lets hope enough evidence was collected to construct a scenario closest to what actually happened. lets hope they (and i'm not sure exactly who "they" are) didn't fuck up on that part of the investigation. otherwise, the trial is just gonna be one huge media circus and in the end, there will be no peace and thus no justice. just tragedy.
what a damn shame.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
So Alan Dershowitz talked about the case a little today, and he thinks the prosecution is likely to be found guilty of withholding known evidence that might support Zimmerman's defense (the photograph posted recently), and thinks that not only is the murder rap likely to be shot down, but warns that prosecution is likely to get the whole case thrown out of court if found guilty of submitting knowingly perjured affidavits.
So Alan Dershowitz talked about the case a little today, and he thinks the prosecution is likely to be found guilty of withholding known evidence that might support Zimmerman's defense (the photograph posted recently), and thinks that not only is the murder rap likely to be shot down, but warns that prosecution is likely to get the whole case thrown out of court if found guilty of submitting knowingly perjured affidavits.
Why did I check this thread? I knew it would just be depressing news.
the closest they came to a hate crime was the ambiguous 911 call
It wasn't ambiguous. The word was quite obviously "punks."
That totally explains why a bunch of people heard otherwise and we spent like 10 pages going back and forth on what was actually said. Not that it matters since at trial its being stipulated that he said punks.
So Alan Dershowitz talked about the case a little today, and he thinks the prosecution is likely to be found guilty of withholding known evidence that might support Zimmerman's defense (the photograph posted recently), and thinks that not only is the murder rap likely to be shot down, but warns that prosecution is likely to get the whole case thrown out of court if found guilty of submitting knowingly perjured affidavits.
Is he saying that the police had the photograph and gave it to the prosecution and then the prosecution didnt alert the defense, or is he saying that the police botched the investigation and should have acquired/handed over information that they didnt?
the closest they came to a hate crime was the ambiguous 911 call
It wasn't ambiguous. The word was quite obviously "punks."
That totally explains why a bunch of people heard otherwise and we spent like 10 pages going back and forth on what was actually said. Not that it matters since at trial its being stipulated that he said punks.
So Alan Dershowitz talked about the case a little today, and he thinks the prosecution is likely to be found guilty of withholding known evidence that might support Zimmerman's defense (the photograph posted recently), and thinks that not only is the murder rap likely to be shot down, but warns that prosecution is likely to get the whole case thrown out of court if found guilty of submitting knowingly perjured affidavits.
Is he saying that the police had the photograph and gave it to the prosecution and then the prosecution didnt alert the defense, or is he saying that the police botched the investigation and should have acquired/handed over information that they didnt?
From my understanding, he's saying that the prosecution knew of the photograph and didn't take it into consideration when submitting the affidavit to press charges, thus with-held evidence.
A damn shame if that's the case. I'd like everything laid on the table so the closest thing to the truth can possibly be determined, not have it thrown out just the prosecution was a group of corrupt, sleezy scum that made other lawyers look like saints. If Zimmerman goes free, it should be because he was proven not guilty (or at least because there simply isn't enough evidence to suggest otherwise), but because lawyers are pieces of shit.
So Alan Dershowitz talked about the case a little today, and he thinks the prosecution is likely to be found guilty of withholding known evidence that might support Zimmerman's defense (the photograph posted recently), and thinks that not only is the murder rap likely to be shot down, but warns that prosecution is likely to get the whole case thrown out of court if found guilty of submitting knowingly perjured affidavits.
I haven't been following this thread closely. What makes him think the defense didn't know of these photos?
When people unite together, they become stronger than the sum of their parts.
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
As for charging everything in the book and then going to trial, it doesnt really work like that. They need to have some grounds to charge him with a crime and the closest they came to a hate crime was the ambiguous 911 call and even that probably wouldnt be enough to convict him (although it would probably be enough to charge him, but again IANAL so...).
A prosecutor charging beyond what they believe they can prove in court, in order to force a plea or convince a jury to convict on a lesser included charge, is unethical. The prosecutor is supposed to file each charge in good faith, based on what they believe they can prove in court.
But no one in America cares that overcharging happens all the time, because we're "tough on crime". And when it happens, it's usually against defendants who look like Trayvon Martin.
the closest they came to a hate crime was the ambiguous 911 call
It wasn't ambiguous. The word was quite obviously "punks."
That totally explains why a bunch of people heard otherwise and we spent like 10 pages going back and forth on what was actually said. Not that it matters since at trial its being stipulated that he said punks.
So Alan Dershowitz talked about the case a little today, and he thinks the prosecution is likely to be found guilty of withholding known evidence that might support Zimmerman's defense (the photograph posted recently), and thinks that not only is the murder rap likely to be shot down, but warns that prosecution is likely to get the whole case thrown out of court if found guilty of submitting knowingly perjured affidavits.
