Ugh... 2nd Degree? They better have something in their pocket otherwise the country will be pissed.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Personally, I think the initial charge reeks of political appeasement. Anything less than a charge that actually stated Murder would have been seen as more conspiracy, racism, etc etc. Sharpton and Jackson would have been holding another rally calling for the Feds to investigate Corey.
I think they overcharged and should have stuck with Manslaughter if they really wanted a conviction.
Now we are in for months and months of jury selection, and the talking heads on the networks will be running with this like the Casey Anthony trial.
Congrats George Zimmerman, even if you are found not guilty, your life is damn well over.
Is Florida one of those places where the jury can convict on a lesser charge if they think there's sufficient evidence for it?
Jesus, is anywhere like that? That's horrible.
"Good job, fucking up your case, Mr. Prosecution, but we'll do your job for you. Love, The Jury"
I'll post more from home in a bit, but this is an ill informed wrong attitude about how lesser includeds work
Kinda.
It's a mixed bag with lesser included. Sometimes in death penalty cases, the jury doesn't want to be in charge of pulling the trigger so they go for a lesser included offense. Sometimes they legitimately think that there isn't evidence for the primary charge but that there is for a lesser charge. It's a gambit.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
Options
ArchonexNo hard feelings, right?Registered Userregular
I was referring to bringing out the worst in people in general. Such as yourself when you called for horrible things to happen to him and his life to be spent in fear whether he was guilty or not. This incident fueled by the media has not been a pretty sight.
Again, I did not say that. You can twist a few statements however you want, but it won't change the facts.
The only reason this is even going to court is because it caught the media's attention. If it hadn't, it would have been like so many other recent cases. Like the 60ish year old black man who had his lifeline pendant go off by accident when he was asleep. The two responding police officers refused to accept that he was the owner of the pendant, or the owner of his own home, and shot him. The man in question who was shot and killed realized what was about to happen, and actually recorded his final testimony (Which is really sobering to read through.) and an accurate recording of the events. Including a recording that has the two (provably racist cops with violent histories) screaming the N-word at him through the door and obviously acting in a way that doesn't befit an officer of the law.
The officers in question lied about what he said and did after the fact without realizing that he was recording his final testimony (He even said that he was about to be executed by them after they got inside his apartment.) from behind the door. Not knowing this, they tried to, basically, paint him as some sort of James Bond-esque ninja who managed to take a severe beating from NL weaponry, and then went for a knife before the "poor" officers were forced to discharge their firearms into him. Repeatedly.
That story was being fairly well covered up until it hit national attention a few weeks back. Now the officers in question are looking a bit squeamish, and I think there's talk of bringing charges against them. Unfortunately, it's pretty much gotten buried underneath the tide of Trayvon Martin debates on the news.
I'd link the article, but it isn't really relevant to the Trayvon Martin case. It is endemic of an issue many police departments have, however. The only proven way to counter them covering up an incident is to blow it up like this. If there were alternatives that actually reliably worked within the governmental systems we have, it wouldn't be necessary to take the negative attention that comes from the media getting a hold of a story. As it is, you make do with what you've got.
Personally, I think the initial charge reeks of political appeasement. Anything less than a charge that actually stated Murder would have been seen as more conspiracy, racism, etc etc. Sharpton and Jackson would have been holding another rally calling for the Feds to investigate Corey.
I think they overcharged and should have stuck with Manslaughter if they really wanted a conviction.
Now we are in for months and months of jury selection, and the talking heads on the networks will be running with this like the Casey Anthony trial.
Congrats George Zimmerman, even if you are found not guilty, your life is damn well over.
Is Florida one of those places where the jury can convict on a lesser charge if they think there's sufficient evidence for it?
Jesus, is anywhere like that? That's horrible.
"Good job, fucking up your case, Mr. Prosecution, but we'll do your job for you. Love, The Jury"
I'll post more from home in a bit, but this is an ill informed wrong attitude about how lesser includeds work
Kinda.
It's a mixed bag with lesser included. Sometimes in death penalty cases, the jury doesn't want to be in charge of pulling the trigger so they go for a lesser included offense. Sometimes they legitimately think that there isn't evidence for the primary charge but that there is for a lesser charge. It's a gambit.
well my point mostly is that it's not because they're "doing the job for the prosecution" but because there are some things that are very hard to prove, like mental state, or sometimes you want to give the jury the ability to find the crime that matches the facts as they find them.
Prosecutors could always just charge every applicable crime (like, let's say, assault 1, assault 2, assault 3, assault 4) or they could just charge assault 1 and let the jury decide if a lesser included applies. I don't know if it's in all states, but most states require the jury to find the person not guilty of the higher charge before proceeding to deliberation on the lower charge.
and yeah sometimes parties don't ask for a lesser included jury instruction because they want it to be all or nothing.
So It Goes on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Personally, I think the initial charge reeks of political appeasement. Anything less than a charge that actually stated Murder would have been seen as more conspiracy, racism, etc etc. Sharpton and Jackson would have been holding another rally calling for the Feds to investigate Corey.
I think they overcharged and should have stuck with Manslaughter if they really wanted a conviction.
Now we are in for months and months of jury selection, and the talking heads on the networks will be running with this like the Casey Anthony trial.
Congrats George Zimmerman, even if you are found not guilty, your life is damn well over.
Is Florida one of those places where the jury can convict on a lesser charge if they think there's sufficient evidence for it?
Jesus, is anywhere like that? That's horrible.
"Good job, fucking up your case, Mr. Prosecution, but we'll do your job for you. Love, The Jury"
I'll post more from home in a bit, but this is an ill informed wrong attitude about how lesser includeds work
Kinda.
It's a mixed bag with lesser included. Sometimes in death penalty cases, the jury doesn't want to be in charge of pulling the trigger so they go for a lesser included offense. Sometimes they legitimately think that there isn't evidence for the primary charge but that there is for a lesser charge. It's a gambit.
