Messages

Forum Index : Politics : Messages Page 4 of 6 «  2 3 4 5 6   »
Author: [Politics] Topic: Prosecutor denies interfering in Florida shooting case
J_Galt send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
J_Galt
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 381
Location:
#76
Posted: 4/4/2012 7:03:06 PM
I have to agree with #75

No malice aforethought
Posted using a mobile device.
quote
cashin
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
cashin
Participation Meter
All-Star
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 12519
Location:
#77
Posted: 4/4/2012 7:07:54 PM
After Z came up to him & they exchanged words, Martin probably tried to get away from him to go on home & Z grabbed &/or tried to hold him & that's when Trayvon popped him in the nose.
quote
bowlslit send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
bowlslit
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4235
Location: Greece
#78
Posted: 4/4/2012 7:10:01 PM

Thats why they have 1st degree murder, second degree murder etc.

Manslaughter is more of a reckless killing. Like a kid hot rodding around in his car and losing control.

Don't see how this case applies.

quote
J_Galt send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
J_Galt
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 381
Location:
#79
Posted: 4/4/2012 7:12:12 PM
Manslaughter is also if you go out to celebrate the new year, shoot a gun in the air, and the bullet comes down into a baby in a stroller
Posted using a mobile device.
quote
cashin
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
cashin
Participation Meter
All-Star
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 12519
Location:
#80
Posted: 4/4/2012 7:28:40 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by bowlslit:

Thats why they have 1st degree murder, second degree murder etc.

Manslaughter is more of a reckless killing. Like a kid hot rodding around in his car and losing control.

Don't see how this case applies.

Would be some degree of voluntary manslaughter. No prior intent to kill & in the heat/passion of the fight.

quote
MoneySRH
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
MoneySRH
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 7923
Location: Texas
#81
Posted: 4/4/2012 8:52:06 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by djbrow:

Snapping and killing someone IS manslaughter because it lacks the requisite intent and premeditation.

Of course,  given your vast experience/training in police work, investigations, firearms, psychology, criminal law and procedure, and ballistics, you already know this.

Since you are a lawyer djbrow. Tell me if this fits Zimmerman's psyche

1. Vigilantes will often try to be apart of a community watch
2. A history of violence
3. Vigilantes have a "wannabe" cop mindset as serial killers
4. Vigilantes stake out their target, stalk their victim, and engage is a whole lot of brooding and premeditation.
5. He rationalizes self-defense, social defense, and natural law



quote
J_Galt send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
J_Galt
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 381
Location:
#82
Posted: 4/4/2012 9:02:55 PM
@#81

it's dj is a lawyer, why would you expect him to know this?

I am thinking this is more along the lines and expertise of a criminal profiler or FBI behavioral sciences unit.

I personally disagree with every one you posted except maybe number 4.

from what I know and have read of vigilantes, they usually have a specific target that they feel have done them wrong, but they feel that justice has not been done
Posted using a mobile device.
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: 13567
Location: United States
#83
Posted: 4/4/2012 9:19:24 PM

J_Galt is correct. And I have no idea what the psyche of Zimmerman is. Nor Martin. I think that is really for the armchair QBs who weren't there. Realistically, based on their respective actions, the only thing that matters is what they knew at the time.

I also don't consider the actions of Z to be that of a vigilante, unless he perceived that he was a prior victim of Martin specifically.

What may be relevant at a civil trial or in the unlikely event of a criminal trial, is whether Zimmerman was a hothead, because one could argue as to him overreacting. You can expect there would be evidentiary arguments to that effect and I cannot tell you whether his past actions would be admissible or not.

Nothing regarding Martin's past would be admissible to any extent unless it was known by Zimmerman.

quote
J_Galt send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
J_Galt
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 381
Location:
#84
Posted: 4/4/2012 9:27:47 PM
@83

I made the point the other day of the relevance of Zs history as an alleged temper problem.

I am relatively confident that there would be pretrial motions to suppress any prosecutorial attempts to admit this as evidence
Posted using a mobile device.
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: 13567
Location: United States
#85
Posted: 4/4/2012 9:35:22 PM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by J_Galt:

@83

I made the point the other day of the relevance of Zs history as an alleged temper problem.