Is he saying that the police had the photograph and gave it to the prosecution and then the prosecution didnt alert the defense, or is he saying that the police botched the investigation and should have acquired/handed over information that they didnt?
From my understanding, he's saying that the prosecution knew of the photograph and didn't take it into consideration when submitting the affidavit to press charges, thus with-held evidence.
A damn shame if that's the case. I'd like everything laid on the table so the closest thing to the truth can possibly be determined, not have it thrown out just the prosecution was a group of corrupt, sleezy scum that made other lawyers look like saints. If Zimmerman goes free, it should be because he was proven not guilty (or at least because there simply isn't enough evidence to suggest otherwise), but because lawyers are pieces of shit.
Actually, he's only saying that IF the prosecution knew of the photo and didn't take it into consideration when submitting the affidavit to press charges, they with-held evidence. That "if" is getting downplayed pretty heavily. (Sensationalism regarding this case? Who'd have thunk it?) As far as I can tell, ABC is claiming the prosecution did based on an unnamed "source," without an actual statement regarding it from the prosecution themselves. I can't imagine it'd be easy to prove that the prosecution knew of a photo that hadn't been mentioned anywhere until it was sold to the media a month later.
I'd bet that public opinion chart posted a while ago lines up more with some of the evidence flip-flopping (video shows Zimmerman's uninjured!/same video now shows Zimmerman injured! and the NBC audio debacle) in the media than anything else.
0
Options
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
So Alan Dershowitz talked about the case a little today, and he thinks the prosecution is likely to be found guilty of withholding known evidence that might support Zimmerman's defense (the photograph posted recently), and thinks that not only is the murder rap likely to be shot down, but warns that prosecution is likely to get the whole case thrown out of court if found guilty of submitting knowingly perjured affidavits.
I haven't been following this thread closely. What makes him think the defense didn't know of these photos?
It's the prosecution that's being questions whether or not they knew about the photos, not the defense. I'd hope the defense would know because Zimmerman should be able to say "Oh, yeah, there was a guy at the scene three minutes afterwards who took some photos with his iPhone."
As for charging everything in the book and then going to trial, it doesnt really work like that. They need to have some grounds to charge him with a crime and the closest they came to a hate crime was the ambiguous 911 call and even that probably wouldnt be enough to convict him (although it would probably be enough to charge him, but again IANAL so...).
A prosecutor charging beyond what they believe they can prove in court, in order to force a plea or convince a jury to convict on a lesser included charge, is unethical. The prosecutor is supposed to file each charge in good faith, based on what they believe they can prove in court.
But no one in America cares that overcharging happens all the time, because we're "tough on crime". And when it happens, it's usually against defendants who look like Trayvon Martin.
The charging stage occurs way before trial and its easier to reduce the number of charges than it is to add to them so it makes sense that prosecutors will charge more than they can ultimately prove at trial because at the time they are charging the defendant they dont have all the available evidence.
the closest they came to a hate crime was the ambiguous 911 call
It wasn't ambiguous. The word was quite obviously "punks."
That totally explains why a bunch of people heard otherwise and we spent like 10 pages going back and forth on what was actually said. Not that it matters since at trial its being stipulated that he said punks.
So Alan Dershowitz talked about the case a little today, and he thinks the prosecution is likely to be found guilty of withholding known evidence that might support Zimmerman's defense (the photograph posted recently), and thinks that not only is the murder rap likely to be shot down, but warns that prosecution is likely to get the whole case thrown out of court if found guilty of submitting knowingly perjured affidavits.
Is he saying that the police had the photograph and gave it to the prosecution and then the prosecution didnt alert the defense, or is he saying that the police botched the investigation and should have acquired/handed over information that they didnt?
From my understanding, he's saying that the prosecution knew of the photograph and didn't take it into consideration when submitting the affidavit to press charges, thus with-held evidence.
A damn shame if that's the case. I'd like everything laid on the table so the closest thing to the truth can possibly be determined, not have it thrown out just the prosecution was a group of corrupt, sleezy scum that made other lawyers look like saints. If Zimmerman goes free, it should be because he was proven not guilty (or at least because there simply isn't enough evidence to suggest otherwise), but because lawyers are pieces of shit.
Actually, he's only saying that IF the prosecution knew of the photo and didn't take it into consideration when submitting the affidavit to press charges, they with-held evidence. That "if" is getting downplayed pretty heavily. (Sensationalism regarding this case? Who'd have thunk it?) As far as I can tell, ABC is claiming the prosecution did based on an unnamed "source," without an actual statement regarding it from the prosecution themselves. I can't imagine it'd be easy to prove that the prosecution knew of a photo that hadn't been mentioned anywhere until it was sold to the media a month later.
I'd bet that public opinion chart posted a while ago lines up more with some of the evidence flip-flopping (video shows Zimmerman's uninjured!/same video now shows Zimmerman injured! and the NBC audio debacle) in the media than anything else.
