Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Natural Born Skeptic]

???
Isn't it quoted in the first line of the article?

Yes, but what I mean is, it is quoted as a snippet, but they then never actually quote the full comment, so you can see the full context in which she said it. You'd think if an article is going to lead with that, they could be bother to include the entire sentence?

Anyhow, the next article I posted a link to quoted the full context.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/16/us-usa-florida-shooting-lawsuit-idUSBRE96F1EL20130716

(Reuters) - A former employee of Florida State Attorney Angela Corey's office plans to file a whistleblower lawsuit against George Zimmerman's prosecutors, his attorney told Reuters on Tuesday.

The action will put pressure on Corey, who already faces criticism from some legal experts for the unsuccessful prosecution of the case, which led to the acquittal of Zimmerman for shooting unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman's defense has also called for sanctions against her and her prosecution team.

 

[Kestrel]

According to GZ and the evidence, Martin had physically trapped Zimmerman in a situation where Martin could kill him. Zimmerman had no means of escape and no way of knowing whether Martin was trying to kill him, which is all that's needed to claim self defense.

The evidence points to Trayvon on top of George, holding George's arms to keep from being hit. Unless Trayvon has three arms, he can't be slugging George. He is simply controlling a creepy guy that followed him and tried to grab him.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

We should try to be historically accurate here... In their first interview:

Serino: OK, um, you follow this person, this person, you lose sight of this person, you’re walking in the darkness out there…you have a flashlight?
Zimmerman: It was dead. I had one, but it was dead.
Serino: Uh, you had to hit it couple times, it’s on right now. So…
Zimmerman: Oh it is?
Serino: OK. Um, it’s probably like the one I have, you gotta smack it around a couple times. Um, this person jumped, jumped you from somewhere?​

...And then the next day:

Serino: OK, you’re walking back to your car?
Zimmerman: Yes, sir,
(plays tape 2:48 to 4:03 )
Zimmerman: I’m thumping the damn flashlight as I was walking through.
(call ends)
​

Now, where do you get that Serino says he slapped George's flashlight?

He didn't "say" it, but it is self evident that he did it.

If Serino claims both
a)"it’s on right now"
b) "you gotta smack it around a couple times"
then it is clear that:
c) serino smacked the flashlight to make it go on

 

[Newtons Bit]

Mind boggling stupidity...

http://frederickleatherman.com/2013/07/16/prosecute-zimmerman-for-committing-a-federal-hate-crime/

I think the problem with the verdict in this case was the de-emphasis on race and the presence of stealth jurors on the jury who were influenced by O’Mara’s year-long campaign, aided and abetted by the media, to acquit his client in the court of public opinion.

I believe B-37, and possibly two others, lied their way onto that jury determined to vote NG, regardless of the evidence. If I’m right, they should be prosecuted for perjury.

Like most Trayvon Truthers, there is a distinct lack of facts and accuracy in that...

 

[Kestrel]

An out of shape fat guy carrying a gun in a holster.

The George Zimmerman we saw in court was an out of shape fat guy. Roughly 100 pounds heavier than the George Zimmerman that Trayvon Martin encountered on the day he was shot.

At the time of the shooting, George was a somewhat athletic looking guy with a shaved head who had been working out regularly.

The posters here on JREF keep forgetting that and I suspect the same is true of the jury. Even after seeing the pictures of George at the time of the crime, their image of George would be dominated by the person they saw every day in court. Did George's lawyers advise him to stop working out?

 

[Cylinder]

We should try to be historically accurate here... In their first interview: [...] Now, where do you get that Serino says he slapped George's flashlight?

From listening to the audio interview, it seems apparent to me that Serino is declarative. You had to hit it a couple of times. It's on right now.

Serino: Uh, you had to hit it couple times, it’s on right now. So…
Zimmerman: Oh it is?
Serino: OK. Um, it’s probably like the one I have, you gotta smack it around a couple times. ​

You do agree that a common failure mode for flashlights are the connections in the switch and that the universal troubleshooting procedure is to slap the flashlight against an open palm, right?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

prosecutors conflicting theories on what happned

Bernie De La Rionda and Angela Corey (HLN Interview)
at 2:19:


HLN: what was your story, everyone was wondering, what was the prosecutions theory of what actually happened ?

BDLR: He chased down TM....Now at what point he pulled out the gun, we can speculate as to what happened. My theory is he pulled it out early.


