Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

Here's a start.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/0...about-fighting-marijuana-and-guns?hpt=hln10_3

No one seems to want to address this issue, so I'll offer this query again:

Should Zimmerman's history also be investigated to determine his character, or is it only Martin's character that should be investigated?

Should Zimmerman's documented assault of a law enforcement agent also be allowed into the trial?

What about the restraining order he had taken out against him for allegations of domestic violence? Should the ex-girlfriend who made those allegations be called as a witness?

What about the rape allegations made agaisnt him? Should the cousin he allegedly raped be called as a witness? Or her accusations allowed to otherwise be entered into evidence?

What about Zimmerman's documented attempt to hide money from the court? Should that allowed into the trial as evidence of Zimmerman's dishonesty?

 

[Mumbles]

I agree, the defense wishes to portray submit evidence that visually shows Martin as being intoxicated. impaired. And that is what the video shows. But your claim that swaying means that walking would be "daunting" is ridiculous. And swaying != " barely walk."

It would seem more reasonable to me if it was simply argued that he wasn't swaying when he stood there, or the swaying was not an impairment.

Indeed, and looking at the video in question, I'm not seeing much in the way of swaying. Martin does briefly lean agains the counter, but eventually pushes himself upright using his hips.

Not that I think this helps prosecution any - I agree with the notion him being too impaired to stand up straight actually makes the claim that he was some incredible MMA champion fighter mere minutes later sound less likely, not more.

 

[Mumbles]

Here's a start.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/0...about-fighting-marijuana-and-guns?hpt=hln10_3

Fighting, marijuana, *and* guns? Oh my goodness, that...makes absolutely no difference to me as far as this case goes. I view it as no different than any of ZImmerman's supposed misdeeds in the past.

 

[bookworm]

No one seems to want to address this issue, so I'll offer this query again:

Should Zimmerman's history also be investigated to determine his character, or is it only Martin's character that should be investigated?

Should Zimmerman's documented assault of a law enforcement agent also be allowed into the trial?

What about the restraining order he had taken out against him for allegations of domestic violence? Should the ex-girlfriend who made those allegations be called as a witness?

What about the rape allegations made agaisnt him? Should the cousin he allegedly raped be called as a witness? Or her accusations allowed to otherwise be entered into evidence?

What about Zimmerman's documented attempt to hide money from the court? Should that allowed into the trial as evidence of Zimmerman's dishonesty?

My own personal opinion is that in this case both of their prior behaviors should be admitted at trial. I don't believe new allegations that only came out after the incident and haven't been proven should be admitted. Since the instigation of the fight is in question, then let both characters be examined. I think it's been more than proven since this started that TM is not the innocent child he was initially portrayed as. I said from the beginning, things are going to come out about him that I, personally as a parent, wouldn't want thrown out in front of the world about my child.

 

[bookworm]

Fighting, marijuana, *and* guns? Oh my goodness, that...makes absolutely no difference to me as far as this case goes. I view it as no different than any of ZImmerman's supposed misdeeds in the past.

Both of their misdeeds in the past should be examined. Some are relevant to a FIGHT between a teenager and a neighborhood watch person that night and some are not.

 

[johnny karate]

Gene Nichols is wrong. Not only is this release required by Florida's Sunshine Law...

I'm going to stop you right there.

This is what you had to say on this matter previously:

Not trying to be a smart-arse here, but it's the state that releases evidence to the public. Mark O'Mara is a private person and not accountable to Florida's Sunshine Law.

... which seems to stand in stark contradiction to what you are now asserting.

I was hoping we could clear up this glaring discrepancy before moving forward with the discussion. Thanks.

 

[johnny karate]

1. It is discovery. The state filed a motion to insure that the defense complied with discovery, so the defense complied.

2. Is there still someone who doesn't believe TM was involved with drugs ?

3. Apparently discovery is full of things that may never see the light of day in court, like rape allegations, etc. It seems as if that is the nature of discovery...

And the reason O'Mara released this "discovery" to the public is... ?

 

[johnny karate]

My own personal opinion is that in this case both of their prior behaviors should be admitted at trial. I don't believe new allegations that only came out after the incident and haven't been proven should be admitted.

Clearly, such a scenario only favors Zimmerman since Martin is dead.

So if evidence of character should be admitted, why does that evidence of character have to exist exclusively prior to the night Zimmerman shot and killed Martin?

