Why hasn't the Neighborhood Watch shooter been arrested?

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Because as a matter of law, there is no authority for the proposition that following Martin was reckless. But there are some people, some people who may become jurors, who might conclude that it was.

As a matter of law, there is no "authority for the proposition" that dangling a baby from the edge of a balcony while drunk is reckless. But most people--even lawyers and judges, I'd imagine--would conclude such a thing is reckless. And this is perfectly appropriate, objections from defense attorneys notwithstanding.

[treis]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Can someone who is dismissing the fact of Z ignoring the 911 operator answer this:

Do you think that this fact will come up in trial?

Yes. This is the only prayer the prosecutor has. Her only hope is to use circumstantial evidence and innuendo to get the jury to assume that Zimmerman started the altercation, because there is no direct evidence to show that he did.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by treis

Yes. This is the only prayer the prosecutor has. Her only hope is to use circumstantial evidence and innuendo to get the jury to assume that Zimmerman started the altercation, because there is no direct evidence to show that he did.

Well, we don't know that. She may be sitting on some dynamite piece of evidence that has not been exposed in the press, like an eyewitness with night vision goggles that saw Zimmerman run up to Martin and knock him down with a punch while screaming "F**** n**** I will kill you!".

But if there is such evidence it will have to come out in discovery pretty soon. Although even if it does, I don't think we will necessarily hear it until the trial.

[steronz]

Originally Posted by treis

Yes. This is the only prayer the prosecutor has. Her only hope is to use circumstantial evidence and innuendo to get the jury to assume that Zimmerman started the altercation, because there is no direct evidence to show that he did.

How can you possibly say that when we don't know all the faaaaaaacccttss!?!?!?!?!

[Airbeck]

Terr,

You are the only one posting about that topic in this thread, ever? What part of this is unclear to you?

"Can someone who is dismissing the fact of Z ignoring the 911 operator answer this:"

I'm addressing that to you particularly? Is that how you see that? You are aware that you are not the only person posting in this thread right? Do you think every question posed in this thread is being posed directly, and only to you?

I asked a specific question to a general audience in this thread. You chose to reply by trying to trap me in a gotcha unrelated to my question. You lose. Everyone here can see this, so feel free to keep trying to twist this around, but don't think anyone is buying it.

You did manage to distract from my question though, which I'm guessing was your point the whole time anyway.

[treis]

Originally Posted by steronz

How can you possibly say that when we don't know all the faaaaaaacccttss!?!?!?!?!

I've said it a couple times before. If there's some sort of fantastic new piece of evidence that comes out, I'm willing to change my mind. Seems unlikely at this point, though.

[Airbeck]

nm

[Hbns]

Anybody else think the murder 2 charge is just leverage to get him to plead down to unintentional homicide or similar? Wrap this whole thing up without a circus of a trial and the potential problems that might arise if he were acquitted?

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by treis

Yes. This is the only prayer the prosecutor has. Her only hope is to use circumstantial evidence and innuendo to get the jury to assume that Zimmerman started the altercation, because there is no direct evidence to show that he did.

What if no wounds are noted in the EMT report? No broken nose or signs of a beaten head?

To me that would be pretty compelling evidence that "who started it" is a moot point. Any altercation that doesn't result in any signficant injuries is not an altercation that justifies shooting someone dead.

[steronz]

Originally Posted by Hbns

Anybody else think the murder 2 charge is just leverage to get him to plead down to unintentional homicide or similar? Wrap this whole thing up without a circus of a trial and the potential problems that might arise if he were acquitted?

Possibly, but I don't see that fitting in with Zimmerman's actions. Volunteering for a 5 hour interview without a lawyer present? Turning himself in quietly? Launching a website to ask for financial support?

These are the actions of someone convinced of their own innocence, IMO. If that was the prosecutor's intention, I think she'll be disappointed.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by treis

Yes. This is the only prayer the prosecutor has. Her only hope is to use circumstantial evidence and innuendo to get the jury to assume that Zimmerman started the altercation, because there is no direct evidence to show that he did.

