Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

[Tiassa]

Florida juries can convict on lesser charges

Interesting, it could be argued that the 2nd degree murder charge is sort of doing a favor for Zimmerman.

Sure, the penalty if convicted is somewhat higher but it is also a a MUCH more difficult charge to prove than the Negligent Homicide the police wanted to charge him with and that the original DA turned down.

I won't knock the logic, and have no idea what Corey thinks she has that can make this stick, but, according to law professor Gabriel J. Chin:

Some aspects of how the case will proceed are clear. First, while the prosecution was unconvinced by Zimmerman's self-defense claim, he is still entitled to present it to the jury at trial. If they accept it, of course, he will be acquitted. In addition, although Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder, even if the jury rejects the self-defense claim and believes the killing was homicide, they may choose to convict of a "lesser included offense" such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is still a serious felony, although it carries a lower penalty than murder.

It is also important to note the stringency of the requirements for a second-degree murder charge. The prosecution must prove that a defendant had "a depraved mind" and acted "without regard for human life." The killing must be motivated by "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent."

The defense is likely to argue that even if Zimmerman made a misjudgment or mistake, as a neighborhood watch volunteer, he had none of these bad motives. He could claim that no one bent on murder would, as he did, call the police in advance. The lesser charge of manslaughter requires a killing through "act, procurement or culpable negligence" which can be established with less evidence of bad motive.

There is another possibility. Under a particular set of facts it could be that both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman reasonably believed they were being confronted by unlawful violence from the other, and therefore that both thought they had to use force to defend themselves. If the jury found that to be the case, under Florida law, Zimmerman would be acquitted.

(Boldface accent added)​

Florida, it seems, is one of those states where a jury can acquit the original charge and convict according to a lesser alternative. Zimmerman thus remains exposed to manslaughter. From what I've read of Corey, this makes sense; she may be trying to run the defense into the lesser alternative.

Depending on what evidence and arguments she thinks she has, she might simply be playing chess.
____________________

Notes:

Chin, Gabriel J. "Why Trayvon Martin case charges are a victory for legal system". CNN. April 12, 2012. CNN.com. April 12, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/11/opinion/chin-trayvon-martin-case-future/index.html

 

[quadraphonics]

Florida, it seems, is one of those states where a jury can acquit the original charge and convict according to a lesser alternative. Zimmerman thus remains exposed to manslaughter. From what I've read of Corey, this makes sense; she may be trying to run the defense into the lesser alternative.

Or it could be a bargaining strategy for a mansalughter plea deal.

I personally don't have much confidence in my ability to parse the tea leaves in question, but people who appear to know better than me have said that these scenarios are unlikely, and that the best presumption is that Corey's intention is to score a conviction for second-degree murder.

In any case, we will be finding out the hard way.

But let's not lose perspective: the facts that charges have been filed and an arrest made indicate that the most important battle here has already been won:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...rged-in-the-killing-of-trayvon-martin/255753/

 

[Tiassa]

The Implicit Time-Out

But let's not lose perspective: the facts that charges have been filed and an arrest made indicate that the most important battle here has already been won

I don't disagree. There seems an implicit time-out about the announcement of charges.

Of course, it's now a new context for all of us armchair pundits, the news cycle needed to look away and consider a few other things for a couple days, and the outraged portion of the public needs to re-examine its outlook—has this really been about the facts getting their day in court, or is this about convicting Zimmerman?

And to that last, the consideration is up in the air because nobody really knows what Corey has on Zimmerman. If Murder 2 is a charge based on apparent inconsistencies in Zimmerman's self-defense/SYG narrative, state isn't getting Murder 2. If there is something more—physical data about the shooting, perhaps?—this whole thing could get even more uncomfortable for Zimmerman and SYG advocates.

Undoubtedly there are some who want Zimmerman behind bars regardless of the law. But many who simply wanted the facts to have a day in court get to step back and see just what those facts are.

On either side, regardless of winners and losers in the public discourse, it seems the question is, "Well, what now?"

We must wait, it seems.

 

[adoucette]

The affadavit is out.
It does show you can indicte a ham sandwich if you so choose.

http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AoRj5l...ia.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

The problem is we know there is compelling testimony that refutes key parts of this (or at least makes it near impossible for the State to prove that it wasn't self defense beyond a reasonable doubt).

Just based on what we know, there are quite a few things that the Defense will use to go against this affidavit:

Dispatcher didn't say DON'T follow him, he gave an ambiguous "We don't NEED for you to do that".
Not profiling, he only said he looks black when asked by dispatcher for his race.
Not profiling, has history of calls for both blacks and whites.
Not profiling, f****** Punks, has been shown to more likely be f****** COLD.
Witness who actually saw the fight claims it was Zimmerman on the ground calling out and being beaten.
Police at scene describe wet back of Zimmerman's coat, and cuts on back of his head and bloody nose/lip.
Zimmerman is 5'10, 185 lbs, Martin is 6'3" and similar weight.

And the Florida DA has the burden to show it wasn't self defense.

Which is why the LOCAL DA, given the Immunity Statute of the Florida Self Defense law wouldn't risk his community facing an expensive law suit for a case he most likely couldn't prevail on.

