[QUOTE=Steophan]
Which is what the evidence currently in the public domain would suggest is the case, and where the minor inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s story might actually matter. They won’t matter at all at the trial.
[/QUOTE]
Of course they’ll matter. If these “minor” inconsistencies matter at a SYG hearing in which the defense is given an automatic advantage, then it’s stupid to say they won’t matter at trial. They’ll matter even moreso.
The main reason O’Mara would opt not to have a SYG hearing is because he’d have to put a pathologically lying blabber mouth on the witness stand who in all likelihood will say something self-incriminating that the prosecution could and will use against him in the inevitable event this goes to trial. To minimize this risk, O’Mara will likely do the smart thing and just save the face-palming for court. If I were him, I’d do the same thing. He knows his client is a bad bet.
But oddly enough, you and Terr keep putting your proverbial money on him. To figure out how much benefit of the doubt Zimmerman deserves, you should be asking yourself, if Zimmerman has such a strong case to such an extent that even a laymen could conclude his charges are groundless, why isn’t his defense attorney acting like it? In fact, why is his lawyer acting like the complete opposite?
No, they found headphones (I assume like you’d use to listen to an iPod or something) in his pockets.
*Earphones * were found ‘in close proximity to’ Martins’ body.
Which, of course also contradicts George’s re-enactment video, where he says he was punched near the tee in the sidewalk, but Martin’s body is found some 50 feet further down the path.
Because I’m not claiming Zimmerman has, or has not, got a case, strong or weak. I’m claiming that the state has no case. For fuck’s sake, you need to learn about burden of proof.
O’Mara won’t go for an SYG if they can’t meet the burden of proof required for that. This will have no bearing on the state’s burden of proof at trial. They are two separate events, with separate cases being made.
That was one story that went around. I actually believed it, but the latest story is that Tracy Martin found her number in the cell phone bills and contacted her. Her statements to Crump were a few days later.
I supposed Crump might have coached DeeDee some, but it a stretch that he would try to suborn perjury with DeeDee as his co-conspirator. I listened to her statements and I doubt that anyone who could actually pass the bar would trust her.
Coaching seems quite common. The attorney will paraphrase what the witness said back to them, but then the meaning will be altered slightly.
You can actually hear some coaching when de la Rionda questions DeeDee.
I suspect that O’Mara has got investigators talking to DeeDee acquaintances to find out what she said to them before she talked to Crump.
You have that backward. The defense has the advantage at trial. During a SYG hearing the defense has a much higher standard of preponderance of evidence. The SYG hearing is like a civil trial without a jury.
The advantage to the defense in a SYG hearing is that they can’t lose. If the judge rules against them, then they just go to trial.
Yes - Crump found out about DeeDee a few days after the incident, probably from Tracy Martin. But the question is why did he sit on this information for three weeks before telling the police?
So Deedee is dishonest? Quick boys, it’s time for a new “lying whore” thread.
For those not blinded by gun-nut ideology or plain old racial animosity, the most logical explanation is that Zimmerman attempted to apprehend/detain Martin. Simple. All the twisted pretzel logic the Zimmies keep trying to sell can never trump the obvious.
Most people are smarter than Zimmerman, but that doesn’t make him a murderer.
I have no ‘history of violence’ either but that doesn’t mean I didn’t get into fights when I was Zimmerman’s age. Actually the last time I got into a fight was when I was 18. I knew a lot of guys that got into fights when I was in high school, but none caused the police to show up and I’m not sure any even came to the attention of the principal.
On the other stuff it is up to you to explain why he wasn’t at Green’s house in front of the TV set.
I suspect O’Mara has investigators going though Trayvon’s background with a find tooth comb. I suspect they will some ‘history of violence’.
Good point. One of the porches on the east side would be more consistent with Zimmerman’s statement that Martin approached him from behind. I guess I focused on John’s porch since Martin died by it.
We now know that you wouldn’t lie to protect the memory of a loved one unless there is something in it for you. She tried to keep silent, but Crump found her and she had to say something.
YOU asked for a scenario and all you did is abuse me without addressing a single point I made. You apparently think that histrionics is a substitute for reasoned argument.
Most people are smarter than Zimmerman, but that doesn’t make him a murderer.
