Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
Spalove

Zimmerman Charged with Murder in the 2nd Degree. Justice!

Recommended Posts

I believe you quoted what I said. Mein freund: my friend. Mein herr: my sir. Equate either to Nazi if you wish, I never called you one anymore than you called myself one with the "Mein herr" reference.

Mirrors are plentiful, hopefully you're looking in one

the Joseph Goebbel's school of propaganda who are manipulating media outlet's in their favor to push their own doctrine as if they're not as biased as the media they decry. ]

You brought it up.Name names,please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say for everyone to just stick with the legal case as it follows & not the circus or potential circus that may or may not go along with it as that's what shit stirrer's do.

I said it many times on the deleted thread & I've said it here once already but here it goes again: stick to the case & only the case as anything else is deflection.

Remember when you said these things? Much more powerful than calling people Nazi's.

Now you are having a fight you never intended to have and were cautioning others against. This is a charged issue and you are not likely to convince those you are arguing with that you are right (no more than they will convince you of the opposite). But if you stick to the issues, a lurker or somebody who has not made up their mind, may be persuaded. When you call people Nazi's people just write you off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering I never called any one a Nazi here & I'd like to see where I called anyone a Nazi here please. I compared people here who to having the same tactics as master propagandist Joesph Goebbels who just happend to be a Nazi. There is a difference. Propaganda is propaganda whatever the ideallogy. The person who followed & quoted me earlier & did so on the earlier deleted thread would like me to call people out by name so I am held directly responsible for some flame war in hopes of somehow getting me in hot water, unfortunately I'm not taking the bait. I stand by what I've actually said on this thread & those who recognize themselves on it, oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
those who are doing it to justify their own self serving agenda(s) or justifying their own racism.

you wait on your medal for being consistently inflammatory in regards to the case without any basis for your self serving hate speech. One down Nimrodron, one to go...

are the same as everything they are complaining about ie a biased media & the Sharptons & Jacksons (who have uncharacteristically not fanned the flames in this specific case).

hat's what you see here with those here on this thread who are graduates of the Joseph Goebbel's school of propaganda who are manipulating media outlet's in their favor to push their own doctrine as if they're not as biased as the media they decry.

Mirrors are plentiful, hopefully you're looking in one mein freund...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point earlier: those who decry the media & selectively use the media to further their own agendas despite the full context of what was actually said. This troll lurking reminds me of a guy who profiled another person, pursued that person, got a reaction that he may or not have expected yet cried self-defense despite having being the unsolicited pursuer from the start. See how things come full circle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see where I called anyone a Nazi here please.

I hate to dissect what you said because it does not advance things at all. However, since you have asked, you did it when you said: its like "Neo-Nazi's attaching themselves to Martin & Zimmerman's names only to justify their own actions & agenda's by proxy in a situation they're not directly involved with. That's what you see here with those here on this thread who are graduates of the Joseph Goebbel's school of propaganda..."

One with a mind willing to understand, reading the words: "Neo Nazi's", "That's what you see here" and "with those on this thread" and the reference to a famous Nazi would inevitably come to that conclusion. If you didn't mean it that way, you really should be more clear. Maybe leave the Nazi's out of it. There are lots of ways to make the point without the rhetoric. That was the comment I made above that you 100% agreed with.

Truth is, I am inclined to agree with a lot of your points made on this thread (and the previous thread) but the packaging is falling apart. Stay passionate, but maybe leave the name calling out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This troll lurking reminds me of a guy who profiled another person, pursued that person, got a reaction that he may or not have expected yet cried self-defense despite having being the unsolicited pursuer from the start.

Not sure who this is directed at, but I certainly am not looking for a reaction. My steady drumbeat since I got involved in this thread is let's drop the rhetoric on both sides and actually have a productive discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Neo-Nazis reference was about actual Neo-Nazis who publicly said they would patrol where Martin was killed to ensure no white people would be harmed. The troll lurking comment was not directed at you Dandu, just the troll who followed me around on the last thread & is doing so again.

Edited by kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Let's get back on track.

Do people think this was an appropriate case in which to grant bail?