Okay that makes sense. I didnt see an if in Atomic Ross's post and I havent seen the article. That said if its true, the prosecution probably has more to worry about than just losing the case since Im pretty sure something like that can have you (at a minimum) reprimanded by the state bar and can probably lead to disbarment.
As for charging everything in the book and then going to trial, it doesnt really work like that. They need to have some grounds to charge him with a crime and the closest they came to a hate crime was the ambiguous 911 call and even that probably wouldnt be enough to convict him (although it would probably be enough to charge him, but again IANAL so...).
A prosecutor charging beyond what they believe they can prove in court, in order to force a plea or convince a jury to convict on a lesser included charge, is unethical. The prosecutor is supposed to file each charge in good faith, based on what they believe they can prove in court.
But no one in America cares that overcharging happens all the time, because we're "tough on crime". And when it happens, it's usually against defendants who look like Trayvon Martin.
The charging stage occurs way before trial and its easier to reduce the number of charges than it is to add to them so it makes sense that prosecutors will charge more than they can ultimately prove at trial because at the time they are charging the defendant they dont have all the available evidence.
Granted. But it still doesn't change that charges are supposed to be leveled in good faith, and not just for leverage. It doesn't mean that's what happened in the Zimmerman case - perhaps Corey believes she has the material she needs to get Murder-2. I'm just saying that "bad faith overcharging for leverage" happens all the time throughout the country.
After all, no DA ever got re-elected on their "ethics rate".
Bill Lee, the Sanford Police Chief, is going to resign. He'd previously been on temporary leave since March 22.
Sanford, Florida Police Chief Bill Lee, who temporarily stepped down from his position in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, will officially resign on Monday afternoon, a source within the Sanford Police Department told CBS News.
The Sanford City Commissioners' Office said in a news release Monday that they would vote at a meeting later in the day to approve Lee's resignation.
As for charging everything in the book and then going to trial, it doesnt really work like that. They need to have some grounds to charge him with a crime and the closest they came to a hate crime was the ambiguous 911 call and even that probably wouldnt be enough to convict him (although it would probably be enough to charge him, but again IANAL so...).
A prosecutor charging beyond what they believe they can prove in court, in order to force a plea or convince a jury to convict on a lesser included charge, is unethical. The prosecutor is supposed to file each charge in good faith, based on what they believe they can prove in court.
But no one in America cares that overcharging happens all the time, because we're "tough on crime". And when it happens, it's usually against defendants who look like Trayvon Martin.
The charging stage occurs way before trial and its easier to reduce the number of charges than it is to add to them so it makes sense that prosecutors will charge more than they can ultimately prove at trial because at the time they are charging the defendant they dont have all the available evidence.
Granted. But it still doesn't change that charges are supposed to be leveled in good faith, and not just for leverage. It doesn't mean that's what happened in the Zimmerman case - perhaps Corey believes she has the material she needs to get Murder-2. I'm just saying that "bad faith overcharging for leverage" happens all the time throughout the country.
After all, no DA ever got re-elected on their "ethics rate".
And I dont deny that overcharging does occur, Im just unsure of the reasons behind it (I assume its either an attempt to get the defendant to plead out or the prosecution is just overreaching) and its prevalence (well, Im sure it happens and probably with some frequency, Im just unsure how often overcharging to get a defendant to plea occurs which I find more offensive than a prosecutor overreaching when they file charges assuming the charges were filed in good faith).
The charging stage occurs way before trial and its easier to reduce the number of charges than it is to add to them so it makes sense that prosecutors will charge more than they can ultimately prove at trial because at the time they are charging the defendant they dont have all the available evidence.
This is bullshit, though. You shouldn't be charging based on evidence you think you may totally turn up later, really, promise. You should be charging based on what you actually have. If evidence of a greater charge comes up later, then you do what you can to retry for the higher charge at that time. Or, alternately, you could just wait to charge if you think such evidence is imminent.
And like BubbaT said, usually this happens against people that look more like Martin than Zimmerman. If we're not cool with it. then, we shouldn't be now either. I'd bet that many would instead step up to argue that Zimmerman is totally guilty though. Well, I heard that same argument against the kids down in Jena, home of the (iirc) "shoes are deadly weapons" school of prosecutorial discretion.
Sorry, I can't get behind this just because it suits my biases.
Also, I find it sad that it's "depressing" that we're taking seriously the rights of the accused.
It's the reason scared people end up pleading on things like "possession of child pornography" because they collect anime (that's a thing that happened). The prosecution always throws everything at you and paints you a picture of federal pound me in the ass prison if you don't plead to something lesser, it's disgusting.
The charging stage occurs way before trial and its easier to reduce the number of charges than it is to add to them so it makes sense that prosecutors will charge more than they can ultimately prove at trial because at the time they are charging the defendant they dont have all the available evidence.
This is bullshit, though. You shouldn't be charging based on evidence you think you may totally turn up later, really, promise. You should be charging based on what you actually have. If evidence of a greater charge comes up later, then you do what you can to retry for the higher charge at that time. Or, alternately, you could just wait to charge if you think such evidence is imminent.