You have examined the totality of the evidence available to her and were thus able to rule out what is not in her files?

[treis]

Originally Posted by you with the face

What if no wounds are noted in the EMT report? No broken nose or signs of a beaten head?

To me that would be pretty compelling evidence that "who started it" is a moot point. Any altercation that doesn't result in any signficant injuries is not an altercation that justifies shooting someone dead.

That seems very unlikely at this point. The police report notes injuries, and if there were none, it means the responding officers are actively conspiring to cover up a crime.

Even if there were no injuries, we still have a witness saying Martin was on top beating Zimmerman. That's a situation where defensive force is justified, IMHO.

[treis]

Originally Posted by PatriotX

You have examined the totality of the evidence available to her and were thus able to rule out what is not in her files?

I'll say it for the fourth or fifth time. If there is some fantastic piece of evidence that we aren't aware of, I am willing to change my mind. Given the media scrutiny and the plethora of leaks, that possibility seems very, very remote though.

I think it's noteworthy that "maybe there's something else!" seems to be a common refrain from the Zimmerman is guilty crowd. Doesn't show a whole lot of confidence in your position, IMHO.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by Hbns

Anybody else think the murder 2 charge is just leverage to get him to plead down to unintentional homicide or similar? Wrap this whole thing up without a circus of a trial and the potential problems that might arise if he were acquitted?

It's possible.
but ca't really tell at this point.

I think the SA can change her charges to something lesser if she chooses. So I don't think that it costs her so much that it prevents her from bluffing.

Originally Posted by you with the face

What if no wounds are noted in the EMT report? No broken nose or signs of a beaten head?

His nose looks less "broken" in recent pictures than in older ones. Not that it means anything.

Originally Posted by you with the face

To me that would be pretty compelling evidence that "who started it" is a moot point. Any altercation that doesn't result in any signficant injuries is not an altercation that justifies shooting someone dead.

I don't think there's anyway to get away from who started it.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by you with the face

What if no wounds are noted in the EMT report? No broken nose or signs of a beaten head?

To me that would be pretty compelling evidence that "who started it" is a moot point. Any altercation that doesn't result in any signficant injuries is not an altercation that justifies shooting someone dead.

Correction - Any altercation that doesn't contain the reasonable threat of serious injuries is not an altercation that justifies shooting someone dead.

That said, any evidence that Zimmerman wasn't injured casts doubt on his statement, and the police report.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

What if no wounds are noted in the EMT report? No broken nose or signs of a beaten head?

I agree that this is significant. I have long said the EMT report is a crucial piece of evidence. What did they find? What treatment did they provide? Was there bleeding? How much?

To me that would be pretty compelling evidence that "who started it" is a moot point. Any altercation that doesn't result in any signficant injuries is not an altercation that justifies shooting someone dead.

Maybe. In the context of what we know so far, I agree it's pretty compelling, but only insofar as it either supports or contradicts the story we believe Zimmerman told.

I can think of plenty of altercations that don't involve any injuries but still support shooting someone dead... its just that none of them fit at all with what we know of this one.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by treis

I'll say it for the fourth or fifth time. If there is some fantastic piece of evidence that we aren't aware of, I am willing to change my mind. Given the media scrutiny and the plethora of leaks, that possibility seems very, very remote though.

I think it's noteworthy that "maybe there's something else!" seems to be a common refrain from the Zimmerman is guilty crowd. Doesn't show a whole lot of confidence in your position, IMHO.

Just asking how you reached your conclusion that Obi Wan was "her only hope".

[Jack Batty]

Zimmerman's brother needs to shut up. He's doing the guy no favors.

He's been on the news going on about, "one more slam to the head, and I would feeding him applesauce for the rest of his life," and hyperbolic shit like that.

This morning, I saw him on some newscast where now he is claiming that Martin was sitting on Zimmerman's chest, covering his mouth and nose and he was just about to pass out when he shot Martin. If that's the case, how the hell did he manage to shout for help? And how did he get a gun out of his waistband to do the deed?

