY HOMICIDE STATE ATTORNEY CALL HIM

Maybe that "REQ" means required? Maybe Serino had to call him.

 

[phonebook]

Here, you're arguing there isn't enough evidence against Zimmerman to warrant a trial:

I was replying to this part of his quote specifically: "But when you are recorded actively following a person who was just walking down the street, and you're confessing to shooting and killing that same person minutes later, I think you should go on trial."

Notice he uses no specific actors, and doesn't include Zimmerman and/or Martin. He was presenting a hypothetical situation that he may think closely mirrors this situation, but he didn't specify this situation. I asked why a trial was necessary instead of an investigation, when considering only the above circumstances (which is all the poster I replied to presented as warranting a "trial").

Here, you're arguing that Zimmerman couldn't win acquittal at an immunity hearing, despite the lack of evidence against him:

A judge is supposed to base his/her decisions on the law, but judges aren't robots with the exact same software. Where one judge might rule one way in a certain case, another judge, when faced with the exact same case and evidence, might rule another way. Because of the circumstantial evidence in this case, if Judge Nelson were to deny immunity (in other words, conclude that the defense hadn't met the "preponderance of evidence" burden) at an immunity hearing, her ruling would not be questioned by higher authorities, especially in such a case that has a great percentage of the population demanding a trial. That is, unless the defense were to somehow present something extremely exculpatory in GZ's favor, which hasn't yet been revealed, at an immunity hearing, and it was clear Judge Nelson showed no apparent consideration for it.

Put it all together, and you have a conspiracy to railroad an innocent man for a crime there is no evidence he committed.

A conspiracy that his own attorneys are going along with, and about which the legal community at large has been utterly silent.

I never claimed there was "no" evidence. There is circumstantial evidence, but not enough to warrant a conviction, in my opinion.

Besides, "putting it all together" requires components you're using that I never presented to make that "whole".

ETA: There is also a lack of sufficient evidence FOR him, without his testimony, at an immunity trial. Remember, at an immunity hearing, the burden is on the defense to prove, to the preponderance of evidence standard (51%+), that the defendant was justified in using self-defense. It's not as simple as having to only provide enough evidence/arguments to present a reasonable doubt against the charges. Likewise, the prosecution is under no obligation to present evidence that proves (to any standard) that GZ committed a crime (that's what the trial is for). All the prosecution has to do is supply as little evidence as possible to counter whatever the defense offers, and without GZ's testimony (or full access to his statements to investigators), that's going to be a stiff challenge for the defense. I imagine MOM believes GZ taking the stand, especially at an immunity hearing, would be a bad idea.

I wonder how many of the other immunity/"SYG" hearings were successful without the defendant testifying? My guess is very few if any.

 

[Mumbles]

Did the L.A. riots occur before or after the trial and verdict? People don't riot before there is finality. They were protesting before the investigation had been completed.

The LA riots occurred for a very specific reason. The local police were more notorious for corruption and violence than the current NYPD, and yet they were exonerated even when their violence was caught on video.

That has little to do with that case. There's no indication that the people there will riot - and the protest leaders have repeatedly espoused non-violence.

Why is a trial necessary? What's wrong with a thorough investigation? An investigation is for the purpose of finding out whether or not a crime was committed in the first place. A trial takes place after the prosecution determines that the evidence is sufficient for a conviction at trial. Not only did the "special" prosecutor determine there was enough evidence for manslaughter, she found evidence for Murder 2!

The answer is simple. A basic investigation would show that Martin was simply walking home from a local store, and that Zimmerman wrongly saw this as "suspicious", and then chased and shot Martin. That's quite enough for a trial.

The poster I replied to was presenting other self-defense, or SYG cases where, "on the face of it", it appears that immunity would not have been granted, and he(?) was implying that if those cases could conclude with the defendant receiving immunity, then why couldn't this one? He's attempting to put those cases and this case on completely equal footing, which as I showed is simply not the case.

I do not agree with that last sentence. In each event, we have a violent person, attacking another person, who gets let go because of "stand your ground". And each decision is foolish.