I don’t think you understand what Corey’s affidavit was about. She asked the judge to agree to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree without submitting “the whole truth” about WHY Zimmerman should be charged with 2nd degree.
Corey isn’t supposed to able to charge anyone with anything unless she submits evidence that such a crime was actually committed. She can’t charge you with car theft because you were caught speeding unless she can prove that the car was actually stolen.
And Zimmerman’s injuries play a key roll in this case. Especially under FLA law. Corey looks like she’s been around a long time and must understand that producing evidence that Zimmerman was a bloody mess would cause the judge to question why he was being charged with 2nd degree. Only by NOT producing evidence that Zimmerman had obviously been beaten could she hope to slide one past the judge.
Dershowitz, when asked, called her on it and she decided to throw her weight around. Too bad for her. She ended up looking like a political hack and if she does attempt to sue Harvard law, there will be 10,000 alumni lawyers volunteering their time just to clerk Harvard’s case. Including some from her own office.
Wow. I just read the affidavit for the first time. I knew that they were allowed to be persuasive and somewhat one sided, but this one absolutely leaves out pertinent facts. Would this be allowed:
What really happened: I am walking home and take a shortcut through a dark alley. A stranger emerges and hits me in the face stunning me. While I am down he proceeds to sodomize me with a tire iron. After he’s done, he unties me and says, “I’m done with you, you little bitch, now get out of here!” As he completes the job of untying me, I remember a pocket knife in my pocket which I then use to stab him to death.
In Florida, could the probably cause affidavit really read:
The perpetrator, against all common sense, entered a dark alley where he came upon another man. A struggle ensued and the perpetrator viciously stabbed the man to death.
Judge Kenneth M. Lester Jr. accepted Corey affidavit as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. (Ha-Ha.) Judge Jessica Recksiedler and Judge John D. Galluzzo both recused themselves when they realized that they had better things they would rather do. Lester was next in line.
According to joffelaw dot com -
(b) Nature of Indictment or Information. The indictment or information on which the defendant is to be tried shall be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.
Corey’s affidavit certainly did not contain the “essential facts” constituting the offense charged. Is that illegal, or more to the point, will another FLA judge find this to be illegal and toss the case out? Not likely.
Corey still has to prove 2nd degree and I think Zimmerman needs a new and better lawyer.
Ok, I haven’t read your Virginia case but so far Jackson does not seem to acquit Abel in your hypothetical. It upheld an inference that a murder was premeditated without direct evidence. I turned it over and over looking for your gotcha, but it plain sustains Abel’s conviction
From what you say about Ramsey, he didn’t testify. Our hypo involves a defendant who testified and whose testimony becomes damning if we are allowed to draw an inference that his placing himself by his testimony in a position where he should know who committed or was involved in the crime but instead gives a fanciful story, so that we can say he is guilty of the crime.
I have computer problems at work, and I’ve been busy tonight, so I will see if I can find a case sometime soon that illustrates what I say.
Like I said, I don’t think losing O’Mara’s services is such a bad idea. Zimmerman needs a lawyer who represents Zimmerman, not someone who seems more interested in going along with what Corey wants.
Just what was the deal with the two lawyers who “claimed” to represent Zimmerman? They never met Zimmerman. There doesn’t seem to have been any kind of legal agreement between them and Zimmerman. Did Zimmerman ask them some legal question and they just assumed they now represented Zimmerman? That whole thing was just weird.
I have posted links to all the calls. Where are your “calm voiced” links. I heard rapid breathing and a higher pitch. Post links as I already have. Post your calm voice.
What? How the fuck am I promoting violence when I say that pedestrians being stalked by cars and the driver gets out of the car and confronts the pedestrian and the pedestrian attacks and wins the pedestrian is a fucking hero promoting violence? The car stalker is almost always wrong and the pedestrian is almost always right. Violence is already on the table once the stalker exits the car. I’m just rooting for the right person to win.
And you have presented NO evidence that any violence other than Zimmerman killing Martin in his hyped up fantasy blood ever happened. I want to see black eyes. I want to see blood. Show me. I have already shown you there was no blood.
OK good. You have at least tried. This injury could have been easily faked, blood looks a little pink to me. But suppose it’s real. I didn’t see this in the earliest police video. And there is no eidence of the broken nose and black eyes.
But again, suppose it’s real, and it looks pretty fake to me, but it’s at least something. But the origonal question here was did Martin have a right to stand his ground? Why wouldn’t he? He was a guest of a resident at this complex. He was being stalked by a dude in a car. And these supposed back of the head injuries are totally consistent with what would happen if you bum rushed a dude who drew a gun on you.
But you gotta watch my vids. No blood on the back of his collar either. You may have good evidence and I am investigating this. It may somewhat alter my position.
But the OP was whether Martin had a right to stand his ground. If a car follows a pedestrian and the driver gets out, potential death situation.
It was in the police report and it’s been pointed out that a broken nose does not equal 4 quarts of blood.
Page 14 of 183 of the police report states: “when I arrived I observed George Zimmerman, in protective custody, which I know to be the head of the neighborhood watch. Zimmerman appeared to have a broken and bleeding nose and swelling of his face.”
ABC’s originally stole or paid for a stolen police station video. That video was not very clear. An enhanced version of the police station video showed marks on the back of Zimmerman’s head and a swollen nose, if his nose is compared to other pictures of Zimmerman.
When Zimmerman first appeared at the police station, he had already been treated by a Sanford FD EMT at the scene of the shooting. The blood appearing in the police pictures just released had been removed by the time Zimmerman exited the squad car in the police station garage.
If you were pinned on your back on the ground and were bleeding from inside the nares of your broken nose then where might the blood go? Gravity would drain it to the back of your throat. If you stood up before the nose bleeding clotted then a cop might note blood running from your nose.
If, however you were kneeling astride another person with the same bleeding nose then perhaps blood would drip onto that other person. Was Zimmerman’s blood found on Martin?
These all depend upon the angle of the head (how far back, or not, the head is tilted), amount of bleeding, etc…
Smallish head wounds still bleed a fair amount. Rain would only make that blood run more.
Police were on scene fairly quickly. They noted in their reports the presence of blood. How it got there very well may be a matter for the jury to decide.
OK, good points. I am going to do some more research and I might even conclude that Martin decided to fuck up Zimmerman’s shit. While I am very pro-Martin, I am amenable to evidence Thank you for actually trying to post evidence and make sound arguments.
But none of this addresses the OP’s question of whether Martin would have been justified in the beatdown under SYG. I think a pedestrian s always justified in going for the beatdown against a car stalker who gets out of the car.
As I said earlier, I have experienced the car stalk a few times. The talk out (they wanted me to blow them or drive me to a gay bar) worked. Other times I relied on the Hognose Snake defense, and one time when the Hognose failed I ran to a defensable location and armed myself with stakes from political signs. They gave up when I broke their fingers with my stakes as they climbed up to bash me. I lived only because they did not have a gun. Are you really saying that someone who followed me through a parking garage and down an alley had a right to shoot me because I broke his hand as he was trying to climb a wall to get me? You stalk in a car, you get out of your car, you got a beatdown coming to you. That’s SYG.
No, because the person trying to climb a wall to get you manifested, by his act, a threat to do imminent violence to you.
But that’s not what Zimmerman claims he did. Zimmerman claims he merely approached Martin to ask what Martin was doing.
That’s the difference.
Now, if Zimmerman is lying, and he approached Martin with gun drawn, or if he grabbed Martin’s arm to detain him, or told Martin if he moved, Zimmerman would kick his ass… if any of a dozen different things happened, then Zimmerman commits the crime first and is acting unlawfully.