Why?

Well nothing in the affadavit is new, and having reviewed all this in detail, we still have people like Tiassa who says they wouldn't convict.

Hard to believe you will find 12 out of 12 jurors who given those conflicting issues, will not agree with Tiassa.

So now it's not Sanford but the State of Florida who has been pressured to bring this to trial, and so it's quite possible the State will be paying Zimmerman/O'Mara in the end.

Why?

Because of the very lenient Florida Self Defense laws, the Immunity Statute and the existing case law that O'Mara has to work with.

See Don't call 911. Use .357 for examples of cases where Self Defense was sustained in Florida.

 

[Believe]

I won't knock the logic, and have no idea what Corey thinks she has that can make this stick, but, according to law professor Gabriel J. Chin:

Some aspects of how the case will proceed are clear. First, while the prosecution was unconvinced by Zimmerman's self-defense claim, he is still entitled to present it to the jury at trial. If they accept it, of course, he will be acquitted. In addition, although Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder, even if the jury rejects the self-defense claim and believes the killing was homicide, they may choose to convict of a "lesser included offense" such as manslaughter. Manslaughter is still a serious felony, although it carries a lower penalty than murder.

It is also important to note the stringency of the requirements for a second-degree murder charge. The prosecution must prove that a defendant had "a depraved mind" and acted "without regard for human life." The killing must be motivated by "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent."

The defense is likely to argue that even if Zimmerman made a misjudgment or mistake, as a neighborhood watch volunteer, he had none of these bad motives. He could claim that no one bent on murder would, as he did, call the police in advance. The lesser charge of manslaughter requires a killing through "act, procurement or culpable negligence" which can be established with less evidence of bad motive.

There is another possibility. Under a particular set of facts it could be that both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman reasonably believed they were being confronted by unlawful violence from the other, and therefore that both thought they had to use force to defend themselves. If the jury found that to be the case, under Florida law, Zimmerman would be acquitted.

(Boldface accent added)​

Florida, it seems, is one of those states where a jury can acquit the original charge and convict according to a lesser alternative. Zimmerman thus remains exposed to manslaughter. From what I've read of Corey, this makes sense; she may be trying to run the defense into the lesser alternative.

Depending on what evidence and arguments she thinks she has, she might simply be playing chess.
____________________

Notes:

Chin, Gabriel J. "Why Trayvon Martin case charges are a victory for legal system". CNN. April 12, 2012. CNN.com. April 12, 2012. http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/11/opinion/chin-trayvon-martin-case-future/index.html

Honest question, why do think that this person believes that they can still charge the man with man slaughter if it is ruled that he acted in self defense which is legal according the stand your ground law? What grounds would they have to charge him?

 

[Tiassa]

A lengthy denial of any substantial utility

Honest question, why do think that this person believes that they can still charge the man with man slaughter if it is ruled that he acted in self defense which is legal according the stand your ground law? What grounds would they have to charge him?

Not to be obstinate, but whose ruling? While the police appear to have done virtually no useful forensic work, there should be some observable evidence.

If that evidence makes a more compelling case than prosecutors observed in dismissing the police recommendation to charge Zimmerman, then it makes a certain amount of sense that Zimmerman would be charged.

I think where everyone is catching their breath is in the proposition of Murder Two. That's a stiff charge; it brings tall demands and imposes a stigma that defies joking. They're accusing Zimmerman of murder; whatever happens now, he is either a convicted murderer or the guy who got away with murder. The court of public opinion may be loudly divided, but it is not sharply split. The conviction camp is widespread, and it will be a relatively small percentage that will be dissuaded by an acquittal in a court of law. The acquittal camp is a hodgepodge of libertarians, firearm fanatics, dreamer vigilantes, and racists. Few in this group will be dissuaded by a conviction.

So the stake the state is willing to put up is that George Zimmerman is a murderer. Public opinion will hinge around this axis.

To be less obstinate, the first thing to mind is that the defense offered in the court of public opinion simply doesn't add up. To the one, it said different things at different times; to the other, some of the things it said clearly contradict the record. If any of these mistaken ideas track back to George Zimmerman himself, then the self-defense story is utterly undermined. We should at this point note specifically that the undermining of the defense does not, in the question of reasonable doubt, mean a conviction. However, what might be a minor logical unsettling is, in human terms, a seismic disaster. If Zimmerman's self-defense story does not hold up to even such pitiful scrutiny as the Sanford Police Department's unacceptably awful forensic work, then the admitted shooter is in a world of trouble with exposure, as the saying goes, out the yang.

And if that turns out to be the case, then the only real question is whether or not a Florida jury will convict a guy of second degree murder for having lied about how he killed someone while the state is unable to prove anything affirmative about the event.

There are juries that would convict under those circumstances. There are juries that would agonize over the decision. There are juries that would acquit.

The public arena myth included in this endeavor is the idea that a Florida jury won't convict, in part because the state has nothing affirmative, and in part because, as the boast goes, "You only left me a nigger, but at least I shot me a nigger."

