Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

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?

For me personally, it doesn't affect my belief one way or the other.

Does Zimmerman's history of violent and criminal behavior affect your belief?

How about his attempt to deceive the court during the first bond hearing? Does that make you more or less likely to believe Zimmerman is telling the truth?

How about Zimmerman's Myspace page in which he expressed a dislike for Mexicans? Does that make you more or less likely to believe Zimmerman is racist?

How about the previous incidences in which Zimmerman had pursued "suspects"? Does that make you more or less likely to believe he chased Martin?

How about that fact that Zimmerman had a restraining order issued against him and a girl accusing him of sexual assault? Does that make you more or less likely to believe he's a decent, upstanding citizen?

 

[johnny karate]

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.

Show me anyone making that argument prior to O'Mara backing out of the hearing, and it might come across as something more than post hoc rationalization.

 

[johnny karate]

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.

And to address that particular argument, I certainly can't debate its merits.

Look how well things turned out for O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony after their acquittals. Both were able to return to their lives completely free from restriction and public scorn.

If Zimmerman gets acquitted, people will have no choice but to believe he is innocent.

And in much the same way, I'm sure you will immediately admit to Zimmerman's guilt should he be convicted, won't you?

 

[Mumbles]

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?

Considering the fact that Zimmerman's claims are already disproven by his own police recording...no.

 

[johnny karate]

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.

"Fantasy" is the opposite of "reality". The discovery violations O'Mara alleged were determined to not have occurred in "reality". That leaves "fantasy".

"Bogus" is the opposite of "genuine". The discovery violations O'Mara alleged were determined to not be "genuine". That leaves "bogus".

The defense claimed there were discovery violations. The prosecution claimed there were not. I think we can agree that both propositions cannot be true.

So, imaginary scenarios and lack of respect for the judge's ruling aside, the one and only standard for determining veracity in this instance has been met.

There were no discovery violations.

 

[johnny karate]

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..."

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 ?

I'm not sure what convoluted rationalizations either of you are attempting, but O'Mara was under no legal obligation to post that evidence on his website, or otherwise personally release it to the public. It is dishonest to make any assertions or implications to the contrary.

That's the bottom line, and it's exactly what Gene Nichols was referring to in his statement.

 

[johnny karate]

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" ... ?

Sure, right after you quote someone in this thread saying it was impossible for Martin to have been impaired.

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....

And yet you seemed to be willing to believe O'Mara would lie in a court document, and now suddenly find him trustworthy...

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

No, apparently the only thing that turns O'Mara into a liar is a desperate belief that Zimmerman was completely innocent of any deception during his first bond hearing.

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 !

There actually are mechanisms within the law to re-examine and potentially overturn a judge's ruling.

You'll note that Judge Lester's ruling in which he determined Zimmerman deceived the court was not subjected to them.

 

[johnny karate]

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 ?

Walking requires more balance and motor control than standing.

A person who can't stand is unlikely to be able to walk.

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.

We've been round and round about what Zimmerman's description of the altercation entails.

The language he uses is clear and unambiguous, and it is that clear and unambiguous description that I have repeatedly challenged. You have taken issue with that... for some reason.

To be honest, I'm not clear what you believe occurred because it seems to be whatever Zimmerman says right up to the point that it can be used against him, and then you want to walk things back to some more innocuous version of events.

You don't want to believe Martin attempted to murder Zimmerman.

You don't want to believe that attempt was brutal and cold-blooded.

And now you don't want to believe that Martin completely overpowered and physically dominated Zimmerman.

And all that despite Zimmerman quite clearly and unambiguously describing all those things.

So frankly, I am at loss as how to argue with someone who seems to cling to some nebulous belief about what occurred that hovers somewhere between what Zimmerman claimed and things he didn't claim but that best serve his interests.

 

[bookworm]

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.

You don't know if he was involved in any illegal activity! No one does! It appears that he may have been involved in the illegal activity of physical assault! This is what GZ has said happened and this new information supports that TM may have enjoyed a good fight now and then!

 

[12AX7]

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.

We discussed this line of thinking on page 9 of this thread. But this post sums up this mentality nicely:

Let's take a trip down memory lane, shall we?

August 2012:


Today:


Hmmm... I wonder what changed?

And it gets better:


Oh, now I see what changed. Zimmerman has chosen to forgo presenting his strong claim for self-defense at a pretrial immunity hearing in order to soothe a divided nation.

"George, your self-defense claim is very strong. We can schedule a pretrial immunity hearing and end this whole nightmare."

"No, Mark. This is bigger than me now. It's not good enough that I be acquitted of these heinous charges as quickly as possible so I can get on with my life. People need to believe I am innocent, and the only way to do that is to needlessly drag this thing out with a lengthy and expensive trial, and then leave my freedom in the hands of an unpredictable jury. And when they acquit me, I will finally be exonerated in the eyes of the public, because look how well that worked out for O.J."

Here's my guess for what O'Mara will be saying a year from now:

 

[batvette]

Show me anyone making that argument prior to O'Mara backing out of the hearing, and it might come across as something more than post hoc rationalization.

Probably the most useless argument to branch off into. Why would anyone discuss why they backed out of the hearing before they backed out of the hearing?
Post hoc rationalization? I have no reason to rationalize or defend anything in this trial, I'm merely speculating on a more plausible reason than his counsel and he are stupid.

Your own statement is my best supporting argument:

and yet Zimmerman's defense team is forgoing the opportunity to present these proven and obvious facts and give their guy a free chance at acquittal.

Which would never be enough for the "justice for Trayvon" riot inciters and not enough for him to ever lead a normal life.

 

[batvette]

We discussed this line of thinking on page 9 of this thread. But this post sums up this mentality nicely:

WOW thanks for digging that up. Either someone has a very bad memory or I have been getting trolled hard here.

 

[KatieG]

And to address that particular argument, I certainly can't debate its merits.

Look how well things turned out for O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony after their acquittals. Both were able to return to their lives completely free from restriction and public scorn.

If Zimmerman gets acquitted, people will have no choice but to believe he is innocent.
And in much the same way, I'm sure you will immediately admit to Zimmerman's guilt should he be convicted, won't you?

Nah, I don't have to believe he's innocent but I must believe in our system of justice. If the jury that sees and hears everything put forward and votes not guilty, so be it. I will always believe that O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony are guilty as the day is long. I can disagree with a verdict but I wasn't there. The fact that the Simpson prosecution team pretty much handed them that non guilty verdict on a silver platter is lost on the media.

I'd like to see a fair trial, well, as fair as possible, and let the chips fall where they lay. I don't live in Florida so I'll never see GZ. After his final 15 minutes of fame, he'll fade away and others will step into the forefront. He has to live with what he did. Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin have to live without their son. For the rest of us, life goes on.

 

[Rare Truth]

Looks like the Defense lost most all of it's ability to include that crap evidence meant to disparage TM.

O'Mara: "How can you keep us from arguing our theory of defense?"

Judge: "Because the rules of evidence prevent you from doing it."

Ha!

 

[quadraginta]

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".

<snip<

Schrödinger's Judge?

 

[johnny karate]

I'm going to take advantage of this thread's moderated status and blindly predict that while I'm posting this there are accusations that the judge is biased being made, and more allegations about the developing conspiracy theory against Zimmerman.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

So when you wrote ...

<snip>

As for Zimmerman's "free chance at acquittal" have you considered Zimmerman may be pursuing this as the only way to truly clear his name and come out of hiding later? If he gets out of this through a legal technicality the public won't find him not guilty, just no longer charged with a crime.

... you didn't really mean "legal technicality" What you actually meant was the law protecting self-defense which O'Mara was afraid to try and use.

The public isn't going to care which law is used if Zimmerman is found not guilty. They're are going to agree with the verdict or not, regardless.

And just in case you need a reminder, "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent".

The big difference is that the Stand Your Ground law immunizes Zimmerman from civil suits if he wins. Otherwise the Martin family gets to go after him for Wrongful Death whether he beats the criminal rap or not. There's a much lower standard of proof required for him to be found guilty in Civil Court. That is a fact O.J. learned about. The hard way.

This is why it is puzzling that O'Mara didn't go ahead with that approach, especially if the evidence in his favor is so irrefutable.

If you want to call that "STUPID" that's up to you.

 

[johnny karate]

Same question for you that JK has been dodging ... if it is "TOTALLY irrelevant" why does the judge grant the motion to photograph and inspect the jewelry ? Why not deny the motion, as it is "TOTALLY irrelevant" ?

The defense has a right to inspect potential evidence. That doesn't automatically grant them the right to have anything they inspect admitted into the evidence. That is another issue that will be dealt with separately.

From today's hearing:

Judge Nelson granted the prosecution's motion to bar the teenagers school records.

Hope that clears things up.

Please let me know if there's anything else I can explain to you.

 

[sgtbaker]

Here's a start.

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

I said that a recent history of violence is relevant. I don't disagree with that.

 

[Light23]

If Zimmerman was on his back, pinned down, then the "Stand Your Ground" law can't apply surely?

It would only come into play if he had a chance to retreat but didn't use it. If he couldn't run away, then it's just self-defence.

Perhaps this is why they're not using this defence.