And like BubbaT said, usually this happens against people that look more like Martin than Zimmerman. If we're not cool with it. then, we shouldn't be now either. I'd bet that many would instead step up to argue that Zimmerman is totally guilty though. Well, I heard that same argument against the kids down in Jena, home of the (iirc) "shoes are deadly weapons" school of prosecutorial discretion.
Sorry, I can't get behind this just because it suits my biases.
Also, I find it sad that it's "depressing" that we're taking seriously the rights of the accused.
You dont (well, you shouldnt) charge what you think you might be able to get away with when the trial starts, you charge what the evidence shows you at the time youre submitting your charges. Basically, instead of using the time to find more evidence of guilt (although you should do this too), youre using that time to investigate alibis and mitigating evidence.
It's the reason scared people end up pleading on things like "possession of child pornography" because they collect anime (that's a thing that happened). The prosecution always throws everything at you and paints you a picture of federal pound me in the ass prison if you don't plead to something lesser, it's disgusting.
Yet another reminder that you shouldnt do a god damn thing without consulting a lawyer. Do you have a link to that case, it sounds interesting.
And are we talking about prosecutors actually bringing charges or prosecutors threatening to bring charges?
So Alan Dershowitz talked about the case a little today, and he thinks the prosecution is likely to be found guilty of withholding known evidence that might support Zimmerman's defense (the photograph posted recently), and thinks that not only is the murder rap likely to be shot down, but warns that prosecution is likely to get the whole case thrown out of court if found guilty of submitting knowingly perjured affidavits.
As Gaardean said, that's not quite what Dershowitz said.
And I would take "Alan Dershowitz" said with a mountain-sized grain of salt. Dershowitz is out to promote Dershowitz. He's not out to offer thoughtful, reasoned commentary on how the prosecution's actions fit with Florida criminal procedure.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
You dont (well, you shouldnt) charge what you think you might be able to get away with when the trial starts, you charge what the evidence shows you at the time youre submitting your charges. Basically, instead of using the time to find more evidence of guilt (although you should do this too), youre using that time to investigate alibis and mitigating evidence.
Right, but a lot of it will depend on how the trial goes. Ideally you charge something that you don't expect to be able to succeed with, but in good faith believe that the evidence does support, and that if everything goes perfectly your way in the trial, you would secure a conviction on. That is no less ethical than it would be to low-ball and only go for a charge that you are certain you have a good chance of winning.
You dont (well, you shouldnt) charge what you think you might be able to get away with when the trial starts, you charge what the evidence shows you at the time youre submitting your charges. Basically, instead of using the time to find more evidence of guilt (although you should do this too), youre using that time to investigate alibis and mitigating evidence.
Right, but a lot of it will depend on how the trial goes. Ideally you charge something that you don't expect to be able to succeed with, but in good faith believe that the evidence does support, and that if everything goes perfectly your way in the trial, you would secure a conviction on. That is no less ethical than it would be to low-ball and only go for a charge that you are certain you have a good chance of winning.
It is not saintly either. We shall see how the trial goes but from what information is at hand the Prosc used the charges to hold Zimmerman without bail for longer than what he might be eventially convicted for. At least according to the information at hand.
20 people, all African American, attacked her brother on the front porch of his home, using "brass buckles, paint cans and anything they could get their hands on." ... As the attackers walked away, leaving Owen bleeding on the ground, Parker says one of them said "Now that's justice for Trayvon."
20 people, all African American, attacked her brother on the front porch of his home, using "brass buckles, paint cans and anything they could get their hands on." ... As the attackers walked away, leaving Owen bleeding on the ground, Parker says one of them said "Now that's justice for Trayvon."
I wonder if we've really learned anything from Rodney King and Reginald Denny.
A 78-year-old white man says he was savagely beaten by a gang of six youths shouting: 'This is for Trayvon. Kill that white.'
Six youngsters aged between 11 and 17, both white and black, allegedly launched a merciless attack on Dallas Watts in East Toledo, Ohio.
...
According to a police report, cited by the Blade, as the boys beat Mr Watts they shouted: '[Get] that white [man]. This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man].'
The name of Trayvon Martin was invoked again Wednesday night in Gainesville during an attack by a group that police say stomped on a white man who was scuffling with a black robbery suspect on the Bo Diddley Community Plaza.
...
The scene attracted a crowd, and a number of people on the plaza approached Babb and the Good Samaritan, who tried to explain that Babb had just stolen his friend's purse.
GPD spokeswoman Cpl. Angelina Valuri said some members of the crowd shouted "Trayvon!" and that at least three of members of the crowd began stomping on the hands of the woman's friend to force him to let go of Babb.
Alton L. Hayes III, a west suburban man charged with a hate crime, told police he was so upset about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida that he beat up a white man early Tuesday.