From the state's point of view, if Zimmerman's story doesn't add up, you must do something. Murder Two is a stiff charge for this; I certainly didn't expect it. So either the prosecutor, Ms. Corey, is playing for another resolution, such as a manslaughter deal, or there is something the public hasn't seen or heard yet that is going to either tear this case wide open or end Ms. Corey's career in disgrace. I can't argue with Quadraphonics' logic going forward; my view of Ms. Corey is largely formed by the boilerplate that would earn my high esteem if she wasn't a prosecutor.

The real question going forward is what the state has. If it's substantial, Zimmerman is cooked. If they're running on vapor, though, such as a case built entirely around problems with Zimmerman's story, Corey is playing for a deal. I think Zimmerman knows he fucked up, but I don't know what that means in how he is going to play this.

 

[Asguard]

Question, I herd that in the US a hate crime ruling upgrades a charge from murder 2 to murder 1. If yes the does the fact that the charge is murder 2 mean that the special procutor doesn't believe this was motivate by racial hatred?

 

[adoucette]

Question, I herd that in the US a hate crime ruling upgrades a charge from murder 2 to murder 1. If yes the does the fact that the charge is murder 2 mean that the special procutor doesn't believe this was motivate by racial hatred?

The Hate Crime is a Federal Statute, the Prosecutor in this case is from the State of Florida.

 

[adoucette]

The court of public opinion may be loudly divided, but it is not sharply split. The conviction camp is widespread, and it will be a relatively small percentage that will be dissuaded by an acquittal in a court of law. The acquittal camp is a hodgepodge of libertarians, firearm fanatics, dreamer vigilantes, and racists. Few in this group will be dissuaded by a conviction.

Not really.

Thirty percent believe he should be found guilty of murder. That's compared to the 33 percent who felt that same way just over two weeks ago.

While that number has gone slightly down, the number of people who think he acted in self-defense is actually growing. That number now 24 percent, up from the 15 percent two weeks ago.

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/new...s/articles/cfn/2012/4/14/public_support_for_g

From the state's point of view, if Zimmerman's story doesn't add up, you must do something. Murder Two is a stiff charge for this; I certainly didn't expect it. So either the prosecutor, Ms. Corey, is playing for another resolution, such as a manslaughter deal, or there is something the public hasn't seen or heard yet that is going to either tear this case wide open or end Ms. Corey's career in disgrace.

Don't think so.
You know Corey is going to get a pass on this even if she can't make it stick.
The reason for a "not guilty" will be seen as the Florida Self Defense law, possibly the Sanford police, but not the DA's office.

 

[adoucette]

From the state's point of view, if Zimmerman's story doesn't add up, you must do something.

And a lot of people looked at this and felt it did hold up, enough to not bring charges.

Nothing new has been released to imply the state's case got better, but what I find interesting is we have yet to see a "reenactment" of the night, even though one was done by Zimmerman that night.

Consider: (In this, We means police (AFAIK, the actual info has not been released to the Public)

We know where Martin bought the drink and candy and was walking from.
We know where and when Zimmerman said he initally saw him (roughly)
We know where Martin was staying, and thus the line between the two points.
We know where the truck was parked by Zimmerman when he went to follow Martin.
We know that Martin took off running when he sensed Zimmerman was following him.
We know where the fight took place and from the 911 calls, when it started.
We know from the shots on 911, how much time elapsed for the event, start to finish.

Seems one could pretty much prove/disprove the statements Zimmerman made from that info alone.

The other thing which seems odd is that Martin was younger, taller and in good physical shape.

Are we saying, even with a head start, he couldn't out-run Zimmerman to his door?

If Martin was closer to his house than Zimmerman was when the chase started then that indeed seems highly unlikely, so unless that truck was parked between where he saw Martin and Martin's home, then the idea that Zimmerman chased Martin down seems highly unlikely.

 

[Believe]

Not to be obstinate, but whose ruling? While the police appear to have done virtually no useful forensic work, there should be some observable evidence.

If that evidence makes a more compelling case than prosecutors observed in dismissing the police recommendation to charge Zimmerman, then it makes a certain amount of sense that Zimmerman would be charged.

I think where everyone is catching their breath is in the proposition of Murder Two. That's a stiff charge; it brings tall demands and imposes a stigma that defies joking. They're accusing Zimmerman of murder; whatever happens now, he is either a convicted murderer or the guy who got away with murder. The court of public opinion may be loudly divided, but it is not sharply split. The conviction camp is widespread, and it will be a relatively small percentage that will be dissuaded by an acquittal in a court of law. The acquittal camp is a hodgepodge of libertarians, firearm fanatics, dreamer vigilantes, and racists. Few in this group will be dissuaded by a conviction.

So the stake the state is willing to put up is that George Zimmerman is a murderer. Public opinion will hinge around this axis.

To be less obstinate, the first thing to mind is that the defense offered in the court of public opinion simply doesn't add up. To the one, it said different things at different times; to the other, some of the things it said clearly contradict the record. If any of these mistaken ideas track back to George Zimmerman himself, then the self-defense story is utterly undermined. We should at this point note specifically that the undermining of the defense does not, in the question of reasonable doubt, mean a conviction. However, what might be a minor logical unsettling is, in human terms, a seismic disaster. If Zimmerman's self-defense story does not hold up to even such pitiful scrutiny as the Sanford Police Department's unacceptably awful forensic work, then the admitted shooter is in a world of trouble with exposure, as the saying goes, out the yang.