I am relatively confident that there would be pretrial motions to suppress any prosecutorial attempts to admit this as evidence

Well, you do waive much of this when you raise the issue of self-defense, which would require his testimony. Obviously, the defense would argue that the prosecution is trying to show he was acting in conformity therewith, but the prosecution would counter that it isn't used as susbtantive evidence as the case-in-chief but to rebut claims of self-defense.

My guess is in a criminal case, it comes in with a very limited instruction to the jury.

I would guess it would be come in completely in a civil proceeding.

quote
SarasotaSlim send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
SarasotaSlim
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 21856
Location: United States
#86
Posted: 4/4/2012 9:43:56 PM

MoneySRH,

Don't ask a lawyer ...

Ask dl36 ...he claims to be a psychotherapist,who observes and analyzes members thoughts & motives, in this forum,on a daily basis ..

Of cousre this might not transfer to analyzing Democrats like Zimmerman,due to the fact that Darryl ..has only shown the ability to evaluate righties.....

quote
depeche2 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
depeche2
Participation Meter
Legend
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 67006
Location: Illinois
#87
Posted: 4/4/2012 10:10:56 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by djbrow:

Well, you do waive much of this when you raise the issue of self-defense, which would require his testimony. Obviously, the defense would argue that the prosecution is trying to show he was acting in conformity therewith, but the prosecution would counter that it isn't used as susbtantive evidence as the case-in-chief but to rebut claims of self-defense.

My guess is in a criminal case, it comes in with a very limited instruction to the jury.

I would guess it would be come in completely in a civil proceeding.



This is why defense atty don't want to put the defendant on the stand.  If he testifies then it's pretty easy to get this stuff in.  After going through the episode the prosecutor just asks if he has a short temper.  Z says no.  Prosecutor says but isn't it true that you have punched so and so, etc etc.  It's pretty easy to open the door once he testifies.

Would self defense *require* his testimony?  I'm not sure that's true.  It would seem to make sense for it, but I'm not sure it would be required.
quote
MoneySRH
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
MoneySRH
Participation Meter
Captain
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 7923
Location: Texas
#88
Posted: 4/4/2012 10:32:46 PM
QUOTE Originally Posted by djbrow:

J_Galt is correct. And I have no idea what the psyche of Zimmerman is. Nor Martin. I think that is really for the armchair QBs who weren't there. Realistically, based on their respective actions, the only thing that matters is what they knew at the time.

I also don't consider the actions of Z to be that of a vigilante, unless he perceived that he was a prior victim of Martin specifically.

What may be relevant at a civil trial or in the unlikely event of a criminal trial, is whether Zimmerman was a hothead, because one could argue as to him overreacting. You can expect there would be evidentiary arguments to that effect and I cannot tell you whether his past actions would be admissible or not.

Nothing regarding Martin's past would be admissible to any extent unless it was known by Zimmerman.

The reason I asked you is I wanted to see if Martin's attorney can paint a picture of Zimmerman's mindset at the time of the killing. I always thought a man's behavior can be used against him. I had the impression that whichever lawyer tells the best story wins the case.
quote
J_Galt send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
J_Galt
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 381
Location:
#89
Posted: 4/4/2012 10:33:13 PM
I am guessing once the prosecution
rests, Zs attorney makes a motion for dismissal.

even if the motion is denied, why would Zs attorney have to put him on the stand?

if he does put him on the stand, can the cross examination include a question about a door that was not opened on direct?
Posted using a mobile device.
quote
J_Galt send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
J_Galt
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 381
Location:
#90
Posted: 4/4/2012 10:35:50 PM
@#88

In the criminal trial, Martin doesn't have an attorney there, the prosecution acts in behalf of Treyvon.

the rules of evidence are a lot more lax if it is a tort
Posted using a mobile device.
quote
SarasotaSlim send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
SarasotaSlim
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 21856
Location: United States
#91
Posted: 4/4/2012 10:36:15 PM
Stand Your Ground has been invoked at least 130 times since its passage in 2005...., In more than 70% of Stand Your Ground cases, it was used as self-defense in a fatality. In at least 50 cases, prosecutors declined to bring charges........
quote
J_Galt send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
J_Galt
Participation Meter
Banned
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 381
Location:
#92
Posted: 4/4/2012 10:41:20 PM
" I always thought a man's behavior can be used against him. "


I think the prosecution would have to build a foundation with admissible evidence.