His brother, I'm sure, is looking out for his best interests, but he's fucking him over with every word that pours out of his mouth.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Jack Batty

Zimmerman's This morning, I saw him on some newscast where now he is claiming that Martin was sitting on Zimmerman's chest, covering his mouth and nose and he was just about to pass out when he shot Martin. If that's the case, how the hell did he manage to shout for help?

That is a very good point. I doubt the defense will make any claim about his mouth being covered in the moments immediately preceding the gunshot, as that would contradict the claim that Zimmerman was heard screaming in the 911 recording.

[treis]

Originally Posted by PatriotX

Just asking how you reached your conclusion that Obi Wan was "her only hope".

I think you're taking that a bit too literally. For example, she has the hope of God incorporating himself and testifying to what happened that night, or that aliens come down and provide their surveillance footage of that night. Those are just slightly less likely hopes than there being some damning evidence we don't know about.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by steronz

Possibly, but I don't see that fitting in with Zimmerman's actions. Volunteering for a 5 hour interview without a lawyer present? Turning himself in quietly? Launching a website to ask for financial support?

These are the actions of someone convinced of their own innocence, IMO. If that was the prosecutor's intention, I think she'll be disappointed.

I think we can stipulate that Zimmerman's actions don't show an overabundance of common sense for even an innocent man much less a guilty man. Whether Zimmerman thinks he is innocent is not relevant.

We don't really know what Corey's intent is. She may be planning on losing the self-defense hearing and then lambasting the judge and the SYG law. Prosecutors hate the law anyway, since it takes a lot of cases out of their hands that they could have exercised their discretion on before. Any law that takes power out the hands of prosecutors is not going to be popular with prosecutors. Meanwhile charging 2nd makes her look tough.

[YogSosoth]

Originally Posted by Bricker

However, now we have an experienced --if somewhat zealous -- prosecutor who has looked at all the evidence, and determined that she should charge second degree murder. And she reached this decision because she has access to all the evidence and understands what she needs to prove. It might be a bit of overcharging, but frankly that's a tactic of many prosecutors. Or it might be the perfect charge for the conduct that she believes happened that night.

What makes you think she's somewhat zealous?

[JoelUpchurch]

They say the formal arraignment hearing won't be until May 29th. Is that a long time? Does the discovery process begin before arraignment? I guess it would make sense to allow the defendant to peek at the evidence against him before he enters a plea.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/nat...osition=recent

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by YogSosoth

What makes you think she's somewhat zealous?

A number of factors. Her decision to charge a twelve-year-old as an adult with first-degree murder certainly suggests zealousness.

Press reports have also characterized her this way:

While Ms. Corey’s office cautioned that bypassing the grand jury should not be interpreted as an indication of how she would decide to handle the case, she is widely considered one of Florida’s most aggressive prosecutors. When she first ran for state attorney in 2008 , she joked that she was so tough on crime that she would throw her own mother in jail if she broke the law.

“I don’t play,” she said, “even when it’s people in my own family.”

This is not necessarily a bad thing, mind you. I've never heard any indication that she flouts the law, and many say she's unusually immune to political pressure.

But it is fair, in my view, to say she's zealous.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Because as a matter of law, there is no authority for the proposition that following Martin was reckless. But there are some people, some people who may become jurors, who might conclude that it was.

Originally Posted by you with the face

As a matter of law, there is no "authority for the proposition" that dangling a baby from the edge of a balcony while drunk is reckless. But most people--even lawyers and judges, I'd imagine--would conclude such a thing is reckless. And this is perfectly appropriate, objections from defense attorneys notwithstanding.

Pretty much my point all along – the jury decides if Zimmerman's actions were reckless. Actions are often unique to circumstances, that is why you put it to 12 peers to decide. I described several times why a jury could find that Zimmerman's actions were reckless and that Martin's actions, if he struck first, might be very reasonable.

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

That is a very good point. I doubt the defense will make any claim about his mouth being covered in the moments immediately preceding the gunshot, as that would contradict the claim that Zimmerman was heard screaming in the 911 recording.