I have no ‘history of violence’ either but that doesn’t mean I didn’t get into fights when I was Zimmerman’s age. Actually the last time I got into a fight was when I was 18. I knew a lot of guys that got into fights when I was in high school, but none caused the police to show up and I’m not sure any even came to the attention of the principal.
On the other stuff it is up to you to explain why he wasn’t at Green’s house in front of the TV set.
I suspect O’Mara has investigators going though Trayvon’s background with a find tooth comb. I suspect they will some ‘history of violence’.
Good point. One of the porches on the east side would be more consistent with Zimmerman’s statement that Martin approached him from behind. I guess I focused on John’s porch since Martin died by it.
We now know that you wouldn’t lie to protect the memory of a loved one unless there is something in it for you. She tried to keep silent, but Crump found her and she had to say something.
YOU asked for a scenario and all you did is abuse me without addressing a single point I made. You apparently think that histrionics is a substitute for reasoned argument. If you want to discuss this rationally that is fine, but if you want to abuse people that respond to your questions then this discussion is over.
How about you learn to spot the ridiculous implications of your own assertions before you lecture me on what I need to learn?
If the State has no case, like you emphatically insist they do, then the defense should have zero problem at a SYG hearing. The State’s burden of proof is so high relative to the defense’s that he’d easily be granted immunity if the prosecution had a weak case. So if you really believe the State has no case, you should be all in favor of a SYG hearing. That would be the best bet Zimmerman has of walking. Hello? That’s why the law is so controversial in the first place.
Admitting that Zimmerman won’t win a SYG hearing means you don’t even think the defense could win in court even if the burden of proof is increased for the prosecution. I can’t think of a more damning position than that, and this is your position. That I’m having to gently point this out to you only underscores the lack of intellectual rigor required to subscribe to your viewpoint.
You’re basically saying that in a contest between Zimmerman and an empty chair, the empty chair will win. If O’Mara can’t meet the burden of proof required for an SYG hearing, then he needs to abandon ship. It’s sinking fast.
“The day after his wake, Trayvon’s family attorney, Benjamin Crump, who had been conducting his own extensive investigation because cops had determined the shooting was in self defense, told Trayvon’s girlfriend she was the last person to talk to him,” a source close to the situation tells RadarOnline.com. “George had reviewed Trayvon’s cell phone bill and it was revealed that she was on the phone with him in the moments before Trayvan was shot.”
So Crump knew about it a few days after the incident. And told the police about it three weeks later.
It looks like our posts crossed. You used exactly the same source as I recalled. I suspect that DeeDee’s phone records are in discovery by now. If Crump was lying, then they defense would already know.
In a SYG hearing, the defense only has to provide a “preponderance” of evidence for its case. The prosecution’s only requirement is that they disprove the defense’s evidence; they don’t have to make a case for a specific crime. If the State can’t do that, then the defendant has immunity from trial.
In a criminal case involving an affirmative defense, the prosecution’s burden is beyond a reasonable doubt. But the defense still has to supply a preponderance of evidence.
So nothing really changes for the defense. The so-called advantage they’d have at trial is the same dadgum advantage they’d have at an immunity hearing. All that changes is the prosecution’s burden.
As was touted over and over again in the early days of this case, the defendant’s statement alone constitutes a “preponderance of evidence” and as long as that is reasonably airtight, the defense has little to worry about. The prosecution actually has the hardest time at a SYG hearing, because they have to have evidence that directly contradicts the defense’s evidence.
If what you and Steophan are saying is true, people would have little reason to seek immunity under a SYG hearing. The law wouldn’t be derided like it is, if the defense truly had the disadvantage. I mean, that’s why Zimmerman supposedly wasn’t arrested until several weeks had passed. The State’s threshold for probable cause looked insummountable when interpreted through the lens of SYG. And you think this means the defense has the disadvantage? Okay, dude. Yeah.
To state it from the prosecution point of view. During the SYG hearing the prosecution has prove only 50% percent of their case. During the trial the prosecution has to prove 90% of their case.
To state if from the defense point of view they need 51% during the SYG hearing and only 10% during the trial.
Of course in real life, you can’t calculate the percentages,but it is easier to understand than the legal terms.
So you can see yourself at that age doing what you and Zimmerman accuse Martin of doing? If so, I guess it’s lucky for you that you didn’t have someone like Zimmerman around when you were young.