I do. Before he was charged with any crime, GZ had the right to go anywhere in the world, including countries without extradition treaties. He didn't. He turned himself in the moment he was asked. In those circumstances it is difficult to say that he was a flight risk. If he didn't run when he was entitled to, surely it is unlikely that he will now. Also, being one of the more recognizable names/faces in the country right now, it is doubful he would get too far.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Martins & Zimmermans have acted appropriately thus far since the charges have been brought, it's the talking heads who bring the circus atmosphere to the proceedings.

Edited by kaiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Let's get back on track.

Do people think this was an appropriate case in which to grant bail?

I do. Before he was charged with any crime, GZ had the right to go anywhere in the world, including countries without extradition treaties. He didn't. He turned himself in the moment he was asked. In those circumstances it is difficult to say that he was a flight risk. If he didn't run when he was entitled to, surely it is unlikely that he will now. Also, being one of the more recognizable names/faces in the country right now, it is doubful he would get too far.

Thoughts?

At 1st, no given his prior history but then i saw a report regarding a defense lawyer who practices in Fl. stated that he had a client that was out on 75,000 bail for 1st degree murder. I even thought the bail was too low when i watched the Zimmerman bond hearing. Either way i feel the court's guideline's for his bail release were appropiate.

What are everyone's thoughts on the bond hearing itself? Prosecution definately was unprepared and the lead investigator under oath stated that they dont have any evidence of who started the physical altercation. How will this affect the prosecutions case?

Whats the deal with moving up the arraignment from may 29th to may 8th? Who requested this? Does this give enough time for the defense to prepare for the inevitable immunity hearing regarding the "stand your ground law"? IMO, i dont think he will be granted immunity based on the non-emergency (911) audio as well as the sworn testimony of the lead investigator's that some of his statements he made to police were contradicting.

Another side story to the case is the police chief being denied to resign. Kinda funny, he just cant win. But hey he is still getting paid so.... anyways it was really the 1st time since the story 1st broke that i heard there are more then 1 federal investigations going on the with the police dept as well as the original state prosecutor who failed to file charges or even investigate. Im very curious as to the feds findings regarding these investigations. And what i am really curious about is if Robert Zimmerman since he was a majistrate judge could some how be involved with the police chief, or the orig. state prosecutor or both in deciding to try and cover this up and hoped it would go away when it 1st happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are everyone's thoughts on the bond hearing itself? Prosecution definately was unprepared and the lead investigator under oath stated that they dont have any evidence of who started the physical altercation. How will this affect the prosecutions case?

GZ's lawyer really outsmarted the DA at that hearing. He caught the prosecution way off guard and got some great admissions which will make proving a second degree murder charge at trial much more problematic. It will also make proving a "stand your ground" defence much easier.

What is really mysterious, is if they don't have new evidence in terms of the timing of events or who was the aggressor, or who was yelling for help, what prompted them to charge GZ at all? If they have nothing new they must have either (1) concluded that they got it wrong the first time and the evidence was sufficient to lay charges; or (2) they just bowed to public pressure. Either one of those means there was a fairly serious miscarriage of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is really mysterious, is if they don't have new evidence in terms of the timing of events or who was the aggressor, or who was yelling for help, what prompted them to charge GZ at all? If they have nothing new they must have either (1) concluded that they got it wrong the first time and the evidence was sufficient to lay charges; or (2) they just bowed to public pressure. Either one of those means there was a fairly serious miscarriage of justice.

Another troubling aspect of the prosecution's case is that they didn't include in their affidavit a photo showing blood dripping from wounds on the back of GZ's head:

zimmerman_head_abc.001.jpg

The photo could help support GZ's claim that he shot TM in self-defense. According to legal analysts, if the prosecution had access to the photo they may be guilty of committing an ethical violation, and potentially may have committed a criminal act by charging GZ with second degree murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to legal analysts, if the prosecution had access to the photo they may be guilty of committing an ethical violation, and potentially may have committed a criminal act by charging GZ with second degree murder.

Seems like a pretty big stretch to me. The picture is certainly helpful in establishing a defence, but it is not in and of itself determinative of what happened. For example the picture does not explain who started the fight. TM could well have caused those injuries trying to defend himself from GZ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only bought into Stand Your Ground for the first week or so of learning of this case.

After the first week or so, it became evident enough (to me) the SYG probably wouldn't hold up.

Mainly in that, as I understand it, SYG is pretty much for people who approach you initially, rather than after attempting to follow or find another person and then being approached as a result.

