The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by Soloprotocol


You missed the point. Witnesses said martin was on top. That corroborates the evidence of the shirt hanging down and that zimmerman was being beaten when he shot. If yu want to say martin was on top beating zimmerman and. Zimmerman pulled Martins shirt, fine, but that is basically the same thing and doesn't make it any less justified of a shooting.

reply to post by HomeBrew

How the jury decides to decipher the evidence is their job, if they decide that
Zimmermans testimony is simply not beyond a shadow of doubt, supporting evidence is
inconclusive, and are left with only one undisputable fact, that he killed Martin, then they
are well within their rights to find guilty.

How the jury decides will be based on instructions from the judge. Nothing more, nothing less.

The defense and the prosecution will be allowed to suggest topics of instruction to the judge, and have tbe chance to argue why they should, or should not be included.

The final decision, however, lies with the judge. She can allow, or strike, suggestions, based on argument outside the jurys' presence. Once she reaches her final decision, she will call in the jury and instruct.

The judge is also limited, by laws, as to what she may, or may not, instruct.

This is where I have had a differing opinion from many others on the lesser-included charges.

I have quoted both Florida and Constitutional laws, demonstrating that the article of indictment, technically called an information, was incomplete on it's face. This was discussed on the day, and days following, the release of said indictment.

The indictment was very specific in it's language, in over-shooting the charges, and in the fact it was exactly specific. Had the language been more open, and included words like culpable negligence, possible manslaughter, or other such charges, it could envelop lesser-included charges.

I argue that since it did not, and the fact that Trayvon was a minor, the judge would have to instruct on Manslaughter of a Child, which is inclusive with culpable negligence. I profer that, since this language is not on the face of the document, this document being VERY specific, that the lesser-included charges are ruled out.

Florida law is quite specific in the rules of indictment, as is the Constitution on 5th and 6th Amendments.

Specidically, that:

1. The defendant MUST be made aware of the charges on the face of the informatiin or indictment, so that he may properly prepare a defense in court.

2. A defendant may NOT be surprised at the end of trial by a jury instruction by the judge, for a charge to which he was not informed of, and did not have the opportunity to defend in trial

If lesser-included charges are to be automatic, as so many suggest, then why, in trial, has this prosecution, nor defense of manslaughter, never mentioned by either side? Only by media watchdogs.

If lesser-included charges are to be auto-included, why was this language NOT on the face of the information document?

By LAW, it must be.

The answer is simple.

Angela Corey was confident her charges would bring about a plea bargain. She did not expect him to fight this, and thought the threat of prosecution from the State Department would be enough to intimidate. Simply, recall the media furor, the intentionally caused racial issues, and a George Zimmerman forced into hiding to protect his life. Remember, most of all, a hit was put out on him.

Many critics had very loud opinions of her failure of an indictment. Many lawyers laughed at it for being one paragraph on a page. Why? Because the language was incomplete.

But, everyone thinks I am wrong. Could I be? Yes.

However, I have one place to speak from, and that is personal experience. My son was railroaded, and it was done with a bogus indictment. I have studied this area extensively, in fact, given a large part of my life to it.

The indictment was faulty. If the judge instructs on any lesser charges, it is judicial error, and subject to reversal.

The Constitution STILL MATTERS.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Well I knew Crump, Corey, the Chief's boss (forgot the position), and possibly the mayor were all guilty with the Martin family in colluding to profit from this. I also noticed when the defense was questioning the chief that they touched on corruption when they asked if his boss (again forgot the title) usually handles police matters (he didn't ) and was it normal for them to do a line up in the mayors office, behid closed doors wth no police present. That should have been explosive to anyone watching that something very wrong was up.

I also know Rick Scott is a slime bag, and that Obama was appealing to his fan club that thinks he's a messiah, and that he shouldn have taken a side on a racial issue. Especially with no facts.

I guess, though, that I didn't consider how far up the commands for a special prosecutor came from.

Yes, from on high. One odd thing to consider though, is that Cheif Lee told the media, in that Orlanda Sentinel video Ilinked for you last night showing Tracy said the screams were not Trayvon, that the Sanford P.D. had already gone to the Dept. Of Justice.

Ie: Eric Holder. Thing is, it wasn't enough noise to get noticed until the black Civil Rightseaders got involved along with the Black Panthers, got the publicist involved by going to every media alphabet soup, that Holder actually looked at the case seriously.

Facing a huge potential of racial unrest, the command was sent from on high to appoint the special prosecutor, Angela Corey.

Don't think, for one moment, the WH has not been involved from the beginning. They will stay involved until the end.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

Seems, from what I read, that
the judge wants to leave a door open for manslaughter charges. If the jury finds him
guilty of ANYTHING, at this stage, they will be participating in a crime.

The ironic thing is, if she pulls that off, the manslaughter charge, along with a weapons charge that coukd accompany it, doubling the time served, would actually be MORE time than murder2.

The question now is, will she follow the law of Rules of Indictment and the Constitution, or will she not?

