The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by MrWendal

This point is debatable. As I have said before, I go to a bar and pick a fight and during the course of
that fight that I started, I am getting beat up. I can not shoot to stop the beating and then claim self
defense. Why? Because I started that fight. That is ultimately the issue here. Which is why there has
been so much debate over who threw the first punch, or if that fight could have been started by
Zimmerman following Trayvon.

Actually, I just posted a message about Georges' professor testifying about self defense, and he said that is not necessarily true. He said cases are viewed on a case by case basis, but here is the code supporting that.

" (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact
with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or
she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the
assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.'

It has been stated there is no evidence on Trayvon, besides tbe gunshot wound, that George ever struck him.

Even if George were the aggressor in some form or fashion, which hasn't been proven, the mere fact that by the evidence he never hit Trayvon, at least not hard enough to leave a mark, is likely enough to show a "retreat", hence still allowing the claim of self defense.

I am saying there is no way you can possibly know this to be 100% factual and anyone who claims
they know it 100% is being willfully foolish.

But, that constitutes a shadow of a doubt. Not 100%, but 80%? 65%? 30%?

A shadow of a doubt is all that matters to the jury.

reply to post by Grimpachi


reply to post by Libertygal


Fair point and noted. Certainly more to think about.

I don't have much to add to that, but I did want to acknowledge your point being made. Nice work

Gee, a lull in the discussion . At my own risk, as others I enter the discussion.
And at this time will not even mention race.
!. George Zimmerman admitted he shot Trevon, so there is no debate there.
2. The D.A. did not file charges of murder one, which is premeditation which is to plan ahead of ones actions.
So to imply Zimmerman waited to ambush Martin is to imply premeditation, which is way off base.
3. Though both Zimmerman and Martin were acting suspicious and both did use poor judgement, neither broke any laws till the altercation.
4. The D. A. filed charges for Murder 2 which is,( correct me if I wrong) Intent with hate and malice.
As has been stated several times before, The burden of proof lies with the D.A.
The D.A. has presented no proof Zimmerman acted with any hate or malice intent, the only thing the D.A. has presented is hearsay, speculation and conjectur to imply guilt as have those who defend Trevon.
As for the testimony from Trevons mother and brother and Georges mother and uncle, all four are telling the truth
because they all believe in their hearts it is the one they love screaming for help. The audio experts are not allowed to testify because neither side can agree or prove who is screaming.
The D.A.s case is weak and from his own witnesess is on very shaky ground.
5. Now it is time for the defense, which will disprove murder 2 and manslauter, but prove selfdefense.

reply to post by Grimpachi


"What is that saying...a armed society is a polite society."

I couldn't agree with you more right there brother!!!

Amen to that!!!

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


You have it right.

Honestly I think the main thing the defense will be trying to keep a manslaughter charge from sticking at this point if it is even on the table which I have heard conflicting statements from the legal eagles on.

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


Actually, you were ok till number 4. The county declined to press charges.

Race must enter tbe picture, because that is what caused George to be arrested.

The police felt, and testified to the fact, they did not feel that George was guilty, that he legally practiced self defense.

Benjamin Crump, family attorney for Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, arranged to hire a publicist. The publicist met with, among others, Mayor Tripplett, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and many others. He also went to the alphabet soup MSM, ABC, CBS, NBC, et al.

They arranged marches, demonstrations, petitions, etc. Meantime, in the background, Crump was contacting people, getting records, including the recording of the 911 call, Trayvons' phone contacts, etc. They contacted the 16 year old DeDe, and after a lot of back and forth, a handwritten letter and texts to Sybrina Fulton, Crump arranged to fly DeDe to meet Tracy and Sybrina.

During this meeting, DeDe gave Sybrina the letter, they talked, and she agreed to be interviwed by Crump. However, instead of doing it in person, they flew her back home, and did it over the phone. Her parents absolutely refused to allow her to have anything to do with ths case besides the interview.

Crump, Sybrina, Tracy, and an ABC news crew were all present when Crump recorded the interview with DeDe. Portions of it were played on national television, and the race crew went to work on the public again.

Instead of going to the Grand Jury, who would likely have returned a no bill due to lack of evidence, Angela Corey was assigned to the case, who then filed her own indictment. Fearing increased racial tensions and repercussion, the D.A. sid not file charges. Angela Corey is from another district.

