Messages

Forum Index : Politics : Messages
Author: [Politics] Topic: Zimmerman pre-trial hearing - told you to hold your horses
HutchEmAll send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
HutchEmAll
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 37170
Location: Minnesota
#1
Posted: 4/25/2012 7:48:13 PM

Probably cause hearing.  Chief Investigator was on the stand.  Zimmerman's attorney asked him one single question: "You don't really know how the altercation started, do you?"

Chief Investigator's answer:  "NO."

Isn't that interesting.  All the people who have already found him guilty or innocent and it's quite possible this won't even go to trial.

Just so folks know, there is only ONE witness as to how the altercation started....Zimmerman.  And under Florida law, if the defense can show based on a preponderance of the evidence (not even beyond reasonable doubt....this is the lowest burden possible) that Zimmerman believed he was in danger of losing his life or having great bodily harm caused, this thing is pretty much OVER. 

I pity the fools who wasted so much time and energy on this topic convinced they had it figured out.  I'm not even saying he's not guilty.  I'm saying the legal system is complicated and you have to let things play out (said that from the beginning).

This isn't a slam dunk, but it's looking like it might be an alley oop. 

Can't wait for Scal to weigh in on this one. 

quote
HutchEmAll send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
HutchEmAll
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 37170
Location: Minnesota
#2
Posted: 4/25/2012 11:05:40 PM

Is there one person who participated in the Zimmerman debate so far that mentioned there would be a probable cause hearing...and what the ramifications from that might be?

I certainly wasn't one.  If anyone did, please post a link to the thread where you did.  The rest of us might learn something. 

 

quote
dl36
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BetJamaica.com |
dl36
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 23542
Location: United States
#3
Posted: 4/25/2012 11:28:57 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:

Probably cause hearing.  Chief Investigator was on the stand.  Zimmerman's attorney asked him one single question: "You don't really know how the altercation started, do you?"

Chief Investigator's answer:  "NO."

Isn't that interesting.  All the people who have already found him guilty or innocent and it's quite possible this won't even go to trial.

Just so folks know, there is only ONE witness as to how the altercation started....Zimmerman.  And under Florida law, if the defense can show based on a preponderance of the evidence (not even beyond reasonable doubt....this is the lowest burden possible) that Zimmerman believed he was in danger of losing his life or having great bodily harm caused, this thing is pretty much OVER. 

I pity the fools who wasted so much time and energy on this topic convinced they had it figured out.  I'm not even saying he's not guilty.  I'm saying the legal system is complicated and you have to let things play out (said that from the beginning).

This isn't a slam dunk, but it's looking like it might be an alley oop. 

Can't wait for Scal to weigh in on this one. 



It is funny how people (some on this site) were not even there and yet seem so sure and opinionated on what happened... 

You see them here... the real wackos that are obsessed with this case that are posting compulsively on every little possible tidbit of info that might confirm their preconceived assumptions...

I am not black so it is hard for me to join in the african american outrage... but I am also not racist so it is hard for me to jump on the zimmerman bandwagon in the manner which the real wacko-nutjobs seem to have on this site...

I have always thought of this as simply a case that the judicial/court process will decide... I think that alot of posters on this site in their strong emotional stances on the issue have exposed themselves
quote
esplanade send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
esplanade
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 8514
Location:
#4
Posted: 4/26/2012 12:56:10 AM
No, but you are el stupido, suggesting that anyone that pointed out that TM wasn't the angelic looking kid in the early photos and that Zimmerman today hardly resembles the media posted picture, must be a racist. The mainstream media clearly rushed to judgement and tried its best to paint Zimmerman as a murderer.
quote
dl36
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BetJamaica.com |
dl36
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 23542
Location: United States
#5
Posted: 4/26/2012 1:37:15 AM
quote
TheGoldenGoose
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BookMaker |
TheGoldenGoose
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 20776
Location: United States
#6
Posted: 4/26/2012 2:06:42 AM

Who the hell cares HOW IT STARTED?

Isn't the question HOW DID IT END THAT WAY?


quote
be easy send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
be easy
Participation Meter
MVP
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15408
Location: Pennsylvania
#7
Posted: 4/26/2012 8:16:52 AM
I pity the fools who wasted so much time and energy on this topic

'you ain't gettin me on no plane!'

it's fairly obvious that most/many don't understand our systems, especially those that don't understand innocent until proven guilty
quote
14daroad send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
14daroad
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 9261
Location: Virginia
#8
Posted: 4/26/2012 8:25:18 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by 14daroad:

Per the statute:

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

First she has to prove that Zimmerman did not "reasonably believe" the shooting was necessary.

"The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree..."

Then she has to prove "depraved mind."

Without a suprise eyewitness, I don't see how she possibly gets a conviction.

Note, there will be multiple hearings over the next month. Zimmerman is charged with a non-bondable offense. So there will be an Arthur Hearing. 

At the Arthur Hearing, the State must prove the case to the judge by a standard known as "proof evident, presumption great."  The hearing, which is like a mini-trial, the State must present its evidence to show that proof of guilt is evident and the presumption of guilt is great.

This will be our first chance to get insight into the evidence the state collected. Should be in the 2nd week of May...

quote
HutchEmAll send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
HutchEmAll
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 37170
Location: Minnesota
#9
Posted: 4/26/2012 10:25:02 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose:


Who the hell cares HOW IT STARTED?

Isn't the question HOW DID IT END THAT WAY?



Not at all.  The way the law reads, Z's lawyer only has to show beyond a preponderance of the evidence that he thought his life was in danger or he risked great bodily harm.  You don't have to like it, but it's the way the law reads.  And since Z is the only one who can testify, don't you think it's pretty likely he's going to come up with a story (true or not) which will give the impression his life was in danger.  