Wasn't there an analysis of the voice by an expert who stated that it whoever it was it was not Zimmerman? Was that refuted? Although of course that might be used by the defendant as proof that Zimmerman's mouth was covered… But then, if Martin had that kind of control, why would he be screaming for help? (My opinion: Zimmerman had the gun out and visible to Martin for a while before he pulled the trigger. Long enough for Martin to be terrified that he was going to die. Which is why he sounds so desperate in the audiotape.)

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

I think we can stipulate that Zimmerman's actions don't show an overabundance of common sense for even an innocent man much less a guilty man.

Which is putting it mildly.

Whether Zimmerman thinks he is innocent is not relevant.

It is to the scenario presented that you were responding to.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Hbns

Anybody else think the murder 2 charge is just leverage to get him to plead down to unintentional homicide or similar? Wrap this whole thing up without a circus of a trial and the potential problems that might arise if he were acquitted?

I was thinking that too.

Originally Posted by treis

I'll say it for the fourth or fifth time. If there is some fantastic piece of evidence that we aren't aware of, I am willing to change my mind. Given the media scrutiny and the plethora of leaks, that possibility seems very, very remote though.

Maybe the prosecutor has some smoking gun, but unless she does, it seems to my non-lawyer mind that she will have an uphill battle proving murder. Maybe she is hoping for a jury made up of folks like some in this thread.

Hell, OJ got off, so I suppose anything is possible.

I find it difficult to believe that Zimmerman wasn't injured at all, and the police just wrote that he was in their report because he said so. So I doubt that will be the smoking gun. Another witness? Maybe, but then the defense can argue that the witness is unreliable because he or she waited until after the media storm got going to come forward (or change his or her story).

If I were Zimmerman and the incident went down like he says (apparently) it did, I wouldn't take a plea. Roll the dice.

I predict (with the confidence of ignorance) that it will wind up like Bernie Goetz - convict him of something stupid, just to throw some meat to the mob, but acquit him of the serious stuff.

Regards,
Shodan

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Wasn't there an analysis of the voice by an expert who stated that it whoever it was it was not Zimmerman? Was that refuted?

It was, by three other "experts".

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

As a matter of law, there is no "authority for the proposition" that dangling a baby from the edge of a balcony while drunk is reckless.

Sure there is. Ask Rudolfo Regalado, who got two years in prison for reckless endangerment in 1991 for doing just that.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Terr

It was, by three other "experts".

Have you got any links for that? The Google just confirms that two experts have said it was not Zimmerman.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Sure there is. Ask Rudolfo Regalado, who got two years in prison for reckless endangerment in 1991 for doing just that.

And before that? Precedents have to be set by someone...

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Have you got any links for that? The Google just confirms that two experts have said it was not Zimmerman.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/06/vo...rtin-911-tape/

Voice recognition experts who spoke to The Daily Caller questioned the methodology and conclusions of a voice-identification analysis published by the Orlando Sentinel on March 31.

Dr. James Wayman, a San Jose State University expert in the field of speech science, told The Daily Caller that he questions the grounds on which Owen based his analysis.

Wayman also said he would be willing to testify against the admissibility of Owen’s findings on the grounds that they don’t meet the criteria required for evidence in federal courts.

The problem, he said, is that the two voice samples were recorded in difficult acoustic conditions over different cell phones.

“Even if we were to have Mr. Zimmerman recreate the scream under identical conditions with the same cell phone,” Wayman explained, “it would be difficult to attribute the scream to him without a sample of a similar scream from Mr. Martin under the same conditions. This is clearly not possible.”

One voice authentication expert whose work is commercial in nature told TheDC that screaming, stress, and a recording’s audio quality can “wreak havoc” on voice biometric software and its ability to interpret data.

And speaking of Owen’s findings, another industry insider said that “a legitimate biometrics expert would likely refute the contentions” and suggests that these were “incendiary publicity plays.”

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Stoid

And before that? Precedents have to be set by someone...

Sure.