Ah, if they're included, fine. I thought the poster meant "Well, 2nd Degree didn't stick, but we can try manslaughter".
"Everyone knows that an armed man killing an unarmed man is wrong. They may find it hard to admit, but they know it."
THANK YOU.
This is the kind of thing you say to appease the public, and well folks like yourself. I'm assuming this was said by the prosecutor at the press conference? It's not the law, that's the thing. Proportionality can be met against an unarmed man. Not saying it's the case here, but it can. There is zero requirement that the other person pose a deadly threat, or be armed, before using deadly force under Florida law.
Personally, I think the initial charge reeks of political appeasement. Anything less than a charge that actually stated Murder would have been seen as more conspiracy, racism, etc etc. Sharpton and Jackson would have been holding another rally calling for the Feds to investigate Corey.
I think they overcharged and should have stuck with Manslaughter if they really wanted a conviction.
Now we are in for months and months of jury selection, and the talking heads on the networks will be running with this like the Casey Anthony trial.
Congrats George Zimmerman, even if you are found not guilty, your life is damn well over.
Is Florida one of those places where the jury can convict on a lesser charge if they think there's sufficient evidence for it?
Jesus, is anywhere like that? That's horrible.
"Good job, fucking up your case, Mr. Prosecution, but we'll do your job for you. Love, The Jury"
Most places allow this, apparently including Florida.
On the one hand, it makes some sense. You can't always know how well the argument will go for the various charges, so it's not unreasonable to give the jury the option between, say, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, or first/second degree murder. Basically "you proved this, but not so much that."
However, there's some argument out there that this is abused, in that prosecutors will file charges they know they have zero chances of proving in order to get a plea on the lesser included charges (or another charge altogether). For instance, in the Mehrsele (or however you spell it) the prosecutor went for first degree murder. The jury convicted on involuntary manslaughter. It's pretty clear in that case that the first-degree murder charge was bullshit; if you press first-degree murder and a jury finds involuntary manslaughter, you are (EDIT: probably) either incompetent or evil. Incompetent because you either believed the facts supported the charge and they clearly did not, or alternately because the facts did support it and you argued that poorly. Evil would be if you intentionally pressed a charge you knew could not be proven to obtain a guilty plea on a lesser charge. Either way, bullshit. In that case, IIRC, a judge dismissed that crap before trial. That's just how bullshit it was.
So yeah, it's entirely possible the murder charge is to appease the public, and not because there's any real belief by the prosecutor that it can be proven.
On the other hand, they've got a much more complete and better organized view of the evidence than I do, or anybody here does, so who knows.
In fact it would not surprise me if Eric Holder gave Zimmerman the gun himself, and it was engraved "go forth and purge the unclean in the alley's and by the mailbox's of your gated community".
oooh. It's that argument.
Holder: Are you a Mexican drug lord?
Zimmerman: No, I'm half-Peruvian.
Holder: Close enough. Take these 20 crates of machine guns. Say, we need a name for this plan. What's your favorite Vin Diesel movie?
The Casey Anthony case had no political implications, and did not divide people by party. Aside from media hysteria, the cases are nothing alike.
Has this actually happened? Beyond fringe groups, has anyone rallied behind Zimmerman? Like, has any Republican leadership backed him? The only thing I’ve heard from them is bashing Obama for the “if I had a son he’d look like Trayvon” thing and even then they didn’t back Zimmerman, they just bashed Obama.
Even most 2nd amendment nuts don’t want to be lumped in with the guy who shot and killed an unarmed minor.
All of the conservative talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are behind Zimmerman.
Oh I have no doubt the only reason this is going to trial is the media attention. I do however have doubts about whether they can prove Murder 2, or even manslaughter.
Also bullshit, you quite clearly said Zimmerman deserves to be railed, and live the rest of his life in fear regardless of whether he is guilty or innocent. All while spouting off about civilized society. Found that Racial Epithet yet?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
"Everyone knows that an armed man killing an unarmed man is wrong. They may find it hard to admit, but they know it."
THANK YOU.
This is the kind of thing you say to appease the public, and well folks like yourself. I'm assuming this was said by the prosecutor at the press conference? It's not the law, that's the thing. Proportionality can be met against an unarmed man. Not saying it's the case here, but it can. There is zero requirement that the other person pose a deadly threat, or be armed, before using deadly force under Florida law.
Personally, I think the initial charge reeks of political appeasement. Anything less than a charge that actually stated Murder would have been seen as more conspiracy, racism, etc etc. Sharpton and Jackson would have been holding another rally calling for the Feds to investigate Corey.
I think they overcharged and should have stuck with Manslaughter if they really wanted a conviction.
Now we are in for months and months of jury selection, and the talking heads on the networks will be running with this like the Casey Anthony trial.
Congrats George Zimmerman, even if you are found not guilty, your life is damn well over.
Is Florida one of those places where the jury can convict on a lesser charge if they think there's sufficient evidence for it?
Jesus, is anywhere like that? That's horrible.
"Good job, fucking up your case, Mr. Prosecution, but we'll do your job for you. Love, The Jury"
Most places allow this, apparently including Florida.
On the one hand, it makes some sense. You can't always know how well the argument will go for the various charges, so it's not unreasonable to give the jury the option between, say, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, or first/second degree murder. Basically "you proved this, but not so much that."