-VS-
Entire Prosecution Team (ABC Interview)

at 1:15

John Guy: I think there was a struggle, at some point Trayvon become aware of the gun, and was backing up and george zimmerman shot him


If the prosecutors can't even agree on what they think happened, how did they ever expect the jury to get beyond reasonable doubt ?

 

[MiloMinderbinder]

There were no earlier 'cites', just assertions.

And there was no reason to take blood tests. Do you think he spent 6 or more hours under direct observation of people trained to detect impairment and fooled them all ?

And as I said before, just because the words stand your grand were in the jury instructions, that does not make it part of the case. Stand your ground is simply part of FL self defense laws.

Here is the part the only part jury instruction that mentions stand your ground:


JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
...
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony

The state attorney said in her post trial press conference that the actual SYG law on the books didn't really change anything when it was written. I took that to mean that the actual SYG law was some kind of a clarification of existing law, or part of a new process to enable SYG hearings, but that it didn't change the legal requirements.

If SezMe is correct, and SYG applies, GZ is going to be immune from civil suits.

So which is it, SYG or not SYG ?

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that in FL, you can go through a SYG hearing, and if you're successful, then you are immune to any prosecution or civil suits. GZ didn't do that, so they used the traditional SD legal arguments.

I don't know if he can still go through a SYG hearing.

I have also heard that in a civil suit, if the Martin family sues him, that the rules of evidence are either more lax or at least different and that lots of the other character background info for both parties could be admissible. That could mean on the one hand, there would be a lower burden of proof to defeat GZ, but there might be more evidence that is unfavorable to the Martin case.

 

[newyorkguy]

...
And as I said before, just because the words stand your ground were in the jury instructions, that does not make it part of the case. Stand your ground is simply part of FL self defense laws.
Here is the part the only part jury instruction that mentions stand your ground:
http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a
defense to the crime of Second Degree Murder, and the lesser included offense of
Manslaughter, if the death of Trayvon Martin resulted from the justifiable use of deadly force.
...
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony

How can you deduce that a case of self-defense has nothing to with the applicable self-defense laws? SYG is part of the self-defense statute. It was specifically mentioned in the jury instructions. The jurors apparently considered it. From that I take that SYG was a part of the case. How much of a part I think is open to question.

Why is it important that SYG should be shown not to have played any role in this case? People are going to great lengths to prove that. To what purpose? I don't get that. Is there some ideological reason for it? I wish someone would explain, "I don't want SYG to have any role in this case because ________."

If SezMe is correct, and SYG applies, GZ is going to be immune from civil suits.

So which is it, SYG or not SYG ?

My understanding of the law is, the defendant has to seek and be granted immunity under SYG to be protected from lawsuits. So far Zimmerman has neither sought nor been granted SYG immunity.

Can he do it after the trial? Apparently he can.

Zimmerman did not ask for an immunity hearing before his criminal trial, but that does not preclude him from requesting one if he faces a civil trial, says associate law professor Tamara Rice Lave of the University of Miami's School of Law.

Link

 

[lane99]

Fake psychics giving a bad name to all the real ones?

...I will be paid on an hourly basis for my services. I will have no financial stake in the outcome of the trial.

I will have come to the opinion about which I will testify after as thorough a review of the available evidence as I can possibly make. If my opinion is one that supports my client's case I might be asked to testify. If it does not support my client's case I will not be asked to testify. Probably 40% + of the time my opinion does not support my client's position - in those instances I will not be asked to testify. It is not uncommon for my client's in these cases to retain me to provide insight into the weaknesses of their position as they prepare for trial.

Sometimes, not often, and never with repeat clients, a client tries to shape my opinion by limiting my access to materials that he thinks might hurt his case. This tactic never works to the client's advantage.

There are "you tell the lie and I will swear to it" consultants, but these tend to become well known and are not terribly effective on the stand.

I would not expect a lawyer to put on the stand an expert whose opinion does not support his case.

Appreciate your comments, which are pretty much the standard arguments given to defend the claim that "experts" who serve up their opinions in court on behalf of advocates of a fixed position (and who have been chosen, hired, and paid by those advocates) can somehow be relied upon to maintain their objectivity. I think the flaws in those arguments begin to appear even under the most basic skeptical enquiry. Though getting into all the details of that probably would be better done in a dedicated thread (which would be a quite interesting one, imo).