As you might imagine, there is (sadly) no dearth of baby-dangling incidents with which to rebut the claim that it's never been tested in the law. But of course somewhere there was a first such case, where a jury applied the general concept of recklessness to the conduct and reached a guilty verdict, and the appellate court agreed that this was sufficient evidence to sustain that verdict. And it's not hard, because in general adults have a duty of care to infants, and any behavior that risks an infant breaches that duty.

So, you ask, why couldn't this be such a seminal case?

The answer is that when the legislature authorizes a particular behavior, such as carrying a concealed weapon, and someone engages in that behavior in accordance with the legislature's authorization, it's difficult to claim that the behavior is per se reckless. We'd need to point to specific things that made it reckless; we can't say there was a general duty of care for Zimmerman to not confront a suspicious person. As long as he acted legally, we would have to lay out, with specificity, what was reckless about his actions.

Courts have found all sorts of behavior reckless when it endangers infants. Courts have NOT generally found behavior reckless when walking up and talking to people.

So before you can put Zimmerman's conduct into the reckless category, you have to know what he did.

What did he do? Specifically?

[Larry Mudd]

Originally Posted by treis

Even if there were no injuries, we still have a witness saying Martin was on top beating Zimmerman.

And another witness saying Zimmerman was on top, beating Martin.

"I saw two men on the ground, one on top of the other. I felt they were scuffling and I heard gunshots which to me were more like pops. [...] I don't know if was an echo but it definitely made more than one pop. After the larger man got off there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground facing down."

I wouldn't put inordinate weight on either one of these anonymous accounts. It will be interesting to see what makes it into sworn testimony.

[Locrian]

Originally Posted by Terr

It wasn't "the police" and they didn't "tell him not to engage".

Yes, the dispatcher, for the police. It's in the police report. Ergo, disobeyed law enforcement.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Larry Mudd

And another witness saying Zimmerman was on top, beating Martin.

The same witness said, explicitly, that he couldn't tell which man was on top. As in:

Anderson Cooper: "You say the shooter was on top?"
Witness: "I can't really say."

And the same witness said that he didn't see the moment when Zimmerman got up.

"I can't say I watched him get up, but in a couple of seconds or so he was walking towards where I was watching and I could see him a little bit clearer."

So it is pretty disingenuous to say that the witness said "Zimmerman was on top, beating Martin".

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Wasn't there an analysis of the voice by an expert who stated that it whoever it was it was not Zimmerman? Was that refuted? Although of course that might be used by the defendant as proof that Zimmerman's mouth was covered… But then, if Martin had that kind of control, why would he be screaming for help? (My opinion: Zimmerman had the gun out and visible to Martin for a while before he pulled the trigger. Long enough for Martin to be terrified that he was going to die. Which is why he sounds so desperate in the audiotape.)

Dr. James Wayman, a San Jose State University expert in the field of speech science, told The Daily Caller that he questions the grounds on which Owen based his analysis.

Wayman also said he would be willing to testify against the admissibility of Owen’s findings on the grounds that they don’t meet the criteria required for evidence in federal courts.

“There is no history of, or data on, the comparison of a questioned scream to a known speech sample,” Wayman said.

The problem, he said, is that the two voice samples were recorded in difficult acoustic conditions over different cell phones.

“Even if we were to have Mr. Zimmerman recreate the scream under identical conditions with the same cell phone,” Wayman explained, “it would be difficult to attribute the scream to him without a sample of a similar scream from Mr. Martin under the same conditions. This is clearly not possible.”

Reached for comment, Owen told TheDC that he has conducted his own study — “The Owen Study” — of more than 400 different pitches, screams, and voice disguises. The study is unpublished

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/06/vo...rtin-911-tape/

Whether Zimmerman thinks he is innocent is not relevant.

It is to the scenario presented that you were responding to.[/quote]

I was responding to steronz who said:

These are the actions of someone convinced of their own innocence, IMO.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Locrian

Yes, the dispatcher, for the police. It's in the police report. Ergo, disobeyed law enforcement.

A 911 dispatcher is not "law enforcement". And when someone says they don't need you to do something, and you do it, that's not "disobeying" it.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by steronz

In the real world, where words have colloquial meanings that are generally accepted and agreed upon, he called the cops and they told him not to follow. Can we drop this now?