The rest is intermittent bits of curiosities, like the judge disallowing the real DeDe tape to be played in court, because she doesn't sound like Rachael Jeantel.

There is a lot of suspicion surrounding that entire issue, apparently even from the defense.

They filed an emergency Writ of Certiori, asking to depose Crump, which the judge who is showing some bias, and is known as a prosecutions judge to begin with, who promptly denied the Writ of Certiori. Just this week, the DCA, a judicial overseer, overturned her decision, both embarrassing the judge and allowing the deposition of Crump.

Crump continues to evade, has hired an attorney, and after several attempts to depose, finally agreed to Sunday, today, at 6pm. The time was changed to today at 2 pm.

It remains to be seen if the defense has located the real DeDe, but the judge has strictly limited the questioning in the Crump deposition, so she may actually be present. Supposedly, they are not allowed to ask about the real DeDe, so they have to craft questions around it. Crump may or may not be the first witness Monday, but if he is promptly callwd, one may presume the real DeDe may soon follow.

If not, Rachael Jeantel will likely be after Crump. It remains to be seen what can be dug out of this, but it is known that Crump played the 911 tape for Tracy first, who denied it was Trayvon screaming. This brings into question Sybrina Fultons' testimony when she said she heard it the first time at Mayor Trippletts office as well, because Crump had a press release prior to that meeting claiming he had the tapes and played it for the family.

Expect explosive testimony this week. Perhaps shocking, perhaps a case of earthshattering breaking information.

Some people may get perp walked. It just depends what the defense was able to accomplish, since this was largely orchestrated by many government officials who are deeply involved.

Hope this helps.

Despite GZ's story as not believable to some, prosecution has not disproved it "beyond a reasonable doubt". GZ will be acquitted. And this comes from a liberal media outlet (ABC).

"Zimmerman waived a pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing and went directly to trial (likely because his lawyers knew they would lose) and simply argued classic self-defense, which is different. Now no matter how it started, if Zimmerman shot Martin because he reasonably believed it was the only way to protect himself from "great bodily harm" then he is not guilty. That's the law. "


abcnews.go.com...

reply to post by Grimpachi


Manslaughter is broken down into 7 different levels.
1. Voluntary manslaughter which implys malice intent. ( Sorry No.)
2. Infanticide. (not relevent)
3.Involuntary manslaughter. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability. (maybe this one)
3A. Constructive manslaughter. It occurs when someone kills, without intent, in the course of committing an unlawful act. (Zimmerman is not commiting any other crime during the act of shooting Martin.) ( So not this)
3B.Criminally negligent manslaughter. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies . ( no nt this one)
4.Vehicular or intoxication manslaughter. ( not relevent)
5.Assisted suicide. (again not relevent.

I don't see manslaughter as an option.

reply to post by Libertygal


Are you debating my use of the term D.A. as to the term prosecution ?

(sorry)

The charge is still murder 2.
And the prosecutions case is still hearsay, speculation and conjecture.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE

 

You have it right.

Honestly I think the main thing the defense will be trying to keep a manslaughter charge from sticking at this point if it is even on the table which I have heard conflicting statements from the legal eagles on.

I actually found some more information on that, and now I can demonstrate the confusion.

Sine Trayvon is a minor, you have to consider manslaughter on a different level. This is why I kept saying that I was thinking from what I was reading/seeing, that manslaughter won't be auto-included. The reason, as I stated, he was under age.

Thanks to Richard Hornsby, Attorney

From his blog:

blog.richardhornsby.com...

Don’t Believe Every Tweet You Read

Because of some erroneous Tweeting going on in the Twitterverse, I keep
receiving the following two recurring questions regarding George
Zimmerman’s case:

Is Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child an available lesser offense;

Does the 10-20-Life firearms enhancement still apply

Note that, Aggrivated Manslaughter on a Child. Not one person here has mentioned it, even though I have repeatedly brought up the lesser included charges, for discussion.

Let's continue.

The answer to both of these questions is nope.

Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child.

Link for jury instructions rtf, if you want it.

www.floridasupremecourt.org...

I have also posted about the jury instruction, which was again, ignored. I stated I did not believe the judge was allowed to instruct in certain circumstances, for instance, if she feels not enough evidence was provided. I questioned this. So, lets look at it again. Ignore it again, if you wish, that's fine, but there will be a lot of shocked and upset, and particularly confused people on verdict day.

