I knew sarcasm was a means to cover up sadness, disappointment or embarrassment - never figured it would be used to hide anger.
@Evil Economist
Would it make you feel better if we clearly stated Zimmerman was of mexican ancestry?
Maybe that will ease the pain.
Based on this new use of sarcasm I’ve just discovered, I conclude that you must be angry…
At this point we don’t have any evidence that Zimmerman has actually committed a crime. You seem determined to put Zimmerman in prison without evidence of a criminal act.
HUH???
And you seem determined to ignore any factor that shows that Zimmerman acted imprudently, which could indicate a criminal act that could result in criminal sanction.
The prosecutors still haven’t filed a response to Omara’s plea to the court asking the court for relief in obtaining evidence from a very laggardly prosecution. How long can this go on? The obvious way to get the poor quality black and white photo that they sent the defense is to run a new copy through the copier a dozen times. If that’s the case. isn’t that verging on misconduct?
I can’t tell if that is standard boilerplate defense objections, or if there might be something more going on.
I get the feeling the prosecution is stalling to keep up the pressure hoping Zimmerman will panic or run out of money and cop to a plea, and then they won’t have to go to trial.
It is possible the prosecution is stalling on stuff they were never going to use anyway. Maybe they realized that second-degree murder is too much of a stretch, and they are stalling and misdirecting before trying for manslaughter.
IANAL - how long before the trial can the prosecution change the charges? Absent a plea bargain, I mean.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, we have evidence that Zimmerman committed a crime – the crime of manslaughter.
I have previously laid out the elements of manslaughter and explained how a reasonable finder of fact could conclude that Zimmerman meets each and every one of those elements. I will be happy to do so again.
Now, we certainly don’t have a slam-dunk case. A reasonable finder of fact could also conclude he’s not guilty. But on the evidence we know about, a jury could convict and have that conviction sustained on appeal.
No, I don’t know the answer either.
This is why I don’t state that I find it highly unlikely these guys would overlooked a pair of bloody hands – because maybe they did, as you now concede.
I haven’t conceded that because I still think it’s unlikely they would overlook a pair of bloody hands.
Of course not…no evidence whatsoever.
This is all a conspiracy…it’s a lynch mob led by the “civil rights establishment” and politicians and prosecutors who want to remain in office.
It’s all about politics.
:rolleyes:
Damn even Bricker, who strikes me as a conservative fellow (nothing wrong with that;)) who says that there is evidence to send him away.
To hell with the dead body, ZImmerman’s actions, Zimmerman’s lies, etc.
There’s no evidence WHATSOEVER.
Really?
Seems like you’re a little late to the game…
Common practice. No one wants to go to trial–if that can be avoided, then all pains are usually taken to avoid it.
Of course waiting games are played. Bricker can chime in more since he would know oodles more as a former defense attorney.
The prosecution is definitely wondering why he hasn’t given up by now. The problem here is that you have a very stubborn defendant–very stubborn.
I wouldn’t be surprised if O’Mara has (privately of course) been asking him to take a plea.
You never want to roll the dice in court especially with a client like that–he has already opened up his mouth too much. You never know what a guy like this will say. He has already lied to the court. And a jury might reach a decision that he might not like…You just don’t know how these things will play out in court.
I wouldn’t allow him (if I were his lawyer) to open his mouth up anymore and say something that may incriminate him further.
Bottom line, if he takes a plea, he’s out in his late 30s, probably. Better to take that than risk not getting out until at least his early 50s.
Does SYG immunity also apply to a theoretical manslaughter charge, should the pre-trial hearing find in Zimmerman’s favour?
Also, there’s absolutely no reason for him to take a plea. There’s no chance he’ll be convicted of murder, so pleading guilty to manslaughter is foolish, as if that charge goes to trial, he may well be found not guilty.
Plus, if he’s actually innocent, he shouldn’t be expected to take a plea bargain under any circumstances.
No chance…yeah.
I think Zimmerman is firmly convinced of his own innocence, and has been from day one. That’s why he (foolishly) agreed to be interviewed, why he agreed to the reenactment, and I would bet why he won’t take a plea. He feels he didn’t do anything wrong, and not in a calculating “You can’t prove anything, copper” way but in a “it happened like I have been saying since day one” way.
That’s why he wasn’t even slightly flustered when the investigator suggested that the fight might have been videotaped by someone. Zimmerman said ‘I hope to God it was’ or words to that effect.
That’s why I don’t think he is lying, even in the parts not backed up by evidence. He feels no need to lie. His recollections are as mixed as might be expected after a traumatic incident, but there is no hint of calculated lying.
‘I saw a suspicious character. I followed him for a bit, but then I lost him. Then when I was waiting for the police, he came back and attacked me. I was in fear for my life, so I shot him.’ That’s his story, and he has stuck to it since the outset. And all the evidence backs him up.
Regards,
Shodan
Wow…we agree on something, but for different reasons.
I think he is also firmly convinced of his own innocence and that he did nothing wrong.
Lots of sociopaths feel that way too.
That’s why he was eerily ice cold calm after the incident happened–that even freaked out one of the EMT’s that responded.
A guy like that is a BITCH to have for a client, I bet…he marches to the beat of his own drummer.
Probably why his first two lawyers bailed out on him.
Probably why the cops weren’t surprised when this happened.
Probably why some of his relatives weren’t surprised.
Probably why some of his former co-workers weren’t surprised.
They all know what kind of person they are dealing with.
I am amazed that O’Mara has stuck with him this long–but oh well–EVERYONE deserves defense.
Is this from the FBI report? I’d really like to read about this.
Yes.
FSA 776.032 confers immunity from criminal prosecution, period. However, to prevail at this stage, the burden is on Zimmerman to show by preponderance of the evidence that he used deadly force because it was necessary prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony against himself.
But note: a great deal of time in this thread has been spent reminding people that in order to convict Zimmerman, evidence must be adduced against him. At that hearing, the shoe is on the other foot: the burden is on Zimmerman to prove his claim.
Yup.
Which is why I can’t understand why O’Mara would go for this…
I am putting myself in the shoes of a lawyer for Zimmerman and putting my personal feelings aside.
At no point would I allow this individual to say A WORD–if i could put a permanent zipper on his mouth, I would do so.
He cannot be allowed to speak.
Because what if he loses the SYG appeal (which I am guessing he will)? Then would the stuff he says there be entered in as evidence in a trial?
Or is the strategy to roll the dice with a SYG hearing then if that fails, cop a plea?
Really good question.
What he says in the SYG hearing may well be admissible at the trial, for impeachment purposes if he contradicts himself, but it would not be admissible on its own.
In other words, if his trial testimony is inconsistent with his hearing testimony, he can be impeached at trial by pointing out that he said something different at the hearing. But the prosecution cannot, at trial, read his hearing testimony into the record.
Whether he wins or loses the SYG hearing will depend entirely on the judge’s perception of him as truthful. There’s no question that his testimony can support a finding of justifiable use of deadly force – will the judge who hears it find it credible?