However, there's some argument out there that this is abused, in that prosecutors will file charges they know they have zero chances of proving in order to get a plea on the lesser included charges (or another charge altogether). For instance, in the Mehrsele (or however you spell it) the prosecutor went for first degree murder. The jury convicted on involuntary manslaughter. It's pretty clear in that case that the first-degree murder charge was bullshit; if you press first-degree murder and a jury finds involuntary manslaughter, you are (EDIT: probably) either incompetent or evil. Incompetent because you either believed the facts supported the charge and they clearly did not, or alternately because the facts did support it and you argued that poorly. Evil would be if you intentionally pressed a charge you knew could not be proven to obtain a guilty plea on a lesser charge. Either way, bullshit. In that case, IIRC, a judge dismissed that crap before trial. That's just how bullshit it was.
So yeah, it's entirely possible the murder charge is to appease the public, and not because there's any real belief by the prosecutor that it can be proven.
On the other hand, they've got a much more complete and better organized view of the evidence than I do, or anybody here does, so who knows.
To be clear, I have no problem with charging anybody whatever, I do have a problem with the idea of juries coming up with their own charges, but I don't think that's what we're talking about upon further review of posts.
"Everyone knows that an armed man killing an unarmed man is wrong. They may find it hard to admit, but they know it."
THANK YOU.
This is the kind of thing you say to appease the public, and well folks like yourself. I'm assuming this was said by the prosecutor at the press conference? It's not the law, that's the thing. Proportionality can be met against an unarmed man. Not saying it's the case here, but it can. There is zero requirement that the other person pose a deadly threat, or be armed, before using deadly force under Florida law.
Personally, I think the initial charge reeks of political appeasement. Anything less than a charge that actually stated Murder would have been seen as more conspiracy, racism, etc etc. Sharpton and Jackson would have been holding another rally calling for the Feds to investigate Corey.
I think they overcharged and should have stuck with Manslaughter if they really wanted a conviction.
Now we are in for months and months of jury selection, and the talking heads on the networks will be running with this like the Casey Anthony trial.
Congrats George Zimmerman, even if you are found not guilty, your life is damn well over.
Is Florida one of those places where the jury can convict on a lesser charge if they think there's sufficient evidence for it?
Jesus, is anywhere like that? That's horrible.
"Good job, fucking up your case, Mr. Prosecution, but we'll do your job for you. Love, The Jury"
Most places allow this, apparently including Florida.
On the one hand, it makes some sense. You can't always know how well the argument will go for the various charges, so it's not unreasonable to give the jury the option between, say, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, or first/second degree murder. Basically "you proved this, but not so much that."
However, there's some argument out there that this is abused, in that prosecutors will file charges they know they have zero chances of proving in order to get a plea on the lesser included charges (or another charge altogether). For instance, in the Mehrsele (or however you spell it) the prosecutor went for first degree murder. The jury convicted on involuntary manslaughter. It's pretty clear in that case that the first-degree murder charge was bullshit; if you press first-degree murder and a jury finds involuntary manslaughter, you are (EDIT: probably) either incompetent or evil. Incompetent because you either believed the facts supported the charge and they clearly did not, or alternately because the facts did support it and you argued that poorly. Evil would be if you intentionally pressed a charge you knew could not be proven to obtain a guilty plea on a lesser charge. Either way, bullshit. In that case, IIRC, a judge dismissed that crap before trial. That's just how bullshit it was.
So yeah, it's entirely possible the murder charge is to appease the public, and not because there's any real belief by the prosecutor that it can be proven.
On the other hand, they've got a much more complete and better organized view of the evidence than I do, or anybody here does, so who knows.
To be clear, I have no problem with charging anybody whatever, I do have a problem with the idea of juries coming up with their own charges, but I don't think that's what we're talking about upon further review of posts.
an instruction on lesser included crimes is requested by one of the parties, prosecutor or defendant
if it's not requested it won't be given, and the jury can't consider it
so yeah they can't just ring up the judge and say "but what about this uncharged crime??"
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
"Everyone knows that an armed man killing an unarmed man is wrong. They may find it hard to admit, but they know it."
THANK YOU.
This is the kind of thing you say to appease the public, and well folks like yourself. I'm assuming this was said by the prosecutor at the press conference? It's not the law, that's the thing. Proportionality can be met against an unarmed man. Not saying it's the case here, but it can. There is zero requirement that the other person pose a deadly threat, or be armed, before using deadly force under Florida law.
Personally, I think the initial charge reeks of political appeasement. Anything less than a charge that actually stated Murder would have been seen as more conspiracy, racism, etc etc. Sharpton and Jackson would have been holding another rally calling for the Feds to investigate Corey.
I think they overcharged and should have stuck with Manslaughter if they really wanted a conviction.
Now we are in for months and months of jury selection, and the talking heads on the networks will be running with this like the Casey Anthony trial.
Congrats George Zimmerman, even if you are found not guilty, your life is damn well over.
Is Florida one of those places where the jury can convict on a lesser charge if they think there's sufficient evidence for it?
Jesus, is anywhere like that? That's horrible.
"Good job, fucking up your case, Mr. Prosecution, but we'll do your job for you. Love, The Jury"
Most places allow this, apparently including Florida.
On the one hand, it makes some sense. You can't always know how well the argument will go for the various charges, so it's not unreasonable to give the jury the option between, say, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, or first/second degree murder. Basically "you proved this, but not so much that."
However, there's some argument out there that this is abused, in that prosecutors will file charges they know they have zero chances of proving in order to get a plea on the lesser included charges (or another charge altogether). For instance, in the Mehrsele (or however you spell it) the prosecutor went for first degree murder. The jury convicted on involuntary manslaughter. It's pretty clear in that case that the first-degree murder charge was bullshit; if you press first-degree murder and a jury finds involuntary manslaughter, you are (EDIT: probably) either incompetent or evil. Incompetent because you either believed the facts supported the charge and they clearly did not, or alternately because the facts did support it and you argued that poorly. Evil would be if you intentionally pressed a charge you knew could not be proven to obtain a guilty plea on a lesser charge. Either way, bullshit. In that case, IIRC, a judge dismissed that crap before trial. That's just how bullshit it was.