I'll just quickly touch on one point you've made by saying I couldn't disagree more that testi-liars are not effective and are quickly weeded out. Rather, the best ones, like cream, rise to the top and become the most sought out, not to mention the richest. Some even become relatively famous house-hold names with the public at large.
.
.

 

[lane99]

How to...

My final thoguths are on this based on the evidence presented to date:

1. zimmerman is a proven liar

2. He should not have been prosecured for murder it is obvious he did not set ou tto killbut it also clear he is gung ho individual who is on a loose trigger, so this hsouldhave been man slaughter.

3. I do not beleive for on minute his self defence pelae, but as we only have his testimony and unrelaible testimony about the oices, have to accept reasonable doubt.

4. I beleive he did trip the train of events that lead to a death that could have been avoided, he is a loose cannon with a track record of violent behaviour and I have little doubt he will be involved in something similar again in the future tripped off by his actions.

Zimmergun's recipe for disaster consists of: one part, lethal weapon; one part, cowardice; one part suspicion meter set on hair-trigger.

As to your point (4), I wouldn't be surprised. I mean, imagine what the final body count might be now that he actually has a VALID reason to fear for his life.
.
.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I don't have a link for a witness statement handy, but here is George leading investigators on a walk through the crime scene. His description of the encounter with Trayvon is roughly 10 minutes into the video.



If I recall correctly, this video was shot the day after the shooting.

Thanks for that link, watching that refreshed my memory on that exchange. Question for all those who believe a not guilty verdict was the appropriate verdict.

Starting at about 12:00 and shortly thereafter he gets to the point where he claims TM said "you're going to die tonight ************". I've never ruled out the possibility that GZ is lying about some of this and that is one part that sticks out to me that sounds really suspicious. Do you not find the statement unlikely? Do you really think TM intended to kill GZ (rather than just beat him up)?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The state attorney said in her post trial press conference that the actual SYG law on the books didn't really change anything when it was written. I took that to mean that the actual SYG law was some kind of a clarification of existing law, or part of a new process to enable SYG hearings, but that it didn't change the legal requirements.

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that in FL, you can go through a SYG hearing, and if you're successful, then you are immune to any prosecution or civil suits. GZ didn't do that, so they used the traditional SD legal arguments.

I don't know if he can still go through a SYG hearing.

I have also heard that in a civil suit, if the Martin family sues him, that the rules of evidence are either more lax or at least different and that lots of the other character background info for both parties could be admissible. That could mean on the one hand, there would be a lower burden of proof to defeat GZ, but there might be more evidence that is unfavorable to the Martin case.

How can you deduce that a case of self-defense has nothing to with the applicable self-defense laws? SYG is part of the self-defense statute. It was specifically mentioned in the jury instructions. The jurors apparently considered it. From that I take that SYG was a part of the case. How much of a part I think is open to question.

Why is it important that SYG should be shown not to have played any role in this case? People are going to great lengths to prove that. To what purpose? I don't get that. Is there some ideological reason for it? I wish someone would explain, "I don't want SYG to have any role in this case because ________."

My understanding of the law is, the defendant has to seek and be granted immunity under SYG to be protected from lawsuits. So far Zimmerman has neither sought nor been granted SYG immunity.

Can he do it after the trial? Apparently he can.

Link

In answer to both of you, more or less:

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2013/05/did-george-zimmerman-waive-stand-your-ground-defense/

A secondary factor which I believe weighed on George Zimmerman’s mind (and Benjamin Crump’s mind) is Florida Statute 776.032, which states that a person whose self defense is found to be lawful “is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such self defense.”

And under the doctrine of Collateral Estoppel, once a judge determines an issue, that issue is binding on the parties and their privies in subsequent cases. Cook v. State, 921 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); See also Florida Statute 772.114. Translated, this means that whatever decision Judge Nelson made would be binding in any civil suit.

IDK if he is actually immune, would simply file a motion and be granted immunity, or would have to have yet another hearing to determine his immunity.

If he does have a civil case, my understanding is the rules are less stringent, lots of stuff will come in, but the burden is only preponderance of the evidence (51%) as opposed to a reasonable doubt.

IDK when this will be answered definitively. If no one sues him, it won't be an issue. So there may be no clear answer until someone tries it...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So, did the jurors find GZ not guilty because they are stupid, or didn't know all these 'facts' you are pointing out, or what ?