In the real world, the one that matters in court, dispatchers are not cops and have no authority to dictate the actions of others.

I truly don't understand your argument beyond an emotional one. Unless a police officer answers and gives a direct lawful order it doesn't matter what was said.

[Normal Phase]

Oh, so the rebutting voice experts haven't even done any analysis, and they're still comfortable saying the ones who have are wrong. Oh.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Normal Phase

Oh, so the rebutting voice experts haven't even done any analysis, and they're still comfortable saying the ones who have are wrong. Oh.

Not quite -

Wayman also said he would be willing to testify against the admissibility of Owen’s findings on the grounds that they don’t meet the criteria required for evidence in federal courts.

“There is no history of, or data on, the comparison of a questioned scream to a known speech sample,” Wayman said.

Regards,
Shodan

[treis]

Originally Posted by Normal Phase

Oh, so the rebutting voice experts haven't even done any analysis, and they're still comfortable saying the ones who have are wrong. Oh.

They analysis these experts did doesn't even pass a basic smell test. People don't sound they same talking and screaming. All they showed was that they couldn't match Zimmerman's voice to the scream. The two explanations for that is (1) It's not Zimmerman screaming or (2) it is Zimmerman screaming and the test isn't sophisticated enough to make the match. (2) seems the much more probable explanation. I don't put any stock into their report unless they (1) match Martin's voice to the scream, or (2) conduct a rigorous investigation.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Normal Phase

Oh, so the rebutting voice experts haven't even done any analysis, and they're still comfortable saying the ones who have are wrong. Oh.

What they are saying is that Owen is claiming isn't even possible at the current state of the art. That goes from Wrong to "Not Even Wrong"

My personal opinion after carefully listening to the 911 and running frequency analysis on the screams is that there are two people screaming or one person that got kicked in the balls really hard.

These guys were screaming for 45 seconds before the shot and in some cases it was so loud it sounds like they were practically on the patio. Really you should download the wave file and form your own opinion.

[Locrian]

Originally Posted by Terr

A 911 dispatcher is not "law enforcement". And when someone says they don't need you to do something, and you do it, that's not "disobeying" it.

It will be mentioned by the prosecution over and over.

This is NOT the first time Georgie called the police to report suspicious teens. He calls about 40 times a month. It's part of his history and his background. He has a recognized relationship with the Sanford Police and dispatchers. He's probably been told not to engage before and followed the advice. This time he didn't and someone's dead.

This is a key point in this case whether you agree or not.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Locrian

This is a key point in this case whether you agree or not.

Bricker's legal opinion (and I agree) is that it has no legal relevance to the case. But whether it does or not, it should be reported accurately. As in "The 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman that they didn't need him to follow Martin.".

[Airbeck]

Still nitpicking huh Terr? Like it or not, this point will be raised in the trial, and its up to the jury to decide whether its relevant, not you or Bricker. So stop telling telling us it is irrelevant. What are you expecting, that noone will ever speak of it again? Its a fact of the case. Deal with it.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Still nitpicking huh Terr? Like it or not, this point will be raised in the trial

You don't know that. It could be disallowed by the judge.

[Airbeck]

Bricker also said that he believes that it will come up in trial. So how you do you interpret that as him saying that it has no legal relevance? Doesn't every piece of evidence introduced have legal relevance? Maybe to you it is irrelevant, but not to this trial it isn't. Not unless the jury decides that it is.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Terr

You don't know that. It could be disallowed by the judge.

And if it isn't, your conclusion is the judge is ignoring the law?

[Airbeck]

Ok, but on what grounds would it be disallowed? How would they prevent that information coming up unless they don't allow Zimmerman's 911 recording. Its right in the middle of that. Hard to say that his 911 call is irrelevant.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Bricker also said that he believes that it will come up in trial. So how you do you interpret that as him saying that it has no legal relevance?

As part of all the recordings of 911 calls, it probably will come up. If the judge finds that the "we don't need you to do that" mention is not relevant to the trial, he will instruct the jury to ignore that.