So yeah, it's entirely possible the murder charge is to appease the public, and not because there's any real belief by the prosecutor that it can be proven.
On the other hand, they've got a much more complete and better organized view of the evidence than I do, or anybody here does, so who knows.
To be clear, I have no problem with charging anybody whatever, I do have a problem with the idea of juries coming up with their own charges, but I don't think that's what we're talking about upon further review of posts.
an instruction on lesser included crimes is requested by one of the parties, prosecutor or defendant
if it's not requested it won't be given, and the jury can't consider it
so yeah they can't just ring up the judge and say "but what about this uncharged crime??"
Right, which is why I clarified. ^That's all kosher^
Also true. He could still be found completely innocent, be completely innocent, or spend the rest of his life behind bars.
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Personally, I think the initial charge reeks of political appeasement. Anything less than a charge that actually stated Murder would have been seen as more conspiracy, racism, etc etc. Sharpton and Jackson would have been holding another rally calling for the Feds to investigate Corey.
I think they overcharged and should have stuck with Manslaughter if they really wanted a conviction.
Now we are in for months and months of jury selection, and the talking heads on the networks will be running with this like the Casey Anthony trial.
Congrats George Zimmerman, even if you are found not guilty, your life is damn well over.
Is Florida one of those places where the jury can convict on a lesser charge if they think there's sufficient evidence for it?
Jesus, is anywhere like that? That's horrible.
"Good job, fucking up your case, Mr. Prosecution, but we'll do your job for you. Love, The Jury"
I'll post more from home in a bit, but this is an ill informed wrong attitude about how lesser includeds work
Kinda.
It's a mixed bag with lesser included. Sometimes in death penalty cases, the jury doesn't want to be in charge of pulling the trigger so they go for a lesser included offense. Sometimes they legitimately think that there isn't evidence for the primary charge but that there is for a lesser charge. It's a gambit.
Ah, if they're included, fine. I thought the poster meant "Well, 2nd Degree didn't stick, but we can try manslaughter".
My mistake totally.
Just think of it like a chart. The jury says "You proved elements A, B, C, and D. But not E or F." If they had gotten all the elements, it would be first degree murder. Since they didn't, he's guilty of manslaughter. A little simplified, but manslaughter is just first degree murder minus planning and intent.
And it's something the prosecutor has to request. They can choose to charge them with just murder or with murder and its lesser included offenses. Sometimes it's a strategy move to leave out the lesser included, sometimes you want to be safe.
Some legal systems require you to plead guilty in order to use an affirmative defense. Not "Guilty" guilty, but "Guilty, but Excused" guilty. Basically means the prosecution doesn't have the burden of proving you shot the guy.
EDIT: And it shifts the burden of proof to the defendant. Sorry, that's a bit important.
Munkus Beaver on
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
Personally, I think the initial charge reeks of political appeasement. Anything less than a charge that actually stated Murder would have been seen as more conspiracy, racism, etc etc. Sharpton and Jackson would have been holding another rally calling for the Feds to investigate Corey.
I think they overcharged and should have stuck with Manslaughter if they really wanted a conviction.
Now we are in for months and months of jury selection, and the talking heads on the networks will be running with this like the Casey Anthony trial.
Congrats George Zimmerman, even if you are found not guilty, your life is damn well over.
Is Florida one of those places where the jury can convict on a lesser charge if they think there's sufficient evidence for it?
Jesus, is anywhere like that? That's horrible.
"Good job, fucking up your case, Mr. Prosecution, but we'll do your job for you. Love, The Jury"
I'll post more from home in a bit, but this is an ill informed wrong attitude about how lesser includeds work
Kinda.
It's a mixed bag with lesser included. Sometimes in death penalty cases, the jury doesn't want to be in charge of pulling the trigger so they go for a lesser included offense. Sometimes they legitimately think that there isn't evidence for the primary charge but that there is for a lesser charge. It's a gambit.
Ah, if they're included, fine. I thought the poster meant "Well, 2nd Degree didn't stick, but we can try manslaughter".
My mistake totally.
Just think of it like a chart. The jury says "You proved elements A, B, C, and D. But not E or F." If they had gotten all the elements, it would be first degree murder. Since they didn't, he's guilty of manslaughter. A little simplified, but manslaughter is just first degree murder minus planning and intent.
And it's something the prosecutor has to request. They can choose to charge them with just murder or with murder and its lesser included offenses. Sometimes it's a strategy move to leave out the lesser included, sometimes you want to be safe.
Some legal systems require you to plead guilty in order to use an affirmative defense. Not "Guilty" guilty, but "Guilty, but Excused" guilty. Basically means the prosecution doesn't have the burden of proving you shot the guy.
EDIT: And it shifts the burden of proof to the defendant. Sorry, that's a bit important.
There was only one voice screaming. It was screaming so loud that it could be heard away from the sight of the murder, through the walls of the houses of the people who were calling 911, over the phone to the dispatcher on the other end. It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that that voice was not Zimmerman's after Zimmerman claimed self defense, and that he was the one screaming at the top of his lungs for help. Unless you're trying to tell me that a third party was present at the murder, there is only one person that can be.
Uh, where was it proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the voice was not Zimmerman's?
The audio expert, Tom Owens (who has his own issues regarding his history of in-court testimony*), said that a 90% match was needed to positively identify Zimmerman in a court of law. Owens said that he was able to get a 38% match, which was insufficient to positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's.
However, the inability of the expert to positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's does not "prove" the voice is not Zimmerman's. It just means that Owens wasn't able to prove that it was. Similar to how a Not Guilty verdict in a criminal case doesn't "prove" the defendant is Innocent. The failure to prove a positive claim does not in itself prove the opposite claim.
And at no point has Owens (or anyone else) "proven" that the voice was Martin's. As it stands, we don't know whose voice it is.