Hayes and a 15-year-old Chicago boy walked up behind the 19-year-old man victim and pinned his arms to his side, police said. Hayes, 18, then picked up a large tree branch, pointed it at the man and said, “Empty your pockets, white boy.”
The two allegedly rifled through the victim’s pockets, then threw him to the ground and punched him “numerous times” in the head and back before running away, police said.
...
After being arrested, Hayes told police he was upset by the Trayvon Martin case and beat the man up because he was white, Cook County State’s Attorney’s office spokeswoman Tandra Simonton said, citing court records.
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
Exactly.
Hey USA! Double standard called it stated "No public outcry for you!"
What the fuck is this shit? Is there an emperor of blackness that has to apologize for all black-kind? Jesus fuck.
Really though, this collective guilt BS is ridiculous. Sunday is the 20th anniversary of the LA "Rodney King" Riots, where Reginald Denny was beaten for being white following the acquittal of the cops who beat King. And we've apparently learned nothing in the last two decades.
What the fuck is this shit? Is there an emperor of blackness that has to apologize for all black-kind? Jesus fuck.
When it stems from a call or outcry from what are considered "leaders" of that set of minority there are some that feel they should also take a hand in condemning this sort of action and not just figureheading the actions against that set of minority only. This coming from a minority.
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
The problem is that we don't want to keep a cool head until after someone else has gotten hurt.
At some point in time there needs to be public outcry. We don't need a monopoly of authority that routinely uses violence and gets away with it's abuses because they ask for everyone to be calm and cool after one of the plebs gets killed.
There shouldn't be violence at all. There shouldn't be a line drawn in the sand when acceptable violence might turn against "polite society".
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
The difference is that in these cases, the police investigated the act as a criminal act and have made or attempting to make arrests in the cases.
The Martin case did not become a national media circus because a white guy shot a black guy. It became a national media circus because the body wasn't identified for three days, because there was no investigation.
You dont (well, you shouldnt) charge what you think you might be able to get away with when the trial starts, you charge what the evidence shows you at the time youre submitting your charges. Basically, instead of using the time to find more evidence of guilt (although you should do this too), youre using that time to investigate alibis and mitigating evidence.
Right, but a lot of it will depend on how the trial goes. Ideally you charge something that you don't expect to be able to succeed with, but in good faith believe that the evidence does support, and that if everything goes perfectly your way in the trial, you would secure a conviction on. That is no less ethical than it would be to low-ball and only go for a charge that you are certain you have a good chance of winning.
If there is no ethical distinction then whats the problem?
I've never heard of a case being thrown out because the prosecution didn't want to use a piece of evidence that the defense wants them to use.
I think the issue is that the prosecution had exculpatory evidence that it didnt hand over to the defense (or at least didnt notify the defense of its existence). But really the issue is that this is apparently just a hypothetical and thus actually means jack shit to the current situation.
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
The difference is that in these cases, the police investigated the act as a criminal act and have made or attempting to make arrests in the cases.
The Martin case did not become a national media circus because a white guy shot a black guy. It became a national media circus because the body wasn't identified for three days, because there was no investigation.
The problem isn't about police response. It's that it's happening at all. It's a bunch of "eye for an eye" bullcrap that's usually reserved for 3rd world countries and feuds between hillbilly clans or street gangs.
How does a bloody nose and head change things? Zimmerman was clearly told not to pursue Martin and he did anyway.
Say Martin did attack Zimmerman. Ambushed him like a fucking ninja, even. If you were walking home, saw some guy scoping you out while on the phone, who then proceeded to follow you with a firearm, are you telling me there is no possibility you'd be proactive in that situation? Keep in mind this kid was 17, as well. 17 year olds don't always make good decisions.
Was the proper measured response to this to shoot and kill Martin, even if Martin attacked Zimmerman? Zimmerman, who, against police advice, followed Martin.
How does a bloody nose and head change things? Zimmerman was clearly told not to pursue Martin and he did anyway.
Say Martin did attack Zimmerman. Ambushed him like a fucking ninja, even. If you were walking home, saw some guy scoping you out while on the phone, who then proceeded to follow you with a firearm, are you telling me there is no possibility you'd be proactive in that situation? Keep in mind this kid was 17, as well. 17 year olds don't always make good decisions.
Was the proper measured response to this to shoot and kill Martin, even if Martin attacked Zimmerman? Zimmerman, who, against police advice, followed Martin.
911 operators arent police officers so their suggestions regarding what you do dont mean much.
Theres no evidence that Trayvon knew Zimmerman had a gun (and really, why would you jump a dude with a gun?).
As for the last part, the courts will determine whether Zimmerman's use of deadly force was justified.
How does a bloody nose and head change things? Zimmerman was clearly told not to pursue Martin and he did anyway.