I await breathlessly.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


I've listened to GZ say a lot of things and I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth anymore, unless it is corroborated by at least one independent witness. Mrs Dillgard says quite clearly in her testimony that the truck was parked south of Lauer's condo at one point, but then agrees with O Mara that it was parked more north near the curve. Either way, it is one more location for Zimmerman's vehicle which George has already had 2 attempts at remembering. The obvious thing to take from all this is that George's memory is so unreliable, it's a mystery why would anyone trust him to account for anything in an accurate manner.

ps. If you listen to Mrs Dillgards's testimony in full, what she actually agrees to is, IF Lauer's condo faces Retreat View Circle, George's vehicle would be to the right. Problem is, Lauer's front door faces the other way.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Soloprotocol

 

You missed the point. Witnesses said martin was on top. That corroborates the evidence of the shirt hanging down and that zimmerman was being beaten when he shot. If yu want to say martin was on top beating zimmerman and. Zimmerman pulled Martins shirt, fine, but that is basically the same thing and doesn't make it any less justified of a shooting.

Well here's something else to consider from my point of view on why the "expert witness" was wrong.
If he said, and i dont know if he did say that the only way this residue could have been on the shirt and not the skin of Martin is because Martin was on top and Gravity was pulling his jacket away from his skin then he is wrong.

Zimmerman was Training in MMA..Correct?....I'm Guessing here, but i'm pretty sure one of The first things you learn in MMA is Defence. ie, how to protect yourself when an Opponent is on top of you.
"Get your opponent as close as Possible to your own Torso, this prevents incoming Blows".

Has anyone ever considered Martin may have been on top, but was done pounding Zimmerman and was trying to get off him only for Zimmerman to hold him long enough to un-holster his gun and Put one in Martin's Chest...it's a Possibility.

reply to post by Libertygal

Angela Corey was confident her charges would bring about a plea bargain. She did not expect him to fight this, and thought the threat of prosecution from the State Department would be enough to intimidate.

In most cases this would be enough to get a person to face the consequences of their actions, but Corey had never met George Zimmerman before and didn't know how in denial of his own faults he is. He'd rather put the state through a costly circus extravaganza than admit that he did the slightest thing wrong on that evening. We are dealing with a guy who thinks it was God's Plan™ for him to shoot a teenager in the heart, instead of ignore his paranoia and carry on to Target.

Here is another article I found. Ironic, isn't it? It sounds like it was written today. Note the date. Only the race-deniers and instigators will deny the truth here. The evidence of the corruption is simply astounding.

www.examiner.com...

Zimmerman indictment-legal eagles charge
appeasement, politics, and unethical

April 14th,2012 byGregoryDail

In an earlier article we posed the question about the Zimmerman second
degree murder charge was a case of appeasement and politics. Talking
heads, political pundits and a multitude of lawyers weighed in on the
Zimmerman indictment. The consensus seems to be that most believe
Angela Corey’s decision was politically motivated.

Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz agrees that the move was against
Zimmerman was catering to the race baiters, Sharpton, Jackson, and Eric
Holder. Dershowitz said this about Angela Corey’s press conference,

"I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a
campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her
presentation and overcharged. This case will not -- if the evidence is no
stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit -- this case
will result in an acquittal."

Dershowitz was concerned that evidence that supported Zimmerman
was left out of the indictment and summarized it this way,

"It's irresponsible and unethical in not including material that favors the
defendant."

(snip)

“This affidavit does
not even make it to probable cause,” Dershowitz concluded. “everything in the
affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything.”

Oh, the irony.

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

I sort of suspect, though, that this judge is an anti-gun type. Not sure, but seems possible.

Most judges are armed at home, not to mention that many, many Democrats are closet carriers and weapons fanatics.

They just hate admitting it. Case in point, Biden and Harry Reid.

Excellent point!

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by Libertygal

 

She should have done a lot of things she hasn't, and not done some things she's done. If the jury does lose their collective mind and convict, an appeal should be a cake walk.

Agree 100%, plus an appeal will be much quieter in the news, having appeased the race mongers with a conviction.

I strongly suspect this is actually the goal from the start. The prosecution has all but handed the case to the defense, and the judge has made two obvious reversable errors at this point.

Zimmerman can appeal on a Civil Rights violation alone and likely win an appeal.

Unfortunaty, he is facing a 2-4 year process in doing so, but that is long enoug to allow the racial furor to fade away, and handle it quietly.

The appeal process is an exacting one, and the steps must be followed, the first is asking for a retrial within 30 days. He cannot even file Writ of Habeas Corpus until that request is denied.

You might have a point there, too. Sick to think they would stoop so low, but it's possible. I would rather they placed the Guard in the streets, to shoot any rioters. Seems that would actually SOLVE this issue. These days, though, rioting and public mayhem are praised by the WH.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


The thing is, tstimony and evidence corroborates his story. But hypothetically even if every word he says was a lie there isn't one thing that could convict him and still plenty of evidence to exonerate him.