*Owens, in this case, claims he needs a 90% match to identify Zimmerman. But in a previous murder case he testified that he could positively identify the defendant with only a 68% match. That's a pretty big discrepancy for an expert to have when you're talking about convicting a person of murder.
Once again, he said he would expect a 90% match based on the quality of the audio. There are certain situations where the audio quality would be much lower, which would lower the results of the match.
There was only one voice screaming. It was screaming so loud that it could be heard away from the sight of the murder, through the walls of the houses of the people who were calling 911, over the phone to the dispatcher on the other end. It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that that voice was not Zimmerman's after Zimmerman claimed self defense, and that he was the one screaming at the top of his lungs for help. Unless you're trying to tell me that a third party was present at the murder, there is only one person that can be.
Uh, where was it proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the voice was not Zimmerman's?
The audio expert, Tom Owens (who has his own issues regarding his history of in-court testimony*), said that a 90% match was needed to positively identify Zimmerman in a court of law. Owens said that he was able to get a 38% match, which was insufficient to positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's.
However, the inability of the expert to positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's does not "prove" the voice is not Zimmerman's. It just means that Owens wasn't able to prove that it was. Similar to how a Not Guilty verdict in a criminal case doesn't "prove" the defendant is Innocent. The failure to prove a positive claim does not in itself prove the opposite claim.
And at no point has Owens (or anyone else) "proven" that the voice was Martin's. As it stands, we don't know whose voice it is.
*Owens, in this case, claims he needs a 90% match to identify Zimmerman. But in a previous murder case he testified that he could positively identify the defendant with only a 68% match. That's a pretty big discrepancy for an expert to have when you're talking about convicting a person of murder.
Once again, he said he would expect a 90% match based on the quality of the audio. There are certain situations where the audio quality would be much lower, which would lower the results of the match.
The outcome he received is extremely low for it to be likely to have been him. A 38 percent chance/match is not high at all. That'd be a situation where you could reasonably reject the null hypothesis---That Zimmerman is telling the truth and is innocent. IE: Burden of proof and all that.
If nothing else, self defense claims have been rendered questionable and taken to court by far less grievous mistakes in the defendant's story in the past. I've yet to see a reason why we should make an exception for Zimmerman alone in this case.
Especially with the supposed eye witness that martin attacked first and it was zimmerman calling for help. They havent been substantiated but there was leaks on the news sites about those two things.
0
Options
EshTending bar. FFXIV. Motorcycles.Portland, ORRegistered Userregular
Plenty of links on google, feel free to pick your poison News Outlet of Choice.
[tinfoil hat on the following should obviously be a joke]
As far as the crazy conspiracies go it is obvious this is all a ploy by Obama to stir up racial tensions in order to drive voters to the ballot boxs despite his lackluster performance over the last four years in solving all racial inequality issues that may have lead to racial motivated single issue voters staying home. In fact it would not surprise me if Eric Holder gave Zimmerman the gun himself, and it was engraved "go forth and purge the unclean in the alley's and by the mailbox's of your gated community".
[you may remove your tin foil now]
Exactly, whether or not their a fringe group, his supporters have put a bounty.
EVERY belief has wing nuts. To say that his supporters (in a general and blanketed sense) have put a bounty on Zimmerman (if it actually happened) is once again showing your supreme goosery. So a couple of fringe weirdos have said some stuff? Who cares?
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Ugh, why do these highly-publicized cases always have to happen in Florida where (apparently) cameras are allowed in the courtroom?
Ugh... 2nd Degree? They better have something in their pocket otherwise the country will be pissed.
2nd Degree carries penalties of up to life. The only thing worse is 1st degree. Unless you can argue that Zimmerman went out intentionally to kill Martin, 2nd if all you've got.
ED! on
"Get the hell out of me" - [ex]girlfriend
0
Options
Goose!That's me, honeyShow me the way home, honeyRegistered Userregular
Ugh... 2nd Degree? They better have something in their pocket otherwise the country will be pissed.
2nd Degree carries penalties of up to life. The only thing worse is 1st degree. Unless you can argue that Zimmerman went out intentionally to kill Martin, 2nd if all you've got.
Funny, I read Jubal's comment the exact opposite way. I'm not sure the prosecutor's going to be able to prove all the elements of the crime in the scenario suggested in a way that's satisfactory to a jury. I would have expected manslaughter, which was coincidentally what the homicide detective who looked into the case on the night of the shooting recommended.
Ugh... 2nd Degree? They better have something in their pocket otherwise the country will be pissed.
2nd Degree carries penalties of up to life. The only thing worse is 1st degree. Unless you can argue that Zimmerman went out intentionally to kill Martin, 2nd if all you've got.
Funny, I read Jubal's comment the exact opposite way. I'm not sure the prosecutor's going to be able to prove all the elements of the crime in the scenario suggested in a way that's satisfactory to a jury. I would have expected manslaughter, which was coincidentally what the homicide detective who looked into the case on the night of the shooting recommended.
Yeah that is what I was leaning towards. I dont see how they can get 2nd with what has been released/leaked.
0
Options
EshTending bar. FFXIV. Motorcycles.Portland, ORRegistered Userregular
Ugh... 2nd Degree? They better have something in their pocket otherwise the country will be pissed.
2nd Degree carries penalties of up to life. The only thing worse is 1st degree. Unless you can argue that Zimmerman went out intentionally to kill Martin, 2nd if all you've got.
Funny, I read Jubal's comment the exact opposite way. I'm not sure the prosecutor's going to be able to prove all the elements of the crime in the scenario suggested in a way that's satisfactory to a jury. I would have expected manslaughter, which was coincidentally what the homicide detective who looked into the case on the night of the shooting recommended.
Yeah that is what I was leaning towards. I dont see how they can get 2nd with what has been released/leaked.