"He reached into his pocket and yelled out, 'I'm going to kill you,' so I rushed him and we fell to the ground,"  yada, yada, yada.

IF the prosecution can't get past this, the case is dead.  Nothing that happened after the altercation matters any longer because under the law, Z would have the right to use deadly force.

All these so called experts here re. this case and it might get tossed out because no one except Z can testify as to how the altercation started.  

And this doesn't mean I think he's innocent at all. But if just goes to show, you can't do a half hour of research and think you understand criminal law in Florida.  


quote
kaponofor3 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
kaponofor3
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 34813
Location: California
#10
Posted: 4/26/2012 10:41:44 AM
Hutch, doesn't Z's lawyer need to show not only that his client had a subjective belief that his life was in danger/was in risk of great bodily harm, but also that objectively said belief was reasonable? It would seem to me that there would need to be both subjective/objective components of his belief of death or grave bodily injury.
quote
be easy send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
be easy
Participation Meter
MVP
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15408
Location: Pennsylvania
#11
Posted: 4/26/2012 11:13:41 AM
objectivity

oops, i meant

objectivity
quote
djbrow
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BookMaker |
djbrow
Participation Meter
Covers Linesmen
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12891
Location: United States
#12
Posted: 4/26/2012 12:01:29 PM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by kaponofor3:

Hutch, doesn't Z's lawyer need to show not only that his client had a subjective belief that his life was in danger/was in risk of great bodily harm, but also that objectively said belief was reasonable? It would seem to me that there would need to be both subjective/objective components of his belief of death or grave bodily injury.

That is exactly right.

Any self-defense claim is measured based on the subjective belief (taking into account the characteristics of the one claiming defense i.e. a 78 grandmother will have a different subjective belief of fear than a 30 year-old bodybuilder) measured against a reasonableness under the circumstances standard.

quote
HutchEmAll send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
HutchEmAll
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 37170
Location: Minnesota
#13
Posted: 4/26/2012 12:02:43 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by kaponofor3:

Hutch, doesn't Z's lawyer need to show not only that his client had a subjective belief that his life was in danger/was in risk of great bodily harm, but also that objectively said belief was reasonable? It would seem to me that there would need to be both subjective/objective components of his belief of death or grave bodily injury.

I don't think that is the case, but I am not positive.  An example of what you are saying might be Martin having a gun or a knife in his hand....correct?  I honestly think a story like I outlined above (ie. Z says that Martin told him he was going to kill him and reached into his pocket....Z rushed him....they fell to the ground....Martin got on top of Z and banged his head on the ground......Z pulls gun and shoots Martin) might be enough.  

But think about it.  If Z says Martin told him he was going to kill him.....and there is proof that Martin was on top of Z and that he hit his head on the pavement (maybe multiple times)....don't you think that would pass the "preponderance of evidence" test?  I really think it would.  

Like I said, I don't know for sure, but I think it passes the test the way the law is laid out (based on my limited knowledge of the law, of course  ). 

If this thing never gets to trial because of this, one can only wonder what the reaction would be.    


quote
14daroad send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
14daroad
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 9261
Location: Virginia
#14
Posted: 4/26/2012 12:24:22 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by djbrow:

That is exactly right.

Any self-defense claim is measured based on the subjective belief (taking into account the characteristics of the one claiming defense i.e. a 78 grandmother will have a different subjective belief of fear than a 30 year-old bodybuilder) measured against a reasonableness under the circumstances standard.

Specifically: Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, that doesn't mean that he has to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense.All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense.

Zimmerman cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.

quote
HutchEmAll send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
HutchEmAll
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 37170
Location: Minnesota
#15
Posted: 4/26/2012 12:49:36 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by be easy:

I pity the fools who wasted so much time and energy on this topic

'you ain't gettin me on no plane!'

it's fairly obvious that most/many don't understand our systems, especially those that don't understand innocent until proven guilty

Just ask Casey Anthony.  

Always be wary of any non-lawyer who claims to understand our legal system.  


quote
HutchEmAll send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
HutchEmAll
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 37170
Location: Minnesota
#16
Posted: 4/26/2012 12:51:34 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by 14daroad:

Specifically: Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, that doesn't mean that he has to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense.All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense.

Zimmerman cannot be convicted of murder or manslaughter unless the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act in self-defense.


He can't be convicted of manslaughter even if it goes to trial because the charge is murder.  And none of this means boo if it never even goes to trial.
quote
14daroad send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
14daroad
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 9261
Location: Virginia
#17
Posted: 4/26/2012 1:23:28 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:


He can't be convicted of manslaughter even if it goes to trial because the charge is murder.  And none of this means boo if it never even goes to trial.

He can indeed be convicted of manslaughter. That will be part of the instructions to the jury.

 

quote
AcerRubrum
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook |
AcerRubrum
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 2098
Location:
#18
Posted: 4/26/2012 1:29:20 PM
Always be wary of any non-lawyer who claims to understand our legal system.  

LOLOLOLOL   ...and pity the 'poor' lawyers that have to decipher the tomes of those laws that make up the legal system to even try and find justice


quote
djbrow
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BookMaker |
djbrow
Participation Meter
Covers Linesmen
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 12891
Location: United States
#19
Posted: 4/26/2012 1:40:41 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by 14daroad:

He can indeed be convicted of manslaughter. That will be part of the instructions to the jury.

 

Yep.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you think that George Zimmerman did not intend to cause the death of T. Martin, but acted in a rekless manner where he exhibited a conscious disregard for T. Martin's life, you must find Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter."

quote
Forum Index : Politics : Messages
You have entered the forum as a GUEST. 
You must login/register to post or reply.