The evidence points to Trayvon on top of George, holding George's arms to keep from being hit. Unless Trayvon has three arms, he can't be slugging George. He is simply controlling a creepy guy that followed him and tried to grab him.

Again, did the jurors find GZ not guilty because they are stupid and not able to understand all these 'facts' that you are explaining ? Were they 'stealth jurors', as Leatherman claimed ?

 

[katy_did]

How can you deduce that a case of self-defense has nothing to with the applicable self-defense laws? SYG is part of the self-defense statute. It was specifically mentioned in the jury instructions. The jurors apparently considered it. From that I take that SYG was a part of the case. How much of a part I think is open to question.

Why is it important that SYG should be shown not to have played any role in this case? People are going to great lengths to prove that. To what purpose? I don't get that. Is there some ideological reason for it? I wish someone would explain, "I don't want SYG to have any role in this case because ________."


My understanding of the law is, the defendant has to seek and be granted immunity under SYG to be protected from lawsuits. So far Zimmerman has neither sought nor been granted SYG immunity.

Can he do it after the trial? Apparently he can.

Link

I think SYG is just traditional self-defence with the addition that you have no duty to retreat. Any self-defence case technically falls under SYG, whether the person had the chance to retreat or not. Zimmerman never made use of the expanded definition of self-defence because he's always said Martin was on top of him and that he had no option to retreat. I would guess they include the part about SYG in the jury instructions for any self-defence case in Florida, since after all it affects the way self-defence is defined.

Anyone claiming self-defence has the chance to have an immunity hearing - again, it doesn't matter whether they make use of the expanded, SYG definition of self-defence or just the traditional definition.

 

[Cylinder]

1:21:10

The best instance of Mark O'Mara mocking John Guy. Grrrr.....****** punks! I especially like the mock bug-eyed expression Guy always uses.



The constant challenges to Guy to produce specific pieces of evidence in his closing remarks was masterful.

 

[WildCat]

Thanks for that link, watching that refreshed my memory on that exchange. Question for all those who believe a not guilty verdict was the appropriate verdict.

Starting at about 12:00 and shortly thereafter he gets to the point where he claims TM said "you're going to die tonight ************". I've never ruled out the possibility that GZ is lying about some of this and that is one part that sticks out to me that sounds really suspicious. Do you not find the statement unlikely? Do you really think TM intended to kill GZ (rather than just beat him up)?

It's well known that as you repeat a story the brain will add details to fill in any gaps. They may be real, they may be false memories created as one struggles to make sense of a traumatic event. We saw this phenomena writ large on 911, and of course the 911 truthers jumped all over every inconsistency as rock-solid proof of ZOMGinsidejobZOMG.

His story is materially consistent, and material facts that can be verified from independent witnesses and the evidence has been verified.

 

[KatieG]

As was stated by several posters, the FBI was not finished with their investigation into possible racist behaviour by GZ.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/July/13-opa-788.html

Justice Department Statement on the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman Case

"As the Department first acknowledged last year, we have an open investigation into the death of Trayvon Martin. The Department of Justice's Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division, the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation continue to evaluate the evidence generated during the federal investigation, as well as the evidence and testimony from the state trial. Experienced federal prosecutors will determine whether the evidence reveals a prosecutable violation of any of the limited federal criminal civil rights statutes within our jurisdiction, and whether federal prosecution is appropriate in accordance with the Department's policy governing successive federal prosecution following a state trial.”

 

[Metullus]

Appreciate your comments, which are pretty much the standard arguments given to defend the claim that "experts" who serve up their opinions in court on behalf of advocates of a fixed position (and who have been chosen, hired, and paid by those advocates) can somehow be relied upon to maintain their objectivity.

The objectivity of a testifying expert can be, should be, and, in my experience, is always, tested in court. That is what cross examination is all about. That is why such an expert is expected to show how it is that the has come to the conclusions that underlie his testimony. That is why he is usually questioned in detail about the factual and evidentiary basis of his analysis and thus his testimony. It is the job of opposing counsel to put the expert to the test.

I'll just quickly touch on one point you've made by saying I couldn't disagree more that testi-liars are not effective and are quickly weeded out. Rather, the best ones, like cream, rise to the top and become the most sought out, not to mention the richest. Some even become relatively famous house-hold names with the public at large.
.
.

There are some that do well, but in my experience they do not stand up too well to cross-examination by a good litigator who is supported by knowledgeable consultants with a good handle on the facts of the case.