No, it’s really not, at all. The kid is dead, and you dismiss the only person who might know as a liar simply because her quite credible testimony is inconvenient to GZ’s “blame it all on the dead kid” narrative.
:dubious:
Thought so - no comment.
Say what now?
She didn’t “try to keep silent” she is a teenage child, living hundreds of miles away, who didn’t have all the details to know she was the last to talk to TM, and wouldn’t know what to do with the info, anyway.
But it is telling how you didn’t address the obviously difficult to explain issue that, if she *was *going to lie, she might have, you know, actually provided false evidence that would be much more incriminating. As her testimony stands, the part that’s most notable is how it is so different - and much more believable - than GZ’s version of the events and the dialog.
I asked for a step by step scenario describing actions and motivations. You basically just said “ditto” to whatever GZ has spewed, inconsistencies and all, you asserted that TM just all of a sudden turned into a homicidal maniac with no real provocation, and said “Nah-uh!” to DeeDee’s testimony.
I did expect better, but I didn’t abuse *you *at all - I abused your extremely weak argument. Come on, I did at least say you were much smarter than Zimmerman, didn’t I?
There is no affirmative defence, so no they don’t.
It’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about here. At trial, the defence has to prove nothing at all, they have to disprove the state’s case. At a hypothetical SYG hearing, they have to prove, to the standard of preponderance of evidence, that he is innocent. The state has to prove nothing.
Can the defence prove to that standard that Zimmerman did not attack Martin? Probably not. Can the state prove it beyond reasonable doubt, as they’d need to at trial? Absolutely not, based on the evidence we’ve seen.
How this works out, in practice, is that in Florida one is assumed to have the right to self defence, but has to prove the right to Stand Your Ground. Given the extra protection granted by SYG, that seems about right.
Tell that to Corey then, because she says otherwise.
Of course they have something to prove. What, you think O’Mara is going to let the State present it’s cadre of witness, its reams of exhibits, and its plethora of video and audio recordings…but not put up its own shit? Really?
The defense will attempt to show that Martin was killed for lawful reasons. That is what an affirmative defense is. Since it’s not a mystery that Martin was killed by Zimmerman, the only real question is whether it was lawful or not.
Disingenuous. All the defense has to do is provide a reasonably airtight story. The State has to disprove this story. Even if in theory, this means the defense has the burden of proof, in practice, the State has the uphill battle. It is only because Zimmerman concocted an unnecessarily elaborate narrative that the State has a good chance of winning in a SYG hearing.
Again, let me remind you that months ago when Zimmerman was still roaming the streets like a free man, everyone was shouting from the rooftops about how SYG made it difficult for him to be arrested. The SYG law was why everyone was so confident the charges against him would be dropped too. What you’re positing goes against all these earlier claims because you’re saying the defense has to prove something it wouldn’t have to prove at trial. That’s preposterous.
There is little to no disincentive for the defense to request a SYG hearing. Even if the prosecution’s case was strong, a SYG hearing would at least give the defense an opportunity to practice its arguments and see how it’s cards look on the table. Best case scenario, the defendant walks. So what does O’Mara really have to lose?
And the answer to that question is the trial. Putting Zimmerman on the stand in a immunity hearing will only increase the likelihood O’Mara will lose in court. This is a good indication he thinks the State’s case is strong. Not nonexistent, like you say.
Zimmerman saw a suspicious person and called the police. During the phone call he gave them directions to his car and agreed to meet them there. His motive was to direct them to Martin.
Martin’s motives are unclear. His girlfriend insists he was scared yet his actions indicate he did not go into his house despite losing Zimmerman and admitting he was next to the house. We know that he assaulted Zimmerman and the length and nature of the assault suggests malice.
Zimmerman was in close proximity to his car consistent with his story as well as his stated intent on the 911 call. He knew the police were en-route. Martin was well away from his house and was the first to initiate conversation. He did not know the police were en-route.
Since Zimmerman knew the police were en-route he would be inviting them to arrest him if he tried to detain Martin. Martin on the other hand didn’t know the police were en-route and his actions were not only contrary to avoidance they were the exact opposite. Based on the severity of his assault it is logical to conclude that he sought a confrontation with Zimmerman.
