Frame it and hang it on the wall. We’ve all dealt with these pompous, self-righteous, self-appointed guardian types. Most of us, however, walk away from the encounters.
During a routine prison cell examination, the guards found a rough draft of the true crime novel, “The Joy of Murdering Black Teenagers, That Sort of Thing is my Bag, Baby,” by George Zimmerman.
Just because the defense knows it and the prosecution knows it, doesn’t mean the public knows it. There’s still plenty of time for a bombshell. And I think all along we’ve known that the only real bombshell can come from Zimmerman screwing up at some point after his arrest.
Much of that is a matter of public record so if its in discovery the press knows it. Such rules change between states and the judge can limit it (see the Aaron Hernadez gag order). But I would be very surprised that there will be any bombshells. Anything beyond something like the cracker comment. And then that can be rebutted as being inconsistent with previous statements.
That’s true. There might be something we don’t know. I would think there has to be after the Dee Dee train-wreck which they had to be aware of ahead of time. But the Prosecution didn’t list anything conceptually different then what the previous prosecutor had. If they have something useful it should have surfaced in some form with the details left out.
Bricker has expressed his certainty that the prosecution must have something explosive like that, or they would not have filed the indictment.
The publicly available evidence doesn’t prove murder, IMO, and never has. Even manslaughter is a stretch. This thread’s poll says that only 20% of dopers think there’ll be a conviction. I’d like to see Zimmerman convicted of something, but it’s never seemed likely. All of this high-fiving each other about how weak the witnesses are seems silly, because they’ve always been weak. I think Bricker said a while back that the state was either guilty of some sort of misconduct by bringing murder charges, or they had some killer evidence that we didn’t know about. There’s still a chance that there’s unknown evidence, and I don’t think anyone thought it would come in the form of a surprise eyewitness or DD suddenly remembering that she heard Zimmerman’s voice say “I’m going to murder you in the 2nd degree now.” Instead, if the damning evidence exists it’s going to be in the form of statements Zimmerman has made to someone, at some point, that amount to either a confession or are inconsistent enough to cast doubt on his self defense story. If he kept his mouth shut over the past 16 months he’s probably fine, but that’s a big if.
One of our lawyers has stated that once the trial has begun, the charges can’t be unilaterally modified.
So I’m sure any attempt to bring up manslaughter now would be met with a resounding HELL NAW from the Zimmerman table.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d be saying that the prosecutors deliberately overcharged the indictment to ensure acquital.
I was wondering the same thing at the time of indictment. They needed a show trial to quell public outrage and couldn’t risk having it go down in flames with a Grand Jury so they by-passed it.
…filed the information.
Prosecutors fill an information. Grand juries hand down indictments.
…filed the “affidavit of probable cause” rather. And in this case there was no grand jury handing down the indictment.
This, IMO, is the driving force behind a lot of the opinion against him. There is a refusal to connect the dots and a dissatisfaction with conceal/carry.
Bricker made a case for manslaughter based on Zimmerman leaving the truck with his gun. His premise, if remember it, is that Zimmerman should have been aware of the possibility of confrontation and therefore tried harder to avoid it while carrying a gun. I don’t mean to speak for Bricker but that’s where the manslaughter charge might come in.
I think that would have been valid had there been more evidence that Zimmerman tried to hunt him down versus try to spot him. He stayed in his truck when confronted the first time and stopped running per the suggestion of the dispatcher. He also appears to have stayed on the upper T which makes tactical sense in this respect. He has a commanding view of the back of the houses and also of the police as they drive up to his truck.
I don’t have a clue how manslaughter under the above conditions conflict with conceal/carry laws or stand your ground laws. They seem to specifically allow for people to move freely through society without a duty to retreat which in itself is a vague concept unless specific threats are made.
If you mean me… that’s not exactly what I said. I said the prosecution can move to amend the indictment, and the judge must assess the prejudice the defense will experience as a result. It depends on what the defense can show their theory of the case was.
The example I gave was: suppose the defense says, “Look, we were prepared to concede all the elements of manslaughter and argue to the jury that there was no malice, hatred, or ill-will proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” That would obviously create a great prejudice for the defense.
If the defense said, “We were contesting each and every element of the crime, balls to the wall,” then the judge might say, “Well, in that case you would be doing exactly the same moves at trial prep even if manslaughter had been charged from the beginning,” and she might permit the amendment.
I disagree with Bricker (might be the first time for that in a legal thread). Way back in the first thread the original question was, why would the prosecutor decide not to charge? This was before the case got any traction out of Florida. I said that from real world experience that prosecutors won’t charge even when there is probable cause when they don’t think they will win. Trials are hard and expensive. That is what was happening in the beginning. Then it got political. They basically had to go forward. I think they have probable cause but not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Which was not a poll option but I picked the first one cause it was closest. I don’t think there will be a bombshell. They are going with the case they have and hoping for a good jury.
I changed it.
That’s the one. Probably I inadequately summarized it, but my point was that the prosecution can’t just decide to amend the charges and it be done. As you pointed out, the judge must be convinced, and at that point, it is no longer a single party’s decision.
Thank you.
Because he liked to fantasize that he was a pseudo-cop himself, and because he knew the cops tend to be the same variety of bigots themselves.
Of course; they want things like this to happen. The Heroic Avatar Of The Second Amendment killing one of the Filthy Black Subhumans. Fantasies about slaughtering the Black/Brown Criminal Horde is a prominent aspect of the gun fetishist movement. We’ve seen that from the beginning in this case with the constant attempts to portray the victim as a Scary Black Man, and therefore deserving of summary execution by that holiest of instruments, the Gun.
No, they wanted people of any skin colour to be able to defend themselves against attackers, again of any skin colour. The laws in question apply regardless of race.
Are you so ignorant of this case that you’ve failed to notice that Zimmerman is one of the “brown horde” you’re talking about?
I suspect it doesn’t matter what the verdict is. Unless Mr. Zimmerman has superhuman survival skills, a racist of one color or another will deliver their own justice, whether he is acquitted or imprisoned. We’ve got enough to go around.
You’re a telepath? :dubious:
It appears your getting desperate. Don’t you have any faith in the prosecutions case against GZ?