Originally posted by Soloprotocol

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Soloprotocol

 

You missed the point. Witnesses said martin was on top. That corroborates the evidence of the shirt hanging down and that zimmerman was being beaten when he shot. If yu want to say martin was on top beating zimmerman and. Zimmerman pulled Martins shirt, fine, but that is basically the same thing and doesn't make it any less justified of a shooting.

Well here's something else to consider from my point of view on why the "expert witness" was wrong.
If he said, and i dont know if he did say that the only way this residue could have been on the shirt and not the skin of Martin is because Martin was on top and Gravity was pulling his jacket away from his skin then he is wrong.

Zimmerman was Training in MMA..Correct?....I'm Guessing here, but i'm pretty sure one of The first things you learn in MMA is Defence. ie, how to protect yourself when an Opponent is on top of you.
"Get your opponent as close as Possible to your own Torso, this prevents incoming Blows".

Has anyone ever considered Martin may have been on top, but was done pounding Zimmerman and was trying to get off him only for Zimmerman to hold him long enough to un-holster his gun and Put one in Martin's Chest...it's a Possibility.

No, the expert wasn't wrong. The Arizona juice can was in the pocket of Martin's jacket. Witnesses saw martin on top, and one stated he was pinning Zimmerman, and hitting him. The jacket would have been weighted down by the can, and thus a small distance from his chest, as the evidence proves it was.

As for the MMA for Zimmerman, NO, he was NOT. He took various classes at a gym that does teach MMA. However, he took classes based on convenience to his schedule, for weight loss, not any specific interest. In the boxing class he took, he never progresses beyond standing and hitting the bag. The instructor would never consider placing him in a ring against anyone, and in fact, describes him as "soft", and not really athletic. No, he was NOT trained in MMA. Martin, on the other hand, was very fit (proven in several pics), and was athletic, having been a LINEBACKER when he played football, and apparently pretty good at it. He was also known to be involved in fights. In one, an arranged match with three rounds, he lost the first round because his opponent PINNED him, exactly as he later pinned Zimmerman, and then, he won the fight, winning the next two rounds.

Now, please THINK about these facts, and consider that this near-adult teen wasn't as innocent as people were initially told.

reply to post by Soloprotocol


Zimmerman was NOT trained in MMA. You should know the facts before you post misinformation in the thread.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


One could equally say that George's testimony/witness statements were tailored to what he knew could have been witnessed, and any surprise witnesses that came forward he could claim were mistaken, as it was too dark to see anything clearly.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


That's the most ironically ignorant thing I have ever read. The state should not have falsified the arrest warrant and charge a man with crimes he had been cleared of (44 days aftr he was cleared) to appease a racist mob and cost the tax payers million not to mention the huge negative effects on an innocent mans life.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


What? Seriously, what do you mean? Witnesses put Martin on top of him..... How would he have known who seen what? His focus was obviously on the man mounting and pummeling him.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Now, please THINK about these facts, and consider that this near-adult teen wasn't as innocent as people were initially told.

Thats true, he was no innocent kid - selling gun(s), fighting, a thief, druguser amongst others.
And theres no doubt that Z got himself into a situation he couldtn handle and got his as s kicked bigtime, and its pretty likely that he shot in self defence. But Z got himself into that situation for sure - wonder what the jury is going to focus on the most - the selfdefence part or that he provoked the situation and therefor the death of TM.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Those are HUGE what if's and not even cloe to likely. I know yu want to paint Zimmerman as a criminal mastermind, but evidence suggests his story is true. We don't need to deal with what ifs.

reply to post by Minus


I thought most people frowned upon blaming the victim these days?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Soloprotocol

 

Zimmerman was NOT trained in MMA. You should know the facts before you post misinformation in the thread.

Actually he was, he just wasn't trained to the highest level of ability. If what his trainer said was true, and he was a 1 on a Competition Level Fighting Ability scale of 0-10, that is still effectively saying that he was 10% of the way towards being ready to fight against other trained fighters.

Now, I know Trayvon has some sort of fighting history being alluded to, but there is no suggestion from anywhere that he was being trained by a professional mma instructor, albeit one who is prepared to admit to the world that his gym supposedly can't even teach the basics of a ground defence to a diligent student dedicated enough to have already lost 50lb in weight.

My cousin taught submission grappling, charged $3 per 2 hr session to adults and a buck-fifty for kids, and would have a student of any level of physical ability completely familiar with the basics of ground self-defence, if they spent 6 hrs a week with him for a year.

reply to post by TKDRL


When was he being pummeled? Don't say that is what Good saw, because he isn't sure of any such thing. He was too cowardly to even pop his head out of the door for more than 10 seconds. Nothing he saw suggests a life-threatening, savage assault on a completely helpless victim. He even stated the situation was fluid/dynamic, and that it moved from one place to another, with Zimmerman seemingly having no problem shimmying here, there and everywhere.