Which should tell you that they haven't released/leaked everything yet. These people aren't stupid and probably are a little bit more informed and experienced than anyone speculating on these boards is.
Wait you mean there are more facts available to the police/investigators than what the media has? But if I don't have all available information how am I supposed to decide what happened? I supposed I could just make a stupid snap decision and then concoct a bunch of crap to support it. Woohoo the TV is talking again!
Ugh... 2nd Degree? They better have something in their pocket otherwise the country will be pissed.
2nd Degree carries penalties of up to life. The only thing worse is 1st degree. Unless you can argue that Zimmerman went out intentionally to kill Martin, 2nd if all you've got.
Funny, I read Jubal's comment the exact opposite way. I'm not sure the prosecutor's going to be able to prove all the elements of the crime in the scenario suggested in a way that's satisfactory to a jury. I would have expected manslaughter, which was coincidentally what the homicide detective who looked into the case on the night of the shooting recommended.
Yeah that is what I was leaning towards. I dont see how they can get 2nd with what has been released/leaked.
Which should tell you that they haven't released/leaked everything yet. These people aren't stupid and probably are a little bit more informed and experienced than anyone speculating on these boards is.
Again, Johannes Mehserle was charged with first degree murder. Convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The charge of second degree murder does not in any way imply that they can actually prove that charge.
Though yes, it sure is possible, and I'll be interested to see what comes out.
I was referring to bringing out the worst in people in general. Such as yourself when you called for horrible things to happen to him and his life to be spent in fear whether he was guilty or not. This incident fueled by the media has not been a pretty sight.
Again, I did not say that. You can twist a few statements however you want, but it won't change the facts.
The only reason this is even going to court is because it caught the media's attention. If it hadn't, it would have been like so many other recent cases. Like the 60ish year old black man who had his lifeline pendant go off by accident when he was asleep. The two responding police officers refused to accept that he was the owner of the pendant, or the owner of his own home, and shot him. The man in question who was shot and killed realized what was about to happen, and actually recorded his final testimony (Which is really sobering to read through.) and an accurate recording of the events. Including a recording that has the two (provably racist cops with violent histories) screaming the N-word at him through the door and obviously acting in a way that doesn't befit an officer of the law.
The officers in question lied about what he said and did after the fact without realizing that he was recording his final testimony (He even said that he was about to be executed by them after they got inside his apartment.) from behind the door. Not knowing this, they tried to, basically, paint him as some sort of James Bond-esque ninja who managed to take a severe beating from NL weaponry, and then went for a knife before the "poor" officers were forced to discharge their firearms into him. Repeatedly.
That story was being fairly well covered up until it hit national attention a few weeks back. Now the officers in question are looking a bit squeamish, and I think there's talk of bringing charges against them. Unfortunately, it's pretty much gotten buried underneath the tide of Trayvon Martin debates on the news.
I'd link the article, but it isn't really relevant to the Trayvon Martin case. It is endemic of an issue many police departments have, however. The only proven way to counter them covering up an incident is to blow it up like this. If there were alternatives that actually reliably worked within the governmental systems we have, it wouldn't be necessary to take the negative attention that comes from the media getting a hold of a story. As it is, you make do with what you've got.
Um..am I alone in saying please link this article?
Here you go. This link is far worse (in regards to the march to charges) than what I have seen in the Martin case; and has received like. . .none of the attention Martin has got.
Ugh... 2nd Degree? They better have something in their pocket otherwise the country will be pissed.
2nd Degree carries penalties of up to life. The only thing worse is 1st degree. Unless you can argue that Zimmerman went out intentionally to kill Martin, 2nd if all you've got.
Funny, I read Jubal's comment the exact opposite way. I'm not sure the prosecutor's going to be able to prove all the elements of the crime in the scenario suggested in a way that's satisfactory to a jury. I would have expected manslaughter, which was coincidentally what the homicide detective who looked into the case on the night of the shooting recommended.
Yeah that is what I was leaning towards. I dont see how they can get 2nd with what has been released/leaked.
Which should tell you that they haven't released/leaked everything yet. These people aren't stupid and probably are a little bit more informed and experienced than anyone speculating on these boards is.
Hence the reason I said "they better have something in their pocket"
0
Options
EshTending bar. FFXIV. Motorcycles.Portland, ORRegistered Userregular
Ugh... 2nd Degree? They better have something in their pocket otherwise the country will be pissed.
2nd Degree carries penalties of up to life. The only thing worse is 1st degree. Unless you can argue that Zimmerman went out intentionally to kill Martin, 2nd if all you've got.
Funny, I read Jubal's comment the exact opposite way. I'm not sure the prosecutor's going to be able to prove all the elements of the crime in the scenario suggested in a way that's satisfactory to a jury. I would have expected manslaughter, which was coincidentally what the homicide detective who looked into the case on the night of the shooting recommended.
Yeah that is what I was leaning towards. I dont see how they can get 2nd with what has been released/leaked.
Which should tell you that they haven't released/leaked everything yet. These people aren't stupid and probably are a little bit more informed and experienced than anyone speculating on these boards is.
Hence the reason I said "they better have something in their pocket"
Ugh... 2nd Degree? They better have something in their pocket otherwise the country will be pissed.
2nd Degree carries penalties of up to life. The only thing worse is 1st degree. Unless you can argue that Zimmerman went out intentionally to kill Martin, 2nd if all you've got.
Funny, I read Jubal's comment the exact opposite way. I'm not sure the prosecutor's going to be able to prove all the elements of the crime in the scenario suggested in a way that's satisfactory to a jury. I would have expected manslaughter, which was coincidentally what the homicide detective who looked into the case on the night of the shooting recommended.
Yeah that is what I was leaning towards. I dont see how they can get 2nd with what has been released/leaked.