I dont recall, and I could be wrong, but I think judge Ito did not allow OJs spousal abuse to be entered into evidence
Posted using a mobile device.
quote
bowlslit send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
bowlslit
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4235
Location: Greece
#93
Posted: 4/5/2012 1:52:51 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by cashin:

Would be some degree of voluntary manslaughter. No prior intent to kill & in the heat/passion of the fight.

The case I used as an example is voluntary manslaughter. He voluntarily drove the car recklessly and caused the car to get out of control.

My take is that it is not any form of voluntary manslaughter.

He didn't have the intent to kill even though he had the justification to do so. His intent was to stop the suspects actions of pounding his head into the sidewalk. The fact that his method of stopping the suspects actions ended up killing him, since he had justification is irrelevant.

In my oppinion you either have murder 2 or nothing. These deadly fights happen all the time on 'Another 48 Hours'. And they never persue the manslaughter bs.

Thre is overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman had been punched in the nose and had his head pounding in the pavement. Likely, Georges statements that Trayvon was verbally threatening him while on top of him will be admitted as well.

There is no evidence to suggest that Zimmermans account was wrong, other than some wack audio specialist using a faint scream as a sample to test.

Either Zimmerman had his gun out from the beginning or he didn't. If he did, Trayvon would have told his girl to call the cops while he still had her on the phone.

Since Trayvon didn't know the cops were on the way already, he was the more likely person to break the law and start the physical confrontation.

Zimmerman knew the cops would be there any minute and would more than likely try to be on his best behavior.

Zimmerman had been through the same ordeal 45 times before without violence and without gunshots. Trayvons physical confrontation changed that.

13 year old boy said he heard the one on the bottom screaming and Zimmerman had marks on the back of his head suggesting he was on the bottom and his story in fact accurate.

Usually the pussies that hit women are very hesitant to get physical with an equal combatant. Maybe DL can verify that. On the 911 call he sounded petrified about confronting Trayvon.

Only an idiot at this point would still be talking about him being a vigilante. How was he to know that Trayvon would start throwing down on him?

quote
bowlslit send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: 5Dimes |
bowlslit
Participation Meter
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4235
Location: Greece
#94
Posted: 4/5/2012 1:54:35 AM

#93 correction

first sentence involuntary not voluntary.

quote
SarasotaSlim send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
SarasotaSlim
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 21856
Location: United States
#95
Posted: 4/5/2012 2:11:14 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by bowlslit:

Usually the pussies that hit women are very hesitant to get physical with an equal combatant. Maybe DL can verify that. On the 911 call he sounded petrified about confronting Trayvon.

Bowlslit,

Darryl is not a shrink.....he runs a massgae parlor in Southern California specializing in acupuncture,yoga classes and deep rub massages...

He is claming,that he's a psychotherapist..break it down and what do you have ?      psycho-the-rapist..

quote
dl36 send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook | My Sportsbook: BetJamaica.com |
dl36
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 24461
Location: United States
#96
Posted: 4/5/2012 3:04:43 AM
It is extremely creepy how the aliases/alias supporters are so obsessed with me...


I wonder what I have must have done to get them talking about me so much

Covers knows


quote
cashin
RSI Wagerline RSI Rating
send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
cashin
Participation Meter
All-Star
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 12519
Location:
#97
Posted: 4/5/2012 3:13:13 AM
QUOTE Originally Posted by bowlslit:

The case I used as an example is voluntary manslaughter. He voluntarily drove the car recklessly and caused the car to get out of control.

My take is that it is not any form of voluntary manslaughter.

He didn't have the intent to kill even though he had the justification to do so. His intent was to stop the suspects actions of pounding his head into the sidewalk. The fact that his method of stopping the suspects actions ended up killing him, since he had justification is irrelevant.

In my oppinion you either have murder 2 or nothing. These deadly fights happen all the time on 'Another 48 Hours'. And they never persue the manslaughter bs.