I truly don't even know if the SYG statute addresses that specifically, or if it will be interpreted in the course of this case.

However, I still feel Murder2 was an overreach, and a mistake.

Unless he can still be convicted on a lesser charge of Manslaughter.

Then, it's not so much a mistake as a risk of looking bad politically, egg on the face, etc., for the State should they have to settle for a lesser charge.

This will remain an interesting case not only legally, but also for the social impact it is creating.

I believe Trayvon Martin's name will be recalled as easily as Rodney King's name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GZ's lawyer really outsmarted the DA at that hearing. He caught the prosecution way off guard and got some great admissions which will make proving a second degree murder charge at trial much more problematic. It will also make proving a "stand your ground" defence much easier.

What is really mysterious, is if they don't have new evidence in terms of the timing of events or who was the aggressor, or who was yelling for help, what prompted them to charge GZ at all? If they have nothing new they must have either (1) concluded that they got it wrong the first time and the evidence was sufficient to lay charges; or (2) they just bowed to public pressure. Either one of those means there was a fairly serious miscarriage of justice.

I dont know if i would go as far as to say MO outsmarted the prosecution but he definately did a good job in exposing the prosecution non evidence of the physical altercation. Where i think the defense screwed up is when GZ took the stand and contradicted himself in his apology by saying he didnt know how old TM was when clearly in the audio he was directly asked by the dispatcher how old is the suspect and his reply was late teens which then validates the lead investigator testimony that his statements given to police were contradicting. Another reason i feel he has no chance of being granted immunity. I also feel that GZ credibility was damaged should the case go to trial and he takes the stand. So even though the prosecution looked flat footed, a former prosecutor stated that is not a big deal as the probale cause affadavit states in the last paragraph that in no way does this represent all of the states evidence. Both the prosecution and the defense laid down the groundwork for their case. The prosecution is taking the angle that there would be no confrontation had GZ listen to Police and the defense is taking the angle of the actual physical altercation which is what i expected.

In regards to your 2nd paragraph, i agree as that was the point i was trying to make as to why he wasn't charged either that night or in the following days after the incident as to also how could they shutdown the investigation after 2 days. I believe thats where the outrage lies in this case which lead TM's father cause to start taking action which lead to the public pressure and forced the state to take another look. I would have done the same as TM father and can understand why he felt the way he did by accusing the Sanford PD of trying to sweep another black death under the carpet. Although IMO, i dont believe race had anything to do with it as i believe had TM been white, there still would have been a coverup simply bcz he is a judge's son.

IMO, i dont expect GZ to be convicted of 2nd degree murder but the more probability is involuntary or voluntary manslaughter as i feel the bottom line is by GZ getting out of his vehichle he is responsible for creating the situation in which caused the death of another.

Edited by zeplives66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another troubling aspect of the prosecution's case is that they didn't include in their affidavit a photo showing blood dripping from wounds on the back of GZ's head:

zimmerman_head_abc.001.jpg

The photo could help support GZ's claim that he shot TM in self-defense. According to legal analysts, if the prosecution had access to the photo they may be guilty of committing an ethical violation, and potentially may have committed a criminal act by charging GZ with second degree murder.

I believe this photo was taken by a neighbor as Frank Taffe another neighbor stated on CNN said he knew who took photo and only released it or sold it to ABCnews the night before the Bond hearing. Not sure if that is 100 % accurate. My question if the photo is authentic, then wouldnt the Sanford PD have a photo as isnt statndard procedure to photograph a crime scene? IMO, that doesn't look like the back of GZ's head.

As far as commiting an ethical violation or a criminal act, i felt from the beggining that they had probable cause even as far to say it was a slam dunk for the PD to file charges. Audio of GZ admitting he was following the suspect while never stating to the police that the suspect was commiting a crime and was instructed by Police to back off, instead he started the confrontation by getting out of his car. Not to mention, you have a dead body and the weapon used.

There is still alot more evidence that the public doesnt know about yet like the county coroner report (were there any signs of a struggle on TM's body? or was there any of GZ's blood on TM), forensic's ( how far away was the shot taken from?), dna (was there TM's dna on the weapon or was TM's blood on GZ?).

Still alot of questions that still need answers for a conviction IMO.......