Which should tell you that they haven't released/leaked everything yet. These people aren't stupid and probably are a little bit more informed and experienced than anyone speculating on these boards is.
Hence the reason I said "they better have something in their pocket"
And they obviously do...
Or they are trying to appease the masses a bit and actually try to get involuntary. We shall see right?
Ugh... 2nd Degree? They better have something in their pocket otherwise the country will be pissed.
2nd Degree carries penalties of up to life. The only thing worse is 1st degree. Unless you can argue that Zimmerman went out intentionally to kill Martin, 2nd if all you've got.
Funny, I read Jubal's comment the exact opposite way. I'm not sure the prosecutor's going to be able to prove all the elements of the crime in the scenario suggested in a way that's satisfactory to a jury. I would have expected manslaughter, which was coincidentally what the homicide detective who looked into the case on the night of the shooting recommended.
Yeah that is what I was leaning towards. I dont see how they can get 2nd with what has been released/leaked.
Which should tell you that they haven't released/leaked everything yet. These people aren't stupid and probably are a little bit more informed and experienced than anyone speculating on these boards is.
Again, Johannes Mehserle was charged with first degree murder. Convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The charge of second degree murder does not in any way imply that they can actually prove that charge.
Though yes, it sure is possible, and I'll be interested to see what comes out.
Yeah it's entirely possible, for instance, that she's trying to push Zimmerman into plea bargaining down to manslaughter. Especially since his legal team quit and described their former client in a way which would fairly be characterized as erratic (and since they allege that Zimmerman took it upon himself to call the special prosecutor's office without the benefit of legal counsel like a complete fucking idiot) I could see a prosecutor thinking that they might be able to pressure him into a plea agreement.
The problem they're going to have with a murder 2 case is proving that at the time, Zimmerman's decision to pull the trigger was "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent." Even if you think that he used unjustified force in response to an unreasonable fear, you're going to have a hard time agreeing with that element of the crime. The only way a jury convicts on that is if they believe that Zimmerman is lying about his explanation about why he pulled the trigger, and I don't think you're going to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt with a jury absent some forensic evidence which proves that he was definitively lying.
And it's entirely possible that they have that, but if Sanford PD collected such evidence and opted out of charging Zimmerman per the detective's recommendation, some people should probably start looking for new fields of employment.
0
Options
Sir Landsharkresting shark faceRegistered Userregular
I have a question regarding Florida law. The prosecution is going to present all their evidence that makes it look like Zimmerman murdered Martin. What is the defense's response to that? They can say self-defense, but doesn't that mean Zimmerman has to get on the witness stand to explain his chain of events and then answer some uncomfortable questions in a cross examination? This is really only coming from background of television legal drama, but I thought normally it is a bad idea to let the defendant be cross examined?
Posts
Kinda.
It's a mixed bag with lesser included. Sometimes in death penalty cases, the jury doesn't want to be in charge of pulling the trigger so they go for a lesser included offense. Sometimes they legitimately think that there isn't evidence for the primary charge but that there is for a lesser charge. It's a gambit.
Again, I did not say that. You can twist a few statements however you want, but it won't change the facts.
The only reason this is even going to court is because it caught the media's attention. If it hadn't, it would have been like so many other recent cases. Like the 60ish year old black man who had his lifeline pendant go off by accident when he was asleep. The two responding police officers refused to accept that he was the owner of the pendant, or the owner of his own home, and shot him. The man in question who was shot and killed realized what was about to happen, and actually recorded his final testimony (Which is really sobering to read through.) and an accurate recording of the events. Including a recording that has the two (provably racist cops with violent histories) screaming the N-word at him through the door and obviously acting in a way that doesn't befit an officer of the law.
The officers in question lied about what he said and did after the fact without realizing that he was recording his final testimony (He even said that he was about to be executed by them after they got inside his apartment.) from behind the door. Not knowing this, they tried to, basically, paint him as some sort of James Bond-esque ninja who managed to take a severe beating from NL weaponry, and then went for a knife before the "poor" officers were forced to discharge their firearms into him. Repeatedly.
That story was being fairly well covered up until it hit national attention a few weeks back. Now the officers in question are looking a bit squeamish, and I think there's talk of bringing charges against them. Unfortunately, it's pretty much gotten buried underneath the tide of Trayvon Martin debates on the news.
I'd link the article, but it isn't really relevant to the Trayvon Martin case. It is endemic of an issue many police departments have, however. The only proven way to counter them covering up an incident is to blow it up like this. If there were alternatives that actually reliably worked within the governmental systems we have, it wouldn't be necessary to take the negative attention that comes from the media getting a hold of a story. As it is, you make do with what you've got.
well my point mostly is that it's not because they're "doing the job for the prosecution" but because there are some things that are very hard to prove, like mental state, or sometimes you want to give the jury the ability to find the crime that matches the facts as they find them.
Prosecutors could always just charge every applicable crime (like, let's say, assault 1, assault 2, assault 3, assault 4) or they could just charge assault 1 and let the jury decide if a lesser included applies. I don't know if it's in all states, but most states require the jury to find the person not guilty of the higher charge before proceeding to deliberation on the lower charge.
and yeah sometimes parties don't ask for a lesser included jury instruction because they want it to be all or nothing.
Ah, if they're included, fine. I thought the poster meant "Well, 2nd Degree didn't stick, but we can try manslaughter".
My mistake totally.
This is the kind of thing you say to appease the public, and well folks like yourself. I'm assuming this was said by the prosecutor at the press conference? It's not the law, that's the thing. Proportionality can be met against an unarmed man. Not saying it's the case here, but it can. There is zero requirement that the other person pose a deadly threat, or be armed, before using deadly force under Florida law.
Just sayin'.
Most places allow this, apparently including Florida.