Thre is overwhelming evidence that Zimmerman had been punched in the nose and had his head pounding in the pavement. Likely, Georges statements that Trayvon was verbally threatening him while on top of him will be admitted as well.

There is no evidence to suggest that Zimmermans account was wrong, other than some wack audio specialist using a faint scream as a sample to test.

Either Zimmerman had his gun out from the beginning or he didn't. If he did, Trayvon would have told his girl to call the cops while he still had her on the phone.

Since Trayvon didn't know the cops were on the way already, he was the more likely person to break the law and start the physical confrontation.

Zimmerman knew the cops would be there any minute and would more than likely try to be on his best behavior.

Zimmerman had been through the same ordeal 45 times before without violence and without gunshots. Trayvons physical confrontation changed that.

13 year old boy said he heard the one on the bottom screaming and Zimmerman had marks on the back of his head suggesting he was on the bottom and his story in fact accurate.

Usually the pussies that hit women are very hesitant to get physical with an equal combatant. Maybe DL can verify that. On the 911 call he sounded petrified about confronting Trayvon.

Only an idiot at this point would still be talking about him being a vigilante. How was he to know that Trayvon would start throwing down on him?

First of all, I've never thought this was a case about racism (don't know Z so I can't say if he's personally a racist or not) or that Z was a pure vigilante - overzealous watchman is a probably better way to put it. And I hate all the bs that Al, Jesse & their sort have stirred up along with some of the media but it is understandable & was to be expected.

Have just looked at it from what we know & has been reported and alot of Z's account just doesn't make sense.Especially if you believe the girfriend's account of their call (& we know the call occurred) along with considering why would Trayvon who's visiting his Dad, just go up to Z unprovoked & start attacking him & pounding his head against the concrete when he's just a few houses down from his father's & Z had turned away & was leaving?

And I'm not saying Martin was any kind of angel either, but that flat out defies logic. If it can be determined who the screams for help are coming from, that would be the most telling thing of all & right now, I'd say it was Martin. Based mostly on the voice experts opinion, but if & when it goes to court no telling how well that would stand up. Would be alot stronger if they can get a match with Trayvon's voice. Think they'll charge him & then it turns into a 3 ring legal & natl media circus -   

 

I

 

quote
SarasotaSlim send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
SarasotaSlim
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 21856
Location: United States
#98
Posted: 4/5/2012 3:59:16 AM

Cashin,

You do know that one of the experts that is claiming voice recognition is Ed Primeau he doesn't believe in the other expert Tom Owens Biomettics Analysis..,

Ed simply listened to the recording .Then decided the noises for helps were Trayvon Martins,because of the tone of the voice.. he is saying the voice is a dead give away ..."That's a young man screaming"s ...

Zimmermans brother who was on TV had a soft spoken high pitched voice ( like Mikael or Jamaine Jackson ) and he said George's voice sounded like his ...Trayvon wasn't a little boy 6" plus hisvoice could have sounded like a grown man.. Primeau doesn't know what Trayvon voice sounded like ..

..and Tom Owens's biometric software he used to compare Zimmermans voice ...is one he invented and developed less than a month ago ..Easy Voice Biometrics and he selling it on a website for a $4,995 license fee....sounds like a conflict of interest..to promote his product...imo

quote
be easy send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
be easy
Participation Meter
MVP
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 15415
Location: Pennsylvania
#99
Posted: 4/5/2012 5:33:04 AM
Whatever happened to, innocent until proven guilty?
quote
SarasotaSlim send a private message View Space | Blog | Friends | Playbook |
SarasotaSlim
Participation Meter
Hall of Fame
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 21856
Location: United States
#100
Posted: 4/5/2012 7:33:38 AM
QUOTE

Originally Posted by be easy:

Whatever happened to, innocent until proven guilty?

Don't you remember Rev.Joesph Lowery's speech at Obama's inauguration as first black U.S. president.. it set the tone ? 

“We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right"

I guess some people feel he's guilty until proven innocent,because white ain't embracing what is right ..

quote
Forum Index : Politics : Messages Page 4 of 6 «  2 3 4 5 6   »
You have entered the forum as a GUEST. 
You must login/register to post or reply.