Scruit Posted December 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 According to 37:35 in this video: http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/22/zimmerman-hearing-video-from-itsmichaelnotmike/The fact she was a minor (allegedly) meant it was represented that her name was supposed to be protected, according to O'Mara (Z attorney). This also shows that the age of the girl was being disputed back in October, so this is not news to the defense team. Now that my curiosity is piqued, I wanna know that this girl is real, and I know the defense team is going to be all over that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) The way it reads to me is she fictional. There is no Dee Dee. She was made up along with her testimony that stated she was in the phone during the encounter.That's hopefully going to be easy to prove, if correct. They prosecutor provided T-mobile phone records for Martin and DeeDee to the defense before October. The defense team also got a court order to get the phone records for those two direct from T-Mobile themselves (as well as twitter and facebook). But wait... If the judge ordered disclosure of t-mobile phone records for Martin and "Witness 8" then a phone account must exist, and some person must own that phone, no? Who is that person? Does that phone belong to "DeeDee", or to a person who has a good explanation as to why "DeeDee" was using the phone? That phone number will also have to line up with a call made atthe time of the shooting.I don't see how they could fabricate all that after the fact.EDIT: O'Mara himself says he has the last few calls made. The phone records handed over by Martin's mother showed a call at 19:12 and the shooting was 4 minutes later (although that itself creates a problem in that Witness 8 reported hearing the scuffle itself... Did the scuffle go on for 4 minutes?) Edited December 2, 2012 by Scruit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Just released by the defense - obtained from the prosecution via discovery... Zimmerman claimed his nose was broken by Martin:I think this image helps the defense more than it helps the prosecution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) "I wanted him interrogated and investigated"That's called a "police state" and the USA isn't into doing that yet.Try some hard core country like North Korea.No, that's called protocol when there is evidence that you murdered someone...There should be an investigation, he should be questioned, then the answers to those questions should be investigated further...I'm happy that the jury will get to decide this. Edited December 3, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 No, that's called protocol when there is evidence that you murdered someone...There has been no evidence of murder released as of yet.Hint: Homicide <> Murder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 I'm happy that the jury will get to decide this.I am not happy that a man was indicted and arrested as a result of a public outcry, rather than based upon actual evidence of a crime. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 There has been no evidence of murder released as of yet.Hint: Homicide <> MurderUnlawful killing of 1 human by another...there is some evidence of that, it's up to a jury to decide if there is enough.hint: homicide can be evidence of murder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 3, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Unlawful killing of 1 human by another...there is some evidence of that, it's up to a jury to decide if there is enough.hint: homicide can be evidence of murder.So he was arrested because of the chance he "can be" guilty? Not Probable Cause?What evidence are you aware of that the killing was unlawful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) So he was arrested because of the chance he "can be" guilty? Not Probable Cause?What evidence are you aware of that the killing was unlawful?Killing another human being is unlawful by default.Didn't we already go over "self defense" being an "affirmative" defense for homicide?I.E. Yes I killed him/her, but I have proof that I did so to defend my own life, etc and so on....Now the burden of proof returns to the killer to defend his/her action that caused the death of another?I swear we've been through this...otherwise, what's to stop someone from randomly shooting individual people and saying "oh yeah, I was afraid for my life" or "they attacked me" Edited December 3, 2012 by magley64 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Killing another human being is unlawful by default.Didn't we already go over "self defense" being an "affirmative" defense for homicide?I.E. Yes I killed him/her, but I have proof that I did so to defend my own life, etc and so on....Now the burden of proof returns to the killer to defend his/her action that caused the death of another?I swear we've been through this...otherwise, what's to stop someone from randomly shooting individual people and saying "oh yeah, I was afraid for my life" or "they attacked me"so should any claimed self defense go straight to drawn out, costly trial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 so should any claimed self defense go straight to drawn out, costly trial?Most (if not all) that occur outside the killer's home (I'm all for castle doctrine)...Yes, especially in the cases where the person killed was apparently unarmed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbot Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Most (if not all) that occur outside the killer's home (I'm all for castle doctrine)...Yes, especially in the cases where the person killed was apparently unarmedwhat about circumstances, evidence, etc? does that count for nothing, even in those conditions you added? and outside the home, no matter what, or outside of any places protected by castle doctrine? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 No, that's called protocol when there is evidence that you murdered someone...There should be an investigation, he should be questioned, then the answers to those questions should be investigated further...I'm happy that the jury will get to decide this.Interrogation and investigation isn't for "making evidence".It's for working with the evidence that you already have.Without it, you use a grand jury.That's what a grand jury does. Determines if a crime has been committed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted December 3, 2012 Report Share Posted December 3, 2012 Scruit I can't rep you for post 815. I tried someone please help me out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 (edited) Killing another human being is unlawful by default.And we are all innocent until proven guilty. Generally, forcing someone to go through a trial when prosecution has no reasonable case is malicious prosecution. Don't forget we're talking about Florida here - the Stand Your Ground law grants prosecutorial immunity to those who can demonstrate that their actions are covered by the statute. I have no grounds to suspect that Z broke any laws leading up to the moment he was attacked by M. As such, the facts of the case made public so far ostensibly fall under SYG and appears it should have granted him immunity.Nobody in their right mind can continue to argue that M was not the physical agressor. Elbow jokes aside, nobody can argue that Z was legally required to give M a "sporting chance" by fighting him mano-a-mano.Until someone shows me where Z broke any laws in his initial encounter with M I will simply not accept that M acted reasonably in attacking Z. Further, given the information released so far, I have yet to see a shred of actual evidence that disproves anything that Z has said about the events.I get the argument that a jury should decide if a killing was self defense or not, but I would counter that the state regularly exercises prosecutorial discretion in choosing to NOT charge someone with a crime when the facts of the case could never result in a conviction from a jury. Edited December 4, 2012 by Scruit 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyler524 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Z`s hands were unmarked showing that he hadn't hit M. Maybe they should have checked his elbows too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted December 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 Z`s hands were unmarked showing that he hadn't hit M. Maybe they should have checked his elbows too Not that it matters. The Martin family long ago accepted that M attacked/punched/pinned Z, but they said the attack was justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReconRat Posted December 8, 2012 Report Share Posted December 8, 2012 Scruit I can't rep you for post 815. I tried someone please help me out.covered that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted April 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 Zombie thread wants to eat your brains...http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense/index.html?hpt=hp_t3Zimmerman is not pursing immunity under stand-your-ground. He's offering a simple self-defense claim. Jury trial to start June 10th.Stand-your-ground is irrelevant in this case. His claim is that he fired the fatal shot while he was pinned to the ground and being punched. Stand Your Ground removes the duty to flee, his claim is that he could not flee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 Zombie thread wants to eat your brains...http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense/index.html?hpt=hp_t3Zimmerman is not pursing immunity under stand-your-ground. He's offering a simple self-defense claim. Jury trial to start June 10th.Stand-your-ground is irrelevant in this case. His claim is that he fired the fatal shot while he was pinned to the ground and being punched. Stand Your Ground removes the duty to flee, his claim is that he could not flee.I'm confused. If SYG removes the duty to flee, then why not use it as your defense? Even if his contention is that he could not flee, at the very least he could use the provisions of SYG as a shield for the inevitable civil actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted April 30, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 I'm confused. If SYG removes the duty to flee, then why not use it as your defense? Even if his contention is that he could not flee, at the very least he could use the provisions of SYG as a shield for the inevitable civil actions.I suspect they'd rather get him a "not guilty" verdict than have him face the lifetime stigma of "getting off on a technicality" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheech Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 I suspect they'd rather get him a "not guilty" verdict than have him face the lifetime stigma of "getting off on a technicality"Either way it plays out, I don't see the "lifetime stigma" portion of things going away. At least with the SYG defense, he doesn't have to worry about the Martins' pulling a Goldman/OJ for the rest of his days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baptizo Posted April 30, 2013 Report Share Posted April 30, 2013 I suspect they'd rather get him a "not guilty" verdict than have him face the lifetime stigma of "getting off on a technicality"There isn't any shame in getting off on a technicality.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magley64 Posted May 1, 2013 Report Share Posted May 1, 2013 I'm confused. If SYG removes the duty to flee, then why not use it as your defense? Even if his contention is that he could not flee, at the very least he could use the provisions of SYG as a shield for the inevitable civil actions.Perhaps SYG is only a "criminal" defense and doesn't apply to civil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scruit Posted May 1, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2013 He would have civil immunity too, if he invoked it and it was accepted.I suspect he will make a full self defense claim in the criminal trial, then invoke SYG against any civil trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.