Say Martin did attack Zimmerman. Ambushed him like a fucking ninja, even. If you were walking home, saw some guy scoping you out while on the phone, who then proceeded to follow you with a firearm, are you telling me there is no possibility you'd be proactive in that situation? Keep in mind this kid was 17, as well. 17 year olds don't always make good decisions.
Was the proper measured response to this to shoot and kill Martin, even if Martin attacked Zimmerman? Zimmerman, who, against police advice, followed Martin.
It has to do with whether Zimmerman reasonably* thought he was in imminent danger of death and/or grievous bodily harm. Zimmerman's story is that the back of his head was being slammed against a concrete sidewalk. Thus, the presence of injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head would tend to corroborate his account, while the absence of such injuries would tend to contradict it. It goes to Zimmerman's credibility as a witness.
(*as in, "Would a reasonable person, when placed in the same situation, believe they were in imminent danger of death/GBH?")
Zimmerman's initial pursuit of Martin is mostly irrelevant to the above question. It's not illegal to follow someone, nor is someone following you usually a justifiable reason for assaulting them (IF that's what actually happened).
How does a bloody nose and head change things? Zimmerman was clearly told not to pursue Martin and he did anyway.
Say Martin did attack Zimmerman. Ambushed him like a fucking ninja, even. If you were walking home, saw some guy scoping you out while on the phone, who then proceeded to follow you with a firearm, are you telling me there is no possibility you'd be proactive in that situation? Keep in mind this kid was 17, as well. 17 year olds don't always make good decisions.
Was the proper measured response to this to shoot and kill Martin, even if Martin attacked Zimmerman? Zimmerman, who, against police advice, followed Martin.
It has to do with whether Zimmerman reasonably* thought he was in imminent danger of death and/or grievous bodily harm. Zimmerman's story is that the back of his head was being slammed against a concrete sidewalk. Thus, the presence of injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head would tend to corroborate his account, while the absence of such injuries would tend to contradict it. It goes to Zimmerman's credibility as a witness.
(*as in, "Would a reasonable person, when placed in the same situation, believe they were in imminent danger of death/GBH?")
Zimmerman's initial pursuit of Martin is mostly irrelevant to the above question. It's not illegal to follow someone, nor is someone following you usually a justifiable reason for assaulting them (IF that's what actually happened).
It's not illegal to follow someone, but it is absolutely a huge part of why any of this happened in the first place. You can't discount it because it isn't strictly illegal. If Zimmerman stayed put, he wouldn't have a bloody head/nose and Martin would be alive.
Actually, you can discount it. Because it has no bearing on the legality of any use of force by Zimmerman and/or Martin. That's the point.
"why it happened in the first place" doesn't necessarily have any meaning in this case. Not legally. If your actions aren't illegal or obviously reckless, you don't become a criminal because it "causes" a tragic outcome.
Shit, these attacks all happened in April. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should hold a televised rally and ask Americans to keep cool heads while the Martin/Zimmerman case is underway. Al Sharpton? Hello? Jesse Jackson? Where did they go?
The difference is that in these cases, the police investigated the act as a criminal act and have made or attempting to make arrests in the cases.
The Martin case did not become a national media circus because a white guy shot a black guy. It became a national media circus because the body wasn't identified for three days, because there was no investigation.
The problem isn't about police response. It's that it's happening at all. It's a bunch of "eye for an eye" bullcrap that's usually reserved for 3rd world countries and feuds between hillbilly clans or street gangs.
I am really not sure what you're getting at. Of course its bad that violence is happening but what does that have to do with anything other than "violence is bad"?
It has to do with whether Zimmerman reasonably* thought he was in imminent danger of death and/or grievous bodily harm.
Here's my issue. If he had, he wouldn't of gotten out of the car.
Also it is illegal to follow someone(It's stalking), the police threatened the media if they tried to follow police/witnesses who were involved with the case in off hours with arrest. for stalking. Why the first question wasn't "so if we shoot and kill them and say they attacked us it wont be stalking then?" I dont know.
edit: The last case with the two kids blaming their violence on trayvon sounds a bit convenient. like "television told me to do it" levels of excuse. In other words, they would of done it anyways, and gave the most convenient excuse of the moment.
Posts
what a damn shame.
It wasn't ambiguous. The word was quite obviously "punks."
Why did I check this thread? I knew it would just be depressing news.
That totally explains why a bunch of people heard otherwise and we spent like 10 pages going back and forth on what was actually said. Not that it matters since at trial its being stipulated that he said punks.
Is he saying that the police had the photograph and gave it to the prosecution and then the prosecution didnt alert the defense, or is he saying that the police botched the investigation and should have acquired/handed over information that they didnt?
From my understanding, he's saying that the prosecution knew of the photograph and didn't take it into consideration when submitting the affidavit to press charges, thus with-held evidence.
A damn shame if that's the case. I'd like everything laid on the table so the closest thing to the truth can possibly be determined, not have it thrown out just the prosecution was a group of corrupt, sleezy scum that made other lawyers look like saints. If Zimmerman goes free, it should be because he was proven not guilty (or at least because there simply isn't enough evidence to suggest otherwise), but because lawyers are pieces of shit.