You cannot spend an entire year and a half yelling about a child, and portraying a child, then impose adult victim sentencing on the alleged perpetrator. So, is sentencing lighter in crimes against children? Indeed, it is.

As you will see, to prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child,
the State must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The victim is dead.
2. The death of the victim was caused by the culpable negligence of the
defendant.
3. The victim was was a child whose death was caused by the neglect of
the defendant, a caregiver.

Number 1. was why they absolutely had the call the real M.E., Shiping Bao. It is required by law that he proclaim in court that Trayvon was, indeed, really dead.

As you obviously can tell, none of these requirements fit the scope of the case, so, therefore, is the judge required to instruct the jury on a non-sequitor? Of course not.

A review of the Information in George Zimmerman’s case shows he is
charged with a single count of Second Degree Murder. The Information
alleges he committed this act as follows:

By an act imminently dangerous to another, and evincing a depraved
mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated
design …. kill Trayvon Martin by shooting [him].

The information does not allege that he committed the offense of Second
Degree Murder in a culpably negligent way, that he was a caregiver of
Trayvon Martin, or that he neglected Trayvon Martin as his caregiver.

Because neither of these elements were alleged, Aggravated Manslaughter
of a Child (and its enhanced penalties) is not available as a lesser offense in
George Zimmerman’s case. See Griffis v. State, 848 So. 2d 422, 427 (Fla. 1
DCA 2003) (“The information [charging second degree murder] did not
allege either neglect or culpable negligence, and section 827.03(3)
[Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child] is not a proper lesser offense.”)

I still stand by my argument, that manslaughter is off the table, and because of self defense and shadow of a doubt issues, he won't be found guilty on any possible homicide charges, either. It will be not guilty, and if the prosecution were smart and wanted to avoid the potential embarrassing outcomes this week, they should have urged the judge to move on the motion foraquittal.

Since I have made you aware of the CRS Stealth Team on the move to Florida July9th, is there any surprise the judge keeps the trial on a tight schedule, as well as denying the motion for aquittal?

At this point, one can easily posit that this is a show trial to appease the "masses". And we all understand the undertones of that. Coupled with the CRS Stealth Team, and likely a large amount of Federal Stealth Funding, as well, the trail leads back as it always does, to the money.

Thanks to Mr. Hornsby for putting into much clearer words an explanation I was unable to. Only the offsite text is Mr. Hornsby's

The rest is my opinion.

reply to post by OLD HIPPY DUDE


I agree, because it must apply as manslaughter to a child, which it does not.

Been saying this for over a week.

Just not been clear enough about it.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
3.Involuntary manslaughter. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability. (maybe this one)

This is the one that I thought the prosecution should have gone with to being with.
negligent manslaughter. If there were any charges that even remotely fit ... that's the one IMHO.

Originally posted by OLD HIPPY DUDE
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Are you debating my use of the term D.A. as to the term prosecution ?

(sorry)

The charge is still murder 2.
And the prosecutions case is still hearsay, speculation and conjecture.

I agree about everything else.

About the D.A.

Somewhat, yes. The D.A. refused to press charges. Rick Scott, the Governor, appointed Angela Corey, State Attorney, to prosecute the case. Obviously, she is still a prosecutor, but lets be honest about how it all came about. It was not the traditional D.A. presses charges, it goes to the Grand Jury, it goes to trial.

A lot more happened in that woodshed, so just keeping it real. The case was forced by racial iasues, by a team.of race mongers, who demanded something be done. The evidence was sorely lacking, as people are seeing from the trial.

It was all racially motivated to quell uprisings that the county officials started to begin with. Now, they have a Stealth Federal agency coming in to quell racial tensions they created, when the verdict comes in.

How many Stealth Federal dollars are they getting for the control of racial issues they caused?

Like I said, show trial. Follow the money.

Did Mr. Battles perhaps, suggest the trial to "soothe" the masses?

How insulted I would be, if I were a person of color, living in Florida. Not by Zimmerman, but by my own civic leaders, for thinking they had to go through such ministrations to "sooth" people based on their race.

I would be livid.

Well I never thought manslaughter was applicable on this you can check my post history for that but I wasn’t ruling it out completely due to my ignorance on that law coupled by conflicting statements I had heard from various sources that claimed to be legal eagles. I am kind of ashamed of that because most of it came from talk radio so called experts and I am against MSM. Oh well I took what they said with a grain of salt but it should have been a pound.