And if that turns out to be the case, then the only real question is whether or not a Florida jury will convict a guy of second degree murder for having lied about how he killed someone while the state is unable to prove anything affirmative about the event.

There are juries that would convict under those circumstances. There are juries that would agonize over the decision. There are juries that would acquit.

The public arena myth included in this endeavor is the idea that a Florida jury won't convict, in part because the state has nothing affirmative, and in part because, as the boast goes, "You only left me a nigger, but at least I shot me a nigger."

From the state's point of view, if Zimmerman's story doesn't add up, you must do something. Murder Two is a stiff charge for this; I certainly didn't expect it. So either the prosecutor, Ms. Corey, is playing for another resolution, such as a manslaughter deal, or there is something the public hasn't seen or heard yet that is going to either tear this case wide open or end Ms. Corey's career in disgrace. I can't argue with Quadraphonics' logic going forward; my view of Ms. Corey is largely formed by the boilerplate that would earn my high esteem if she wasn't a prosecutor.

The real question going forward is what the state has. If it's substantial, Zimmerman is cooked. If they're running on vapor, though, such as a case built entirely around problems with Zimmerman's story, Corey is playing for a deal. I think Zimmerman knows he fucked up, but I don't know what that means in how he is going to play this.

The court, the judgement of if it was self defense or not would have to come in court.

 

[pjdude1219]

And a lot of people looked at this and felt it did hold up, enough to not bring charges.

Nothing new has been released to imply the state's case got better, but what I find interesting is we have yet to see a "reenactment" of the night, even though one was done by Zimmerman that night.

Consider: (In this, We means police (AFAIK, the actual info has not been released to the Public)

We know where Martin bought the drink and candy and was walking from.
We know where and when Zimmerman said he initally saw him (roughly)
We know where Martin was staying, and thus the line between the two points.
We know where the truck was parked by Zimmerman when he went to follow Martin.
We know that Martin took off running when he sensed Zimmerman was following him.
We know where the fight took place and from the 911 calls, when it started.
We know from the shots on 911, how much time elapsed for the event, start to finish.

Seems one could pretty much prove/disprove the statements Zimmerman made from that info alone.

The other thing which seems odd is that Martin was younger, taller and in good physical shape.

Are we saying, even with a head start, he couldn't out-run Zimmerman to his door?

If Martin was closer to his house than Zimmerman was when the chase started then that indeed seems highly unlikely, so unless that truck was parked between where he saw Martin and Martin's home, then the idea that Zimmerman chased Martin down seems highly unlikely.

they you go again ignoring evidence that shoots holes in your zimmermann is innocent argument. martin was on his phone while running. that affects ones speed. and also given the conversation he was having with his girlfriend( you know the one you have ignored because it paints zimmerman as guilty) is that martin was trying to get seperation and didn't run to his house( most people don't want to let people stalking them know where they live) and zimmerman doubled back onto martin after martin thought he escaped.

 

[Tiassa]

That was the DA's call

The court, the judgement of if it was self defense or not would have to come in court.

That is sort of the issue driving all the demonstrations around the country. The police recommended Negligent Homicide; the DA, according to his purview, saw differently, and decided for lack of evidence to not pursue charges.

Thus, Zimmerman was not arrested and not called to answer in court.

There appears to be some seriously sloppy police work that may have affected the DA's informational assessment.

At present, it would seem the state is going after Zimmerman's actions; Ms. Corey's affidavit is widely criticized for its lack of detail, and one there is much speculation as to what the state's case and purpose actually are.

There is, however, presently no court finding of self-defense or otherwise. That decision went to the DA.

 

[adoucette]

they you go again ignoring evidence that shoots holes in your zimmermann is innocent argument. martin was on his phone while running. that affects ones speed. and also given the conversation he was having with his girlfriend( you know the one you have ignored because it paints zimmerman as guilty) is that martin was trying to get seperation and didn't run to his house( most people don't want to let people stalking them know where they live) and zimmerman doubled back onto martin after martin thought he escaped.

Unless you know something I don't, there's nothing in the phone call that indicates which way Martin was running, but towards home is far more logical.

And not once have I claimed Zimmerman is innocent, so quit with the lies. I've simply said the state is unlikely to be able to prove he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if that key witness testimony, that he was on the ground, crying for help and being beaten by Martin, holds up.

I'm not ignoring the phone call, I just don't see it as painting Zimmerman as doing anything but following Martin, something which isn't in dispute.

As far as Zimmerman "doubling back" on Martin, there is no evidence to suggest that happened that I'm aware of.

The POINT is that these facts, about the actual timeline, the layout of the crime scene, and where everyone was at the start and end of the event and the distances involved has NOT been released, and I fiind that interesting considering they are quite likely to shed quite a bit of light on the plausibility of the actual events as described by Zimmerman.