Edited by zeplives66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mainly in that, as I understand it, SYG is pretty much for people who approach you initially, rather than after attempting to follow or find another person and then being approached as a result.

The SYG law does address this issue:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

 In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

So if you are the initial aggressor, you may still be protected but only if the responding attack is carried out with such force that you believe you will be killed or suffer great bodily harm (or if you retreat and the attacker follows) and you have "exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger".

So, it would appear that the first big question in any SYG hearing will be did GZ provoke the use of force against him or was he attacked from behind while walking back to his truck. If he was walking back to his truck, he would have a strong argument that he was not the aggressor and should be entitled to rely on the basic SYG law. If he was the aggressor he will have to demonstrate that he tried to withdraw and was pursued or that he believed he would be killed (or greatly injured) and tried everything he could to escape.

*edited because the system kept changing the letter "b" in brackets above into a smiley face! Hence the square brackets!

Edited by Dandu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where i think the defense screwed up is when GZ took the stand and contradicted himself in his apology by saying he didnt know how old TM was when clearly in the audio he was directly asked by the dispatcher how old is the suspect and his reply was late teens which then validates the lead investigator testimony that his statements given to police were contradicting.

I don't know how big of a deal the age thing will be. It might be explained away as easily as saying: when I was on the phone, at a distance I thought he was in his teens. When he was in my face beating the crap out of me, I believed him to be older. Whether that is a credible explation or not, who knows.

So even though the prosecution looked flat footed, a former prosecutor stated that is not a big deal as the probale cause affadavit states in the last paragraph that in no way does this represent all of the states evidence.

That's what the affidavit said, but the investigator confirmed they have nothing further in respect of key elements of the case. That's where I think MO outsmarted the DA.

While you note in your next post that there is still a lot more evidence to come out, if you take the Investigator at his word, none of it will tend to prove or disprove who started the fight. Presumably that would include the coroners report, DNA and forensics you mentioned. Rememebr the DA has a huge burden in this case. they must make out their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". If the specifics of the altercation are fuzzy, they will not have discharged their burden. Remember Casey Anthony? Several jurors said they really wanted to convict her, but they didn't feel the evidence was sufficient.

Edited by Dandu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect, I believe we should keep the Casey Anthony trial out of this. That jury didn't even ask to see any of the mountain of evidence again after both sides rested their cases. That jury wanted to get out of there and head home.

I am enjoying the banter going on since you joined the conversation Dandu. I agree that it will be a difficult charge to prove, but I am not so sure that isn't the reason why it was chosen. Act like you are doing something to appease others.... As a side note the DA just won re-election for her area last week, running unopposed.

Zeplives also brought up a couple of things worth noting, the reason this blew up the way it did WAS because the authorities essentially closed the case a couple of days after it happened. We watched it down here and the news had dropped it as another death in crime-ridden Sanford and only picked the story back up when TM's dad started getting in front of cameras demanding questions be answered. Rightfully so.

Also, I don't know those photo's to be of GZs head either. The cuts were previously described as vertical lacerations and these appear to be horizontal. Also, the "dark spot" that was focused in on his head when taken into police headquarters, isn't the same location as these cuts. Last, the hair seems to not be the same as GZ's. Seems like the photo would have been out much earlier when it could have garnered more $ for the owner, then to sell it when he supposedly did. That, of course, is all speculation on my part.

I still believe this will be a difficult charge to make stick, but then again I don't know all of the facts......

Edited due to spell check changing TM to TIM - :rolleyes:

Edited by Walter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I don't know those photo's to be of GZs head either. The cuts were previously described as vertical lacerations and these appear to be horizontal. Also, the "dark spot" that was focused in on his head when taken into police headquarters, isn't the same location as these cuts. Last, the hair seems to not be the same as GZ's. Seems like the photo would have been out much earlier when it could have garnered more $ for the owner, then to sell it when he supposedly did. That, of course, is all speculation on my part.

Is there some question about the authenticity of the photo? I hadn't heard that, but both you and Zeplives have raised it. I have to believe that ABC would have gone to great lengths to verify its autheticity, but after what NBC did with the 911 call, I guess nothing in this case would surprise me too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a pretty big stretch to me. The picture is certainly helpful in establishing a defence, but it is not in and of itself determinative of what happened. For example the picture does not explain who started the fight. TM could well have caused those injuries trying to defend himself from GZ.