I haven't been following this thread closely. What makes him think the defense didn't know of these photos?
Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.
A prosecutor charging beyond what they believe they can prove in court, in order to force a plea or convince a jury to convict on a lesser included charge, is unethical. The prosecutor is supposed to file each charge in good faith, based on what they believe they can prove in court.
But no one in America cares that overcharging happens all the time, because we're "tough on crime". And when it happens, it's usually against defendants who look like Trayvon Martin.
Actually, he's only saying that IF the prosecution knew of the photo and didn't take it into consideration when submitting the affidavit to press charges, they with-held evidence. That "if" is getting downplayed pretty heavily. (Sensationalism regarding this case? Who'd have thunk it?) As far as I can tell, ABC is claiming the prosecution did based on an unnamed "source," without an actual statement regarding it from the prosecution themselves. I can't imagine it'd be easy to prove that the prosecution knew of a photo that hadn't been mentioned anywhere until it was sold to the media a month later.
I'd bet that public opinion chart posted a while ago lines up more with some of the evidence flip-flopping (video shows Zimmerman's uninjured!/same video now shows Zimmerman injured! and the NBC audio debacle) in the media than anything else.
It's the prosecution that's being questions whether or not they knew about the photos, not the defense. I'd hope the defense would know because Zimmerman should be able to say "Oh, yeah, there was a guy at the scene three minutes afterwards who took some photos with his iPhone."
And Gaardean, I did say IF that's the case
The charging stage occurs way before trial and its easier to reduce the number of charges than it is to add to them so it makes sense that prosecutors will charge more than they can ultimately prove at trial because at the time they are charging the defendant they dont have all the available evidence.
Okay that makes sense. I didnt see an if in Atomic Ross's post and I havent seen the article. That said if its true, the prosecution probably has more to worry about than just losing the case since Im pretty sure something like that can have you (at a minimum) reprimanded by the state bar and can probably lead to disbarment.
Granted. But it still doesn't change that charges are supposed to be leveled in good faith, and not just for leverage. It doesn't mean that's what happened in the Zimmerman case - perhaps Corey believes she has the material she needs to get Murder-2. I'm just saying that "bad faith overcharging for leverage" happens all the time throughout the country.
After all, no DA ever got re-elected on their "ethics rate".
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57419175-504083/bill-lee-sanford-fla-police-chief-during-the-trayvon-martin-shooting-set-to-resign-monday-source-says/
And I dont deny that overcharging does occur, Im just unsure of the reasons behind it (I assume its either an attempt to get the defendant to plead out or the prosecution is just overreaching) and its prevalence (well, Im sure it happens and probably with some frequency, Im just unsure how often overcharging to get a defendant to plea occurs which I find more offensive than a prosecutor overreaching when they file charges assuming the charges were filed in good faith).
This is bullshit, though. You shouldn't be charging based on evidence you think you may totally turn up later, really, promise. You should be charging based on what you actually have. If evidence of a greater charge comes up later, then you do what you can to retry for the higher charge at that time. Or, alternately, you could just wait to charge if you think such evidence is imminent.
And like BubbaT said, usually this happens against people that look more like Martin than Zimmerman. If we're not cool with it. then, we shouldn't be now either. I'd bet that many would instead step up to argue that Zimmerman is totally guilty though. Well, I heard that same argument against the kids down in Jena, home of the (iirc) "shoes are deadly weapons" school of prosecutorial discretion.
Sorry, I can't get behind this just because it suits my biases.
Also, I find it sad that it's "depressing" that we're taking seriously the rights of the accused.
It's the reason scared people end up pleading on things like "possession of child pornography" because they collect anime (that's a thing that happened). The prosecution always throws everything at you and paints you a picture of federal pound me in the ass prison if you don't plead to something lesser, it's disgusting.
You dont (well, you shouldnt) charge what you think you might be able to get away with when the trial starts, you charge what the evidence shows you at the time youre submitting your charges. Basically, instead of using the time to find more evidence of guilt (although you should do this too), youre using that time to investigate alibis and mitigating evidence.
Yet another reminder that you shouldnt do a god damn thing without consulting a lawyer. Do you have a link to that case, it sounds interesting.
And are we talking about prosecutors actually bringing charges or prosecutors threatening to bring charges?
As Gaardean said, that's not quite what Dershowitz said.
And I would take "Alan Dershowitz" said with a mountain-sized grain of salt. Dershowitz is out to promote Dershowitz. He's not out to offer thoughtful, reasoned commentary on how the prosecution's actions fit with Florida criminal procedure.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Right, but a lot of it will depend on how the trial goes. Ideally you charge something that you don't expect to be able to succeed with, but in good faith believe that the evidence does support, and that if everything goes perfectly your way in the trial, you would secure a conviction on. That is no less ethical than it would be to low-ball and only go for a charge that you are certain you have a good chance of winning.