 

[adoucette]

That is sort of the issue driving all the demonstrations around the country. The police recommended Negligent Homicide; the DA, according to his purview, saw differently, and decided for lack of evidence to not pursue charges.

Thus, Zimmerman was not arrested and not called to answer in court.

And in that analysis, you fail to mention that Immunity Statute that exists in Florida, the one that will allow Zimmerman/O'Mara to sue the law enforcement body that tries to prove Zimmerman guilty when he claims Self Defense.

Sanford's a small place.
These civil judgments can be quite large.
The State might not care, but the Seminole Cty DA certainly would.

There appears to be some seriously sloppy police work that may have affected the DA's informational assessment.

No evidence of sloppy police work, that's just conjecture.

At present, it would seem the state is going after Zimmerman's actions; Ms. Corey's affidavit is widely criticized for its lack of detail, and one there is much speculation as to what the state's case and purpose actually are.

There is, however, presently no court finding of self-defense or otherwise. That decision went to the DA.

Except that O'Mara could have, but didn't go for a pre-trial court ruling on just that issue.

The question is why?

Well the most logical reason is that if he does and wins that ruling then Zimmerman is freed and there is no big payout from an Immunity Suit.

(He gave a lame excuse as to why he wouldn't go that route (to not stir up the people))

IMHO O'Mara appears to be going for the long game.
Go to trial, get natl publicity, get his client off, then win the big bucks in a civil suit. If he has to go to the Appeals or Florida Supreme Ct to do that, so much the better.

 

[Asguard]

The Hate Crime is a Federal Statute, the Prosecutor in this case is from the State of Florida.

Hang on, so your saying that the police turn up at a murder, investigate it get ready to procute and then the find that the motive was racisium so they have to pass it over to the FBI to be reinvestigated and become a federal case? Talk about unessary duplication. A judgement of an "agravated offence" here is done by the courts and the sate DPP, the commonwealth doesn't procute general crimes (rape, murder, robberies etc)

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

And in that analysis, you fail to mention that Immunity Statute that exists in Florida, the one that will allow Zimmerman/O'Mara to sue the law enforcement body that tries to prove Zimmerman guilty when he claims Self Defense.

In the first place, so what if I fail to mention it explicitly? To the one, it's a separate consideration. To the other, I am the one who suggested that if this case is built on puff, it will cost Corey her career. You are the one who disagrees. As poker metaphors go, this is a genuine high-stakes game.

No evidence of sloppy police work, that's just conjecture.

Well, let us see here. What was the result of the toxicology test performed on the victim to see if he had any drugs in his system? We don't know; the results haven't been released yet. What was the result of drug and alcohol screenings of the shooter? We don't know; the Sanford Police Department did not collect that evidence.

What is the physical evidence catalogued by the Sanford Police Department? How does it corroborate or dispute George Zimmerman's account? Herein rests another question; a proper examination of the crime scene, Zimmerman's clothing, and Trayvon Martin's body should either support or undermine the shooter's tale.

But there really isn't anything substantial to go on. As John Rudolf and Trymaine Lee explain for The Huffington Post:

Critics of the local police are now seeing their complaints echo on a national stage, with a chorus of prominent civil rights leaders, pundits and politicians joining to denounce the initial Martin investigation as rushed and careless -- and biased in favor of Zimmerman. A special state prosecutor and federal authorities are leading the probe of the Martin shooting, and local police face intense outside scrutiny over their interpretation of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law as well as what experts call a failure to follow basic police procedure.

Among other things, George Zimmerman, 28, was not subject to a criminal background check until after he was released from custody. A possible racial slur muttered by Zimmerman on a 911 call was overlooked. Nearly a week passed before important witnesses were interviewed by the police. Perhaps most crucially, investigators failed to access Martin’s cell phone records for weeks.

Those records revealed that just before he was shot, the teen was on the phone with his girlfriend, who said she overheard crucial moments of the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin.

"Those mistakes should not have been made," said Andrew Scott, former chief of the Boca Raton police department and a national policing consultant. "They were such rudimentary aspects of an investigation" ....

.... "It has fueled the fires," Scott said. "The credibility of the agency is now in question."​

Texas police advisor and law professor Gerald Reamey suggested, of the Sanford Police Department's failure to follow up on the "Dee Dee" phone call, "It really casts doubt on the soundness of the entire investigation when you see something like this. They should have had this piece of evidence."

Given that the Zimmerman family has pointed out the delay in collecting this witness statement as evidence of its falsehood, the "Dee Dee" question is one that is going to haunt the SPD.

Why would a police officer ask leading questions, as March reports of the incident suggested (see topic post[/i]), instead of leaving Zimmerman to tell his own story for himself?

We have yet to see other forensic data, but let us consider blood spatters.

What does the blood evidence say?

If, say, the shot struck Martin in the chest and exited his back while he was atop Zimmerman, the blood evidence should show that. If The shot struck Martin in the chest and lodged inside his body while he was atop Zimmerman, the blood evidence should show that. It the shot struck Zimmerman and passed through or lodged in his body while Zimmerman was atop him, the blood evidence should show that.