All that reinforces what I have been saying all along that this trial is a farce/circus/sham and it should have never gone to trial in the first place.

Woohoo my Florida tax dollars at work.

When I think about it an old Jimmy Buffet song plays in my head something like “wasting away in Margaretville”.

Well when this trial is said and done it will probably cost the state even more when George’s lawyers sue the state.

Simple question. Does anyone know why the witness who testified that TM was on top of GZ was not charged with a crime? Say criminal negligence? If he had pulled TM off of Zimmerman then TM would be alive and GZ not facing murder charges. There used to be laws that would charge a citizen with a crime for not taking action. I believe it was started in NY, NY where a woman was raped and stabbed to death in front of over 20 witnesses and then they just walked over her bleeding body as she bleed to death.

reply to post by Jerk_Idiot


Because he didn’t ignore it he called the police.

I am not sure if we have those laws like NY does. Anyway I don’t think you can make a law stating people have to put themselves in harm’s way physically hell cops do not even have to protect you legally.

How does this work with the automatic inclusion of lesser offenses law in Florida?

Where does the automatic go away?

Are you indicating that manslaughter is not a lesser offense of murder 2?

edit:

www.floridasupremecourt.org...#

reply to post by Grimpachi

Another thing I was going to ask. Why does it matter if it is TM or GZ screaming on the phone at the end? I suspect it was TM as he saw the gun coming out. Remember, the witness had already gone back inside. The scream was just before the shot. Not the screams that were witnessed.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Sorry, I didn't mean to make it feel like all of that was directed at you, it wasn't. It was a reply to you, but in general, as well.

I can sure feel for you. There are a lot of angry people, but not angry the way most think, about the intended racial issues, but angry with government for orchestrating this charade. People are starting to catch on, and the ones who aren't or won't, are mostly the stringent deniers.

Most of the unrest is from the uninformed, which is largely the media's fault, but not totally. The information is out there for people to educate themselves with, but some simply refuse to remove racial blinders and take an honest view of things. That's okay, that's their reality, and the world they choose to live in.

Others, however, choose to take another path, and see the real back story, and understand the motivations that are driving certain behaviors. In unveiling the truth and bringing it out into the open, they are hoping to effect a real change.

It's not the 60's anymore, and while people like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson may have served a purpose at some time, that time is long over, and their only purpose now is self-serving under the guise of public service.

Calling them out, and bringing the issues into the daylight can only attempt to find a resolution. I can assure you of one thing,and that is that black people are becoming aware of how they are being used and manipulated to acheive political goals by others, and it is going to be a powerful moment when that tide finally sweeps this nation. And trust me, it will.

For the rest, the mongers and haters and opportunists hanging out on twitter, know that even their own people are ignoring them and thinking they are absurd.

Originally posted by roadgravel
How does this work with the automatic inclusion of lesser offenses law in Florida?

Where does the automatic go away?

Are you indicating that manslaughter is not a lesser offense of murder 2?

edit:

www.floridasupremecourt.org...#

edit on 7/7/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)

I explained it best I could in my post, and even posted the link to the jury instructions, though mine was downloadable. My cellphone didn't display that webpage, but thanks for linking it.

Because Trayvon was a child, I think that is where the first disparity begins. I believe crimes against children are lesser than against adults.

Secondly, the added part of murder2, as I outlined in prevoius posts, malice and ill will, automatically rule out the lesser ruled in. That is why I speculated the judge may drop some charges or reduce some charges possibly when the defense rests.

You cannot evaluate a charge for manslaughter when you are accusing someone of a depraved mind and ill will. In other words, lets say they had just opted for manslaughter to begin with. They would not have been abke to add "depraved mind and ill will". Hence, when finding someone not guilty of murder2 with those included definitions, and not defining anything else in the charge, or defining anything else in a hearing, it self-negates the possibilities of those lesser charges, even in a state where lesser charges are automatic.

It is confusing, but I posted several times about it, then found the blog in the message above, and it helped explain it better than I was.

blog.richardhornsby.com...

The information does not allege that he committed the offense of Second
Degree Murder in a culpably negligent way, that he was a caregiver of
Trayvon Martin, or that he neglected Trayvon Martin as his caregiver.