It is not saintly either. We shall see how the trial goes but from what information is at hand the Prosc used the charges to hold Zimmerman without bail for longer than what he might be eventially convicted for. At least according to the information at hand.
I wonder if we've really learned anything from Rodney King and Reginald Denny.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126003/Trayvon-Martin-case-6-youths-beat-man-78-twisted-racial-revenge-attack.html
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120412/ARTICLES/120419865/1002/news?Title=-8216-Trayvon-shouted-as-group-attacks-Good-Samaritan
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime/alton-hayes-trayvon-martin-white-man-attacked-black-racist-racism-maywood-chicago-suburb-20120420
Exactly.
Hey USA! Double standard called it stated "No public outcry for you!"
3DS FC: 2148-8300-8608 WiiU: AgahnimD
Really though, this collective guilt BS is ridiculous. Sunday is the 20th anniversary of the LA "Rodney King" Riots, where Reginald Denny was beaten for being white following the acquittal of the cops who beat King. And we've apparently learned nothing in the last two decades.
When it stems from a call or outcry from what are considered "leaders" of that set of minority there are some that feel they should also take a hand in condemning this sort of action and not just figureheading the actions against that set of minority only. This coming from a minority.
The problem is that we don't want to keep a cool head until after someone else has gotten hurt.
At some point in time there needs to be public outcry. We don't need a monopoly of authority that routinely uses violence and gets away with it's abuses because they ask for everyone to be calm and cool after one of the plebs gets killed.
There shouldn't be violence at all. There shouldn't be a line drawn in the sand when acceptable violence might turn against "polite society".
The difference is that in these cases, the police investigated the act as a criminal act and have made or attempting to make arrests in the cases.
The Martin case did not become a national media circus because a white guy shot a black guy. It became a national media circus because the body wasn't identified for three days, because there was no investigation.
If there is no ethical distinction then whats the problem?
I think the issue is that the prosecution had exculpatory evidence that it didnt hand over to the defense (or at least didnt notify the defense of its existence). But really the issue is that this is apparently just a hypothetical and thus actually means jack shit to the current situation.
The problem isn't about police response. It's that it's happening at all. It's a bunch of "eye for an eye" bullcrap that's usually reserved for 3rd world countries and feuds between hillbilly clans or street gangs.
How does a bloody nose and head change things? Zimmerman was clearly told not to pursue Martin and he did anyway.
Say Martin did attack Zimmerman. Ambushed him like a fucking ninja, even. If you were walking home, saw some guy scoping you out while on the phone, who then proceeded to follow you with a firearm, are you telling me there is no possibility you'd be proactive in that situation? Keep in mind this kid was 17, as well. 17 year olds don't always make good decisions.
Was the proper measured response to this to shoot and kill Martin, even if Martin attacked Zimmerman? Zimmerman, who, against police advice, followed Martin.
911 operators arent police officers so their suggestions regarding what you do dont mean much.
Theres no evidence that Trayvon knew Zimmerman had a gun (and really, why would you jump a dude with a gun?).
As for the last part, the courts will determine whether Zimmerman's use of deadly force was justified.
It has to do with whether Zimmerman reasonably* thought he was in imminent danger of death and/or grievous bodily harm. Zimmerman's story is that the back of his head was being slammed against a concrete sidewalk. Thus, the presence of injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head would tend to corroborate his account, while the absence of such injuries would tend to contradict it. It goes to Zimmerman's credibility as a witness.
(*as in, "Would a reasonable person, when placed in the same situation, believe they were in imminent danger of death/GBH?")
Zimmerman's initial pursuit of Martin is mostly irrelevant to the above question. It's not illegal to follow someone, nor is someone following you usually a justifiable reason for assaulting them (IF that's what actually happened).
It's not illegal to follow someone, but it is absolutely a huge part of why any of this happened in the first place. You can't discount it because it isn't strictly illegal. If Zimmerman stayed put, he wouldn't have a bloody head/nose and Martin would be alive.
"why it happened in the first place" doesn't necessarily have any meaning in this case. Not legally. If your actions aren't illegal or obviously reckless, you don't become a criminal because it "causes" a tragic outcome.
I am really not sure what you're getting at. Of course its bad that violence is happening but what does that have to do with anything other than "violence is bad"?
Here's my issue. If he had, he wouldn't of gotten out of the car.
Also it is illegal to follow someone(It's stalking), the police threatened the media if they tried to follow police/witnesses who were involved with the case in off hours with arrest. for stalking. Why the first question wasn't "so if we shoot and kill them and say they attacked us it wont be stalking then?" I dont know.
edit: The last case with the two kids blaming their violence on trayvon sounds a bit convenient. like "television told me to do it" levels of excuse. In other words, they would of done it anyways, and gave the most convenient excuse of the moment.