On the one hand, it makes some sense. You can't always know how well the argument will go for the various charges, so it's not unreasonable to give the jury the option between, say, voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, or first/second degree murder. Basically "you proved this, but not so much that."
However, there's some argument out there that this is abused, in that prosecutors will file charges they know they have zero chances of proving in order to get a plea on the lesser included charges (or another charge altogether). For instance, in the Mehrsele (or however you spell it) the prosecutor went for first degree murder. The jury convicted on involuntary manslaughter. It's pretty clear in that case that the first-degree murder charge was bullshit; if you press first-degree murder and a jury finds involuntary manslaughter, you are (EDIT: probably) either incompetent or evil. Incompetent because you either believed the facts supported the charge and they clearly did not, or alternately because the facts did support it and you argued that poorly. Evil would be if you intentionally pressed a charge you knew could not be proven to obtain a guilty plea on a lesser charge. Either way, bullshit. In that case, IIRC, a judge dismissed that crap before trial. That's just how bullshit it was.
So yeah, it's entirely possible the murder charge is to appease the public, and not because there's any real belief by the prosecutor that it can be proven.
On the other hand, they've got a much more complete and better organized view of the evidence than I do, or anybody here does, so who knows.
Pitch Dark sounded too racist.
All of the conservative talk show hosts like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are behind Zimmerman.
Also bullshit, you quite clearly said Zimmerman deserves to be railed, and live the rest of his life in fear regardless of whether he is guilty or innocent. All while spouting off about civilized society. Found that Racial Epithet yet?
To be clear, I have no problem with charging anybody whatever, I do have a problem with the idea of juries coming up with their own charges, but I don't think that's what we're talking about upon further review of posts.
Of course it is. That doesn't have anything to do with the merits of the charge though.
an instruction on lesser included crimes is requested by one of the parties, prosecutor or defendant
if it's not requested it won't be given, and the jury can't consider it
so yeah they can't just ring up the judge and say "but what about this uncharged crime??"
Right, which is why I clarified. ^That's all kosher^
Just think of it like a chart. The jury says "You proved elements A, B, C, and D. But not E or F." If they had gotten all the elements, it would be first degree murder. Since they didn't, he's guilty of manslaughter. A little simplified, but manslaughter is just first degree murder minus planning and intent.
And it's something the prosecutor has to request. They can choose to charge them with just murder or with murder and its lesser included offenses. Sometimes it's a strategy move to leave out the lesser included, sometimes you want to be safe.
Some legal systems require you to plead guilty in order to use an affirmative defense. Not "Guilty" guilty, but "Guilty, but Excused" guilty. Basically means the prosecution doesn't have the burden of proving you shot the guy.
EDIT: And it shifts the burden of proof to the defendant. Sorry, that's a bit important.
self defense in florida doesn't shift the burden
it's not an affirmative defense there
Once again, he said he would expect a 90% match based on the quality of the audio. There are certain situations where the audio quality would be much lower, which would lower the results of the match.
The outcome he received is extremely low for it to be likely to have been him. A 38 percent chance/match is not high at all. That'd be a situation where you could reasonably reject the null hypothesis---That Zimmerman is telling the truth and is innocent. IE: Burden of proof and all that.
If nothing else, self defense claims have been rendered questionable and taken to court by far less grievous mistakes in the defendant's story in the past. I've yet to see a reason why we should make an exception for Zimmerman alone in this case.
EVERY belief has wing nuts. To say that his supporters (in a general and blanketed sense) have put a bounty on Zimmerman (if it actually happened) is once again showing your supreme goosery. So a couple of fringe weirdos have said some stuff? Who cares?
2nd Degree carries penalties of up to life. The only thing worse is 1st degree. Unless you can argue that Zimmerman went out intentionally to kill Martin, 2nd if all you've got.
Does that read like the most racist statement to anyone else?
Funny, I read Jubal's comment the exact opposite way. I'm not sure the prosecutor's going to be able to prove all the elements of the crime in the scenario suggested in a way that's satisfactory to a jury. I would have expected manslaughter, which was coincidentally what the homicide detective who looked into the case on the night of the shooting recommended.
Ignorant of what "jury of his peers" means, but not quite racist. Unless he's saying that anyone not white-hispanic is beneath him.
Yeah that is what I was leaning towards. I dont see how they can get 2nd with what has been released/leaked.
Which should tell you that they haven't released/leaked everything yet. These people aren't stupid and probably are a little bit more informed and experienced than anyone speculating on these boards is.
Again, Johannes Mehserle was charged with first degree murder. Convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The charge of second degree murder does not in any way imply that they can actually prove that charge.
Though yes, it sure is possible, and I'll be interested to see what comes out.
Um..am I alone in saying please link this article?
Hence the reason I said "they better have something in their pocket"
And they obviously do...
Or they are trying to appease the masses a bit and actually try to get involuntary. We shall see right?
Yeah it's entirely possible, for instance, that she's trying to push Zimmerman into plea bargaining down to manslaughter. Especially since his legal team quit and described their former client in a way which would fairly be characterized as erratic (and since they allege that Zimmerman took it upon himself to call the special prosecutor's office without the benefit of legal counsel like a complete fucking idiot) I could see a prosecutor thinking that they might be able to pressure him into a plea agreement.
The problem they're going to have with a murder 2 case is proving that at the time, Zimmerman's decision to pull the trigger was "done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent." Even if you think that he used unjustified force in response to an unreasonable fear, you're going to have a hard time agreeing with that element of the crime. The only way a jury convicts on that is if they believe that Zimmerman is lying about his explanation about why he pulled the trigger, and I don't think you're going to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt with a jury absent some forensic evidence which proves that he was definitively lying.
And it's entirely possible that they have that, but if Sanford PD collected such evidence and opted out of charging Zimmerman per the detective's recommendation, some people should probably start looking for new fields of employment.