Zimmerman's self-defense claim relies on his honesty. Why shouldn't the prosecution be allowed to enter evidence that Zimmerman is dishonest?

Furthermore, Martin's alleged burglary was never proven, and yet you seem to think those allegations should be allowed into evidence.

Why does the standard suddenly get stricter when the issue of Zimmerman's character is brought in?

Since the instigation of the fight is in question, then let both characters be examined. I think it's been more than proven since this started that TM is not the innocent child he was initially portrayed as.

Zimmerman is also far from innocent.

What does determining that both parties involved in an altercation have a checkered past tell us about the altercation?

Both of their misdeeds in the past should be examined. Some are relevant to a FIGHT between a teenager and a neighborhood watch person that night and some are not.

You previously made a very tenuous and dubious connection between unproven allegations that Martin was a burglar and his likelihood to have attacked and assaulted Zimmerman. This argument was made in support of the notion that those unproven allegations should be used against Martin during the trial.

Now that Zimmerman's character has been introduced into the discussion, why are you insisting that the standards by which allegations of past misdeeds are determined to be valid and relevant suddenly much more stringent?

 

[Unabogie]

Clearly, such a scenario only favors Zimmerman since Martin is dead.

So if evidence of character should be admitted, why does that evidence of character have to exist exclusively prior to the night Zimmerman shot and killed Martin?

Zimmerman's self-defense claim relies on his honesty. Why shouldn't the prosecution be allowed to enter evidence that Zimmerman is dishonest?

Furthermore, Martin's alleged burglary was never proven, and yet you seem to think those allegations should be allowed into evidence.

Why does the standard suddenly get stricter when the issue of Zimmerman's character is brought in?



Zimmerman is also far from innocent.

What does determining that both parties involved in an altercation have a checkered past tell us about the altercation?



You previously made a very tenuous and dubious connection between unproven allegations that Martin was a burglar and his likelihood to have attacked and assaulted Zimmerman. This argument was made in support of the notion that those unproven allegations should be used against Martin during the trial.

Now that Zimmerman's character has been introduced into the discussion, why are you insisting that the standards by which allegations of past misdeeds are determined to be valid and relevant suddenly much more stringent?

We've long been pointing out the glaring double standard in play here, but even these latest photos display the same discrepancy. Case in point: the photo of an unknown hand holding a gun. In Zimmerman's case, when I've pointed out how carrying a gun with you everywhere you go (except for work where it's forbidden) is creepy and paranoid, I'm told that I just don't understand gun culture and that carrying your firearm with you and even giving one as a gift to your 5 year old is part of being a Good American. Going to the store? It's dangerous out there! Take a gun with you! Scared of Obama? Strap a gun on your back and head to Target! Guns in schools! Arm the kids! Arm the teachers! The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun in a good guy with a gun. Yet in this picture we see a hand, possibly Trayvon's, holding a gun. Was this his father's gun? Was he at a range, learning self-defense like a God Fearing Patriot? Was he at a friend's house whose father was demonstrating gun safety to everyone there? No? How do we know that? We don't, but it's of course just assumed that "black hand with gun"= "thug".

Again, the double standard is white hot.

In the end, even if Trayvon Martin once held a gun in his hand (as I did many times as a teenager) or smoked pot (as I also did many times as a teenager) he wasn't holding a gun, or drugs, or a burglary tool, or anything else besides Skittles and tea when another flawed person, with a much more violent history that includes rape and assault, shot and killed him. And that's what George is going to need to explain in just a few weeks and why his lawyers are releasing this info now that the 500 jury summons have gone out in a desperate attempt to taint the jury pool.

 

[12AX7]

I think it's been more than proven since this started that TM is not the innocent child he was initially portrayed as.

So?

Let's assume Trayvon as a delinquent, a druggie, a thug, a burglar, a gangbanger, had anger issues, whatever. Doesn't matter.

On the night he was killed, he was not involved in any illegal activity, he was coming home from the store, in a neighborhood he had a right to be in, and had attempted to remove himself from the encounter with George. George chose to persue after being advised not to (let's not play the "We don't need you to do that." semantics game here). George shot and killed an unarmed teenager, suffering very minor and minimal physical injuries to what he describes as a vicious beating, and has numerous inconsistencies in his stories of how the encounter went down and woth respect to the physical evidence (debris field, for instance).

No amount of dragging Trayvon Martin or his family through mud changes any of that.