As far as the prosecution's affidavit goes it's not an issue of determining what happened or who started the fight. The issue is did they know the photo existed before they filed the affidavit. If they did they might be guilty of subornation of perjury:

The condition of suborning perjury applies to an attorney at law who presents testimony (or an affidavit), either to judge or to a jury, that the attorney knows to be materially false, and not factual. In civil law and in criminal law, the attorney’s knowledge that the testimony is materially false must rise above mere suspicion to what an attorney would reasonably have believed in the circumstances of the matter discussed in the testimony. Hence, the attorney cannot be willfully blind to the fact that his or her witness is giving false, perjurious testimony.

Edited by cryingbluerain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the prosecution's affidavit goes it's not an issue of determining what happened or who started the fight. The issue is did they know the photo existed before they filed the affidavit. If they did they might be guilty of subornation of perjury:

Apologies. I was very unclear in my response. Let me try to do it the less lazy way :)

The article you cited said:

"Dershowitz said he believes the Florida prosecution, may be guilty of committing an ethical violation, and potentially may have committed a criminal act by charging Zimmerman with second degree murder. If the prosecution had access to a photograph showing the bloodied head of Mr. Zimmerman, taken immediately after the incident on February 26, there was no basis for a second degree murder charge, according to Dershowitz. If it were proven that the prosecution had access to the photograph, and filed a second degree murder charge anyway, Dershowitz believes they may be guilty of subornation of perjury which is a very serious charge."

I think the argument that: had the prosecution had seen that picture they would know instantly there is no basis for a second degree murder charge, is a pretty big stretch.

I don’t purport to know all the elements required to prove a murder 2 charge in FLA, but I do know that you have to show that someone was killed and some level of intent by the killer. We know GZ shot TM. Nobody is denying that. We know that there was a struggle (911 calls, and shouts for help). What we don't know is was TM defending himself against a gun wielding assailant or was GM defending himself against TM. The prosecution obviously believes it was the former.

However, I don't think the picture answers that question one way or another. Sure, the picture is evidence that GZ was injured, but not evidence of why. Accordingly, how can it conclusively demonstrate that a Murder 2 charge is inappropriate? I just don't see that as a logical conclusion - especially to support a charge of perjury (or subornation of perjury) which is an incredibly high threshold.

The probable cause affidavit states that "a struggle ensued" and that neighbours heard what "sounded like a struggle". Those statements are totally consistent with what we see in the photo. In fact, I can't find anything in the affidavit that would be materially false if the person swearing it (or the DA) had the picture at the time it was sworn (or filed). There is nothing else in there about the altercation.

If the picture were conclusive of something, I think it would be wrong to omit it. It is not conclusive of anything. It is a piece of evidence just like every witness statement, dna, 911 tapes, police interviews etc. I am not aware of any requirement that the prosecution must append all evidence to a probable cause affidavit, nor would it make sense t do so. In fact, the affidavit is clear that it is "not a complete recitation of the pertinent facts".

That is why I think this is a big stretch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the picture were conclusive of something, I think it would be wrong to omit it. It is not conclusive of anything. It is a piece of evidence just like every witness statement, dna, 911 tapes, police interviews etc. I am not aware of any requirement that the prosecution must append all evidence to a probable cause affidavit, nor would it make sense t do so. In fact, the affidavit is clear that it is "not a complete recitation of the pertinent facts".

It may not be conclusive but it is an important piece of evidence favoring the defense. A photo showing bloody injuries on the back of GZ's head would indicate that there was deadly force used by TM, not just TM defending himself. If the prosecutor withheld important evidence in an affidavit submitted under oath then the affidavit did not contain the whole truth. If they were aware of evidence favoring GZ and deliberately made a decision to keep that evidence out of the affidavit then this borders on perjury.

Unfortunately, this is done all the time. They only include the information that supports the charge they make and they also overcharge. That is why there are so many plea bargains because people are so fearful of what will happen with a jury if they cannot be convinced of their innocence and they plea bargain to get lower charges or a lesser sentence than might be given in a jury trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think murder 2 is a bad charge and won't hold up in court. It's just a politically motivated bad decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...