Now, here's the thing: You've already proclaimed that police corruption is smart, so, yes, I can imagine you saying the same thing again, but for the rest of the public that has taken interest in this story, why would the police leave the public to stew in the notion that Zimmerman's self-defense story was accepted at face value instead of coming out and saying that their forensic evidence clearly corroborated his story? They're still in a position to say that, as we're six weeks out and test results of samples collected that night should be just about due. So, sure, you could suggest the police are playing smart by depicting themselves as so ham-handed as to stir a national controversy for weeks, but, no, nobody is really going to buy into that sort of moronic excrement.

Yet one cannot help but notice the change of context in your reply:

"There appears to be some seriously sloppy police work that may have affected the DA's informational assessment."

—No evidence of sloppy police work, that's just conjecture.

(Boldface accent added)​

The fact of widespread perception of sloppy police work is part of the reason why people are taking to the streets to yell about this incident. You can try saying, "There is no appearance of sloppy police work in this case," but I think you know damn well that argument would be hooted off the stage.

Evidence? Well, how convenient for you to mention that, as evidence seems to be one thing the Sanford Police Department does not have a firm grip on.

Except that O'Mara could have, but didn't go for a pre-trial court ruling on just that issue.

The question is why?

Well the most logical reason is that if he does and wins that ruling then Zimmerman is freed and there is no big payout from an Immunity Suit.

I'm not going to pick your specific logic here, but, rather, suggest that you're responding to an issue of your own creation.

The question expressed by our neighbor Believe—

"... why do think that this person believes that they can still charge the man with man slaughter if it is ruled that he acted in self defense which is legal according the stand your ground law? What grounds would they have to charge him?"​

—and specifically clarified—

"The court, the judgement of if it was self defense or not would have to come in court."​

—per request, establishes the context. What specific understanding, information, or interpretation led to the question is not mine to speculate, but the underlying theme seems to be how one could charge this crime if it has previously been ruled self-defense.

Now, sure, that's a summary, and it's mine, and only Believe can specify. But here you seem to be responding to your own context. I'm not prepared to dispute your analysis, especially as I am uncertain of its criteria or boundaries, but I do think you're pursuing a context separate from the one applicable to the remarks you quoted.

• • •​

Hang on, so your saying that the police turn up at a murder, investigate it get ready to procute and then the find that the motive was racisium so they have to pass it over to the FBI to be reinvestigated and become a federal case? Talk about unessary duplication. A judgement of an "agravated offence" here is done by the courts and the sate DPP, the commonwealth doesn't procute general crimes (rape, murder, robberies etc)

My advice is to let it go. Florida has a hate crimes statute. A federal civil rights charge is the looming spectre in all of this; had Florida not charged, or even if Zimmerman is acquitted of all state charges, there still remains a question mark about the deliberate catch-all of "civil rights" crime.

That will be a separate issue.

There are at least fifty-one separate groups of statutes (fifty states plus federal law) pertaining to murder and hate crimes. As such, I am uncertain about the escalation of charges you refer to. It might be a federal law I've never encountered; it might be among the many state laws I never get around to learning until I need to know about them. I mean, sure, I know it's illegal to get a fish drunk in Ohio, that there is greater separation between mates established by Louisiana incest laws than Washington state, and that there have long been bestiality laws on the books in other states before we in the Evergreen State got around to creating a law about fucking horses because someone died in cross-species sexual intercourse and the only person we could find to charge with a crime was the guy who filmed it—and we charged him with trespassing—but no, I'm hardly a living encyclopedia of state and local statutes. Really, I get around to 'em as circumstances demand.

So, no, I don't know about the specific law you refer to.

I do know you've seen the TV series NCIS, so I'll use that as an example. A murder in general, the federal government has no specific interest in. But a murder involving, in any relevant role, a member of the armed forces, would get the federal government's attention. The dramatic jurisdictional fights we see in television between federal and local law enforcement do, after a fashion, exist, but in reality they are fewer and less dramatic than depicted. In the context of the Trayvon Martin shooting, the federal government's interest exists through the catch-all of civil rights crime. We have a rule called "double jeopardy"; it is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution that a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. So if we might imagine that George Zimmerman is acquitted of all charges, and sometime later a videotape emerges showing him killing the boy in cold blood, there is nothing the state of Florida can do. Perhaps a wrongful death civil suit, as we saw in the O. J. Simpson case, but that also depends on what jury you draw; Florida is a much different place from California, which not only acquitted Simpson but also let Michael Jackson walk. And recalled Gray Davis. And elected Arnold Schwarzeneggar. And Sonny Bono. And Ronald Reagan. The point is, it's California. And this is Florida. The Simpsons joke is that Florida is "America's wang". After the 2000 election, one joke that could be reliably found was that if the South wanted to secede, we should let them—and throw in Florida as a bonus. Florida's peculiarities are on par with California, Arizona, Texas, and several other states known for pronounced eccentricity.

So the federal interest is for the time subsided; if Zimmerman is acquitted, federal interest will likely rekindle. When "America" knows something wrong has happened, and circumstances see the states fail to establish justice, we fall back to "civil rights" issues. Certainly, this annoys the hell out of some, but it is also one occasion on which American liberals take the nothing-to-fear-if-you're-not-doing-wrong stance; generally speaking, liberals are less likely to run afoul of civil rights laws.

But the federal interest is our way around double jeopardy; instead of trying a person for a specific crime a second time, they are tried for a specific context for the first time. It's a rhetorical jingle, to be certain, a distinction pretty much without meaning, but, in mind of crime shows, I recall first learning about it when I was a kid, watching Quincy, M.E., when our hero managed to bust an acquitted kidnapper by establishing through soil samples that the crime had taken place in a national park, thus exposing the suspect to a second trial. Turns out you can actually do that sort of thing, and the feds will.

But there is a balancing act. Nothing is ever cut and dry when it's like this. I actually imagine even the Bush administration would have its hand in this one, but it is also possible to imagine presidents and attorneys general deciding to stay out.
____________________

Notes:

Rudolf, John and Trymaine Lee. "Trayvon Martin Case Spotlights Florida Town's History Of 'Sloppy' Police Work". The Huffington Post. April 9, 2012. HuffingtonPost.com. April 14, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/trayvon-martin-cops-botched-investigation_n_1409277.html

 

[Asguard]

It was probably something I herd on law and order which means it maybe a new York think (or fiction) but I do find your problem with double jepody interesting. Here they are looking at removing that protection in certain circumstances and I would assume your video tape scenario would fall into that catigory, on the flip side we don't have a wrongful death civil suit the way you do so *shrug*. Just a side note you do realise there is something wrong with putting Jackson and OJ on the same level as swarznegga actually lissioning to him he SEEMS to have a reasonable policy platform

 

[adoucette]

In the first place, so what if I fail to mention it explicitly? To the one, it's a separate consideration. To the other, I am the one who suggested that if this case is built on puff, it will cost Corey her career. You are the one who disagrees. As poker metaphors go, this is a genuine high-stakes game.

No it's not a separate consideration.
Every small jurisdiction in Fl has to consider the financial consequenses of that Immunity Statute.
To ignore it is to pretend there isn't an elephant in the Courtroom.

As to Corey, we'll see, but IMHO I think Corey was pretty much told she could indicte regardless of evidence.

Well, let us see here. What was the result of the toxicology test performed on the victim to see if he had any drugs in his system? We don't know; the results haven't been released yet.

So?

What was the result of drug and alcohol screenings of the shooter? We don't know; the Sanford Police Department did not collect that evidence.

They will have video evidence of his testimony, if he is impaired it would be on the tape, but having listened to the 911 tapes there is no evidence that he is impaired.

What is the physical evidence catalogued by the Sanford Police Department?

We'll see at trial, but don't presume it doesn't exist.

How does it corroborate or dispute George Zimmerman's account? Herein rests another question; a proper examination of the crime scene, Zimmerman's clothing, and Trayvon Martin's body should either support or undermine the shooter's tale.

But there really isn't anything substantial to go on.

And you know that because?

As we have seen a number of assertions about the police have turned out to be false.

Not a Racial Slur that the police "ignored".

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2923983&postcount=255

According to Corey, they have Zimmerman's clothes.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/...ed-prosecutor-in-spotlight.html#storylink=cpy

The body didn't lie in the Morgue unidentified for 3 days, but was identified that morning.

We don't really know what the police did or didn't do, but you are already making claims that the investigation was botched, based on nothing.

As John Rudolf and Trymaine Lee explain for The Huffington Post:

Critics of the local police are now seeing their complaints echo on a national stage, with a chorus of prominent civil rights leaders, pundits and politicians joining to denounce the initial Martin investigation as rushed and careless -- and biased in favor of Zimmerman.​

None of which are experts in police work.

A special state prosecutor and federal authorities are leading the probe of the Martin shooting, and local police face intense outside scrutiny over their interpretation of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law as well as what experts call a failure to follow basic police procedure.

Among other things, George Zimmerman, 28, was not subject to a criminal background check until after he was released from custody.

If they had no reason to hold him on the actual charge, and they didn't, that's irrelevant.
All they had to check for is that he had no outstanding warrants, and he didn't, so they had to let him go.
And in witness testimony, the police referenced his record, so they DID check.
And as it turns out, he has nothing but a 7 year old misdemeanor on his record.

A possible racial slur muttered by Zimmerman on a 911 call was overlooked.

Nope, it was listened to and as has been shown, he doesn't utter a racial slur.

Nearly a week passed before important witnesses were interviewed by the police. Perhaps most crucially, investigators failed to access Martin’s cell phone records for weeks.

That's it? Oh, my gosh, a whole week went by?
And this isn't actually NCIS where everything is immediately available, or they simply hack into the Databases they want. In real life the police do have to get a Warrant for that info and they have to serve it, and then the Phone company has time to comply before they actually get the phone records, so at this point we don't know when they served the warrant for those records.

And more importantly, time is of the essence when you are trying to SOLVE a crime, but in this case they knew who shot Martin, and so time wasn't an important factor in this investigation.

We have yet to see other forensic data, but let us consider blood spatters.

What does the blood evidence say?

If, say, the shot struck Martin in the chest and exited his back while he was atop Zimmerman, the blood evidence should show that. If The shot struck Martin in the chest and lodged inside his body while he was atop Zimmerman, the blood evidence should show that. It the shot struck Zimmerman and passed through or lodged in his body while Zimmerman was atop him, the blood evidence should show that.

And who says we don't have that evidence?
Clearly we do.
We have the clothes from both, and the autopsy.

Now, here's the thing: You've already proclaimed that police corruption is smart, so, yes, I can imagine you saying the same thing again, but for the rest of the public that has taken interest in this story, why would the police leave the public to stew in the notion that Zimmerman's self-defense story was accepted at face value instead of coming out and saying that their forensic evidence clearly corroborated his story? They're still in a position to say that, as we're six weeks out and test results of samples collected that night should be just about due. So, sure, you could suggest the police are playing smart by depicting themselves as so ham-handed as to stir a national controversy for weeks, but, no, nobody is really going to buy into that sort of moronic excrement.

And it was not accepted at face value, it was accepted by the DA that they didn't have the evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.

You yourself showed that analysis was correct when you said, based on the evidence, that YOU wouldn't Convict.

Well apparently the DA thought the same.

And the evidence hasn't changed since then, well except that you thought he said "f****** COONS, and that turns out not to be true.

In reality, you just keep ignoring Florida's lenient Self Defense Law and trying to blame the Police, when the LAWS they have to operate under are the real issue.

Did you even bother to read the analysis of , Don't Dial 911. Use .357?

It clearly explains why the law allows people to get away with murder in Florida.​

 

[Tiassa]

Recksiedler Recuses

Courtroom Drama: Recksiedler Recuses, is Second Judge to Do So

Those who might ever wonder about the phrase, "appearance of impropriety", need only look to Michael Muskal's lede for the Los Angeles Times, that they might see a working definition in motion:

The judge in the George Zimmerman case recused herself on Wednesday after the defense sought to have her disqualified because her husband worked with a CNN legal affairs analyst who was approached by the defendant to represent him.​

If that is too complicated, we can break it down.

• Judge A
• Judge's husband B
• CNN analyst C
• Defendant D

(D) approaches (C) for potential legal representation. (C), who declined that offer, works with (B). (B) is married to (A). Therefore, (A) should not preside over trial of (D).​

There is no actual impropriety about the idea of Judge Jessica Recksiedler hearing Zimmerman's case.

There is, however, a potential appearance of conflicted interest.

Seminole Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler, the Florida judge assigned to the highly publicized case, announced that she had decided to leave because "the cumulative effect of the events and the totality of the circumstances provides a legally sufficient basis for this Court to grant the Motion to Disqualify."

The case will be taken over by Circuit Judge Kenneth R. Lester Jr.

The next judge in the rotation, John D. Galluzzo, disqualified himself because of a prior business and personal relationship with defense attorney Mark O’Mara, it was announced.

"Even though Judge Recksiedler had to grant the motion for disqualification in this case, she is very capable of presiding over this or any other criminal case and I have complete confidence in Judge Lester as well," Chief Judge Alan Dickey stated.​

We might bear in mind that Judge Recksiedler herself raised the issue last week, and explained that she would consider recusal motions. Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, formally submitted a recusal motion on Monday, and yesterday Recksiedler accepted the motion and stepped aside.

Andrew Cohen wrote last week that " Florida v. Zimmerman Needs the Bravest Judge Around":

There is an old saying in the law that the vast majority of criminal cases can be handled by the vast majority of trial judges. But every once in a while a case comes up which requires a special type of judge. This is one of those cases. It is imperative—for Zimmerman, for prosecutors, for Martin's friends and family, for the hundreds of millions of people who care about this case, and for the perception of fair justice in America itself—for this case to be assigned to a courageous, tough, fair trial judge who will be able both to control the courtroom and manage the media circus outside.

This case simply cannot be assigned to a judge like Lance Ito, who made a mess of the O.J. Simpson murder trial. It cannot be assigned to a media dandy or a fop. It must instead be assigned to a stern judge like Richard Matsch, the venerable federal judge who presided over the Oklahoma City bombing trials. There are many good trial judges in Florida. There are also many awful ones. The Seminole County judicial officials in charge of the process, whoever they are, have to ensure that this tinderbox case gets assigned to a judge who can protect it—like a mother hen even—from the passions and prejudices this story has evoked.​

The mere appearance of impropriety would undermine all of that. Judge Recksiedler appears to recognize this challenge, and as near as I can tell, has done the only correct thing she can in recusing herself.
____________________

Notes:

Muskal, Michael. "Trayvon Martin case: George Zimmerman trial judge recuses self". Los Angeles Times. April 18, 2012. LATimes.com. April 19, 2012. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-20120417,0,6653759.story

Cohen, Andrew. "Florida v. Zimmerman Needs the Bravest Judge Around". The Atlantic. April 11, 2012. TheAtlantic.com. April 19, 2012. http://www.theatlantic.com/national...merman-needs-the-bravest-judge-around/255756/