 

[Cylinder]

I'm going to stop you right there.

This is what you had to say on this matter previously:


... which seems to stand in stark contradiction to what you are now asserting.

I was hoping we could clear up this glaring discrepancy before moving forward with the discussion. Thanks.

There is no discrepancy. O'Mara Law Firm is not the government, thus is required to release records in that (or this) situation subsequent to the Sunshine Law. (There are situations where a private firm such as a contractor or service provider has to allow public inspection of documents.)

Since the state filed this information with the court, it should have been open to public inspection at that time or filed in redacted form with a Motion for Protective Order. Instead, they released a binary file which mixed protected and non-protected information presumably - since O'Mara redacted the protected parts. That would have required the state to identify the information to the court and to Zimmerman.

As I stated in my most recent post, the information is required to be released. That's beyond dispute. That was the basis for my assertion that "this release [is] required by Florida's Sunshine Law..."

 

[johnny karate]

Here's a start.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/0...about-fighting-marijuana-and-guns?hpt=hln10_3

And by the way, this should get you started on Zimmerman's tendencies for violence:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer?lite

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/16/justice/florida-teen-shooting-witness

... and why Zimmerman is not to be trusted:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/01/george-zimmerman-bond-revoked-trayvon-martin

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Setting aside all questions of the legal system and it's protocols regarding evidence, admissibility, etc... just an honest question to those who lean towards GZ's guilt:

Does this new evidence make you PERSONALLY think the scenario GZ describes is a bit more believable, or no?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes. Because that's how these things work.

Here, let me walk you through it:

One team of attorneys files a motion making certain claims.

The other team of attorneys opposes that motion and denies the claims therein.

The judge hears arguments from both sides, and renders a decision based on the evidence presented.

The judge is the sole and final abiter in these matters. The issue ends with the decision the judge renders.

And in case you don't recall, the last time O'Mara brought claims of discovery violations and a request for sanctions to Judge Nelson, she decided his claims were unfounded and denied his request for subsequent sanctions.

That is the one and only legal standard.

Let me know if you understand, or if you need me to further explain.

Yes, I do. You didn't explain how a legal motion which hinges upon a single persons interpretation (the judge) becomes "bogus", and a "manufactured fantasy" simply based on the outcome of the decision.

Because I can easily imagine a scenario where the judge could decide either way. Before the judges decision, Both arguments are sound and valid, and well grounded in the facts of the case. But after the decision, one of them becomes "bogus", and a "manufactured fantasy".

That doesn't make sense. It seems to me you are simply disparaging the argument based on a (possibly arbitrary) decision, not on the merits of the argument itself.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

"Swaying" as a sign of impairment is an indication that the person in question is having trouble keeping their balance. Thus the alleged impairment.

A person who can't keep their balance enough to stand still is not going to be able to keep their balance while walking.

This is quite simple logic, and I am surprised it needs to be explained.

It doesn't need to be explained. What needs to be explained is why you would describe that slight impairment as something that would make walking "daunting", and how it would render someone barely able to walk ?

You argued it was a straw man, not that it was irrelevant.

Yes, Unabogie is attacking an argument that the defense/MOM made, so what is posted here on the Internet is irrelevant to that, and so he was attacking something that MOM never claimed, hence the strawman label.

Great, but that's not the claim that's being made.

The claim being made is that Martin demonstrated extraordinary physical prowess (he completely overpowered and rendered totally helpless a former bouncer that outweighed him by 50 lbs) while being too high to stand up straight.

Right, and that "extraordinary physical prowess" consist of sucker punching GZ, and then climbing on him and continuing to assault him. I simply don't see how that requires any extraordinary powers, nor does it require TM to outweigh GZ. So the claim that was being made is ridiculous and doesn't describe reality.

As for the claim that GZ was rendered helpless ...well, if he was actually rendered "totally helpless", TM probably wouldn't be dead.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Except no one said it was "impossible", as you claimed.

What was claimed is what other experts were actually quoted as saying.

No, they didn't say it, but it is implicit in the claims they made. The evidence use was the tox report citing how much THC was in TMs system.

If the claim is made that "Martin did not have enough THC in his body to impair him in any way." then that implies it is because it is impossible for him to be impaired based on that amount of THC.
Something along the lines of

being impared requires X amount of THC in your system
TM had < X amount of THC
Therefore, it is impossible TM was imparied

And the same for the other claim I quoted.

So yes, they did really claim it was impossible TM was high/impaired from marijuana.

As for the "other experts", if you could provide me a link to where either person I quoted provided evidence from these supposed "other experts" ... ?

To that point, you'll note the defense's motion did not include an affidavit from Dr. Goldberger.

Just their claim of what his conclusions were.

So what ? MOM is a well respected attorney - do you think he would risk some sort of sanctions by lying for his client ? Because you sure didn't earlier....

This from the same defense team who also claimed in court documents that their client was indigent and that the prosecution had commited discovery violations. And we all know how those claims fared in the light of closer scrutiny.

I find it surprising anyone would take what they claim at face value.

Losing a motion does not turn MOM into some pathological liar whose claims we should now somehow not believe....

That would be like claiming we need to re-examine every one of JKL's rulings, since, after all, he proved he was unfit to do his job. Why, he even even constructed a bogus fantasy of how he wasn't biased against GZ, when it turns out he actually was !

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And the reason O'Mara released this "discovery" to the public is... ?

That's how discovery works in FL, AFAIK.

I believe Cylinder also referenced some specific of JKLs ruling regarding this case as well:
All documents filed with the Clerk of Court shall remain open for public inspection, with the exception of:

a) Documents addressing the security of the parties, witnesses, or attorneys while at the courthouse; and

b) Documents containing the current address or location of the Defendant or his spouse.

And here is the filing of discovery with the courts:
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Defendant's Redacted 3rd Supplemental Discovery.pdf

Is there some reason you think court documents should remain hidden ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm going to stop you right there.

This is what you had to say on this matter previously:

... which seems to stand in stark contradiction to what you are now asserting.

I was hoping we could clear up this glaring discrepancy before moving forward with the discussion. Thanks.

Maybe if you quoted his remark in context:

Something like 20 days (not counting exactly) till O'Mara must release discovery made available to him on or about the 1st.

Not trying to be a smart-arse here, but it's the state that releases evidence to the public. Mark O'Mara is a private person and not accountable to Florida's Sunshine Law.

I think it's clear that the response was indicating it's not MOM job to release discovery documents filed by the State, as Rare Truth implied, rather it's the States job to fulfill their own discovery obligations and release the documents.

Of course, Cylinder is perfectly capable of explaining his response, I just thought it worth noting that in context, I found it remarkably clear and consistent with what he is saying now...

 

[quadraginta]

Gene Nichols is wrong. Not only is this release required by Florida's Sunshine Law, it's also the law of the case.

Or maybe not. I think you might be conflating the "Sunshine Law" with reciprocal discovery.

It is true that once discovery documents are submitted to the Clerk of Court by either party that they become public documents which are subject to the Sunshine Law.

But reciprocal discovery in Florida gives the defense an edge. The State is required to submit all evidence they have relating to the case. OTOH, the defense is only obligated to submit evidence they intend to actually use in court.

Now if O'Mara really does plan to use that information as part of his defense in court then yes, he was required to submit it, but there is nothing which states that he can't go ahead and submit it anyway whether he plans to use it or not, just to ensure that the info becomes public.

This is a common tactic for a defense team to use when trying to affect public opinion about a case.

I suspect that is what Nichols was talking about, not the obligations mandated by the Sunshine laws. They don't even pertain until after the discovery info is released by the defense. The quote jk cited made Nichols intent relatively clear.

Oddly enough (or perhaps not), defense lawyers have no qualms about accusing the State of using such tactics, even though the Prosecution is obligated to release everything for discovery.

Unintended consequences you might say, since that aspect of discovery was intended for the defendant's benefit, but when combined with Florida's uncompromising Sunshine Laws it doesn't always work out that way.

Of course, the state had opportunity to bring this information to the court's attention and ask that it be protected or sealed.

There's a reason the state didn't take that option.

Maybe even more than one. Sometimes it's better to pick your battles. A judge's options for sealing information once it does become part of the public record are relatively limited in Florida.

Sadly, the potential for the information to be prejudicial to the defendant's ( or prosecution's) case is not high on the list of those options, as your citations rightly pointed out.

 

[batvette]

What "legal technicality" are you referring to? Surely not the Stand Your Ground law, and I'm pretty sure that's what jk was talking about.

I'm talking about the implication that Zimmerman failing to ask for immunity makes him or his counsel STUPID.
Perhaps he wants to have his name fully cleared with a full trial rather than have to spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder.