 sj |
||
|
||
BS: George Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 10 Jun 13 - 09:53 AM As a Floridian it distresses me that Zimmerman was given a CC permit and allowed to function as quasi police considering his own history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: YorkshireYankee Date: 10 Jun 13 - 11:12 AM I think everyone on this thread wants to see a FAIR trial. Where we differ seems to be on the odds of that occurring - and the best way to achieve it. It's true that many of us (including me) think it highly unlikely that Zimmerman is "not guilty". If we were in the jury, that would be a serious problem, as everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence... in court. gillymoor - absolutely! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Jun 13 - 11:32 AM I agree with Bobert's post of Date: 07 Jun 13 - 08:26 PM . All true. However, NONE of that leads to any less need for a fair trial, with the rights of the accused being followed. He may well be guilty- but if the trial is unfair, that is a bad thing EVEN IF HE IS CONVICTED. The Prosecution needs to be aboveboard and follow the rules. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:10 PM That's right, Beardy - you want a "fair trial - just so long as Zimmerman is exonerated. Gotcha. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:12 PM BULLSHIT, Greggie boy. I want a fair trial- YOU are the one who wants to lynch him, regardless of his guilt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: YorkshireYankee Date: 10 Jun 13 - 04:52 PM BB is right: "...if the trial is unfair, that is a bad thing EVEN IF HE (i.e. Zimmerman) IS CONVICTED." Perhaps we should all just leave it at that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Jack the Sailor Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:12 PM YY, I think that GF and BB just like calling each other names. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 10 Jun 13 - 08:51 PM At this point it doesn't much matter how the trial ends... Because this event is so polorized, one half of people (regardless of the evidence) will believe that Zimnmerman in guilty and the other half will believe the opposite... Too bad that the divide seems to follow the same divide as everything else in the country... Republicans = innocent... Dems = guilty... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: olddude Date: 10 Jun 13 - 09:07 PM Forget the politics, when you carry a firearm (I do) you need to take extra care to avoid such situations. You will be held accountable in the harshest of terms. If a police officer tells you wait in your car we are on it, the only time you could ignore that is if someone's life was immediately in danger (ie) he heard a scream or a cry for help. Ya can't be a lone ranger, you can and will be charged with murder. That being said, he is entitled to full disclosure of all evidence and nothing can be withheld that is the law .. But I do not feel a bit sorry for him. One person is dead and his life is ruined no matter how it turns out. Ya just can't do what he did or what is reported he did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 10 Jun 13 - 09:16 PM Exactly, Ol'ster... Same in martial arts... You will find that the baddest of bad asses in the dojo will do everything in their power to avoid a fight... People who have no real training with guns are very dangerous people... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Jack the Sailor Date: 11 Jun 13 - 12:06 AM 100% with you on that Dan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:56 AM No arguement at all, old dude, Bobert, and JtS - BUT HE STILL DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL. The prosecutor cannot withhold evidence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: catspaw49 Date: 11 Jun 13 - 08:19 AM Well Brucie I don't think anyone doesn't want him to have a fair trial but Dan's point has always been the only salient point. The stand your ground law should be disregarded when Zimmerman should never have been on THAT ground and hence had no ground to stand. The transcript of the 911 is clear. "We don't need you to do that."(follow Martin) Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Jun 13 - 08:22 AM And his lawyer has stated he is NOT using the "Stand your ground" law in defense. So????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Jun 13 - 09:27 AM Juicy Brucie - did you read what I linked to about "stand your ground"? There has been no prior hearing on "stand your ground" but it COULD still be raised at trial. Secondly - if, as I argue, the matter in question is not evidence and is not discoverable, then no evidence has been withheld. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 11 Jun 13 - 10:56 AM Dickie Bridgie, IT IS STILL NOT THE PROSECUTORS CALL. That is for the JUDGE to decide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST Date: 11 Jun 13 - 11:25 AM 1) Q: Is it evidence at all? A: If the judge so decides. 2) Prosecution is not allowed to keep anything from the defense. On occasion, prosecutors have been know to keep some stuff until a few days before the trial, but keep it too late so it doesn't allow the defense to modify or construct its argument and the judge will be seriously POed, if the judge is worth his salt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:37 PM Brucie and Jest - FFS go and READ the stuff I got from Cornell University (no less). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 11 Jun 13 - 05:35 PM They probably have read it, Richard - they just are incapable of comprehending it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:18 PM In the course of any investigation a prosecutor will come across information not related to the case and stuff that most definitely would not be considered as evidence... Does the defense attorney have a right to that information??? That is the question here... When it comes to the pics on Martin's phone, I haven't heard any credible reason why Zimmerman's attorney believes that: a. These pics are evidence of a crime committed later and not related to those pictures and... b. Why Zimmerman's attorney thinks they are... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:46 PM And when the judge agrees, so it will be, Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Jun 13 - 10:07 AM RICHARD BRIDGE---Assume the following: Zimmerman disregards the police request and follows Martin. At one point they confront each other. Some fighting starts and Martin gets the upper hand. Zimmerman takes out his gun and kills Martin. *Would murder be an overreach? *No one has reported hearing cries to "STOP" but only to help.If this results in a he said/she said type of thing, how would this play out? *I'm just curious as I still see a problem with Z following when told not to do so. You and I often disagree but I have always respected your knowledge as a lawyer. With what "seems" to be known at this point, where do you see this trial going? Thanks Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 12 Jun 13 - 10:22 AM Well, the UK does not have quite the same categories of unlawful killing as the USA so I'd have to do quite a bit of digging to form a view on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Jun 13 - 10:32 AM Fair enough Richard......Thanks Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:10 AM http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/did-potential-zimmerman-juror-lie-court-034710693.html Bobert, I gave you a scenario where the TEXTS would be significant, and you keep going on about the PHOTOS. BITH were withheld- Are you trying to get around the fact that I answered your question??? Or are you just being an asshole on general principles, as your racist friend Greggie is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:40 AM ""Well, the UK does not have quite the same categories of unlawful killing as the USA so I'd have to do quite a bit of digging to form a view on that."" Turning it on its head, would Zimmerman pass the test of "reasonable force" in an English court Richard? Not that this would have any bearing on US proceedings, but it is an indicator of the strength of any defence of using a weapon against an unarmed man. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 13 Jun 13 - 11:14 AM Calm down, Beardy - you're spraying spittle again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: olddude Date: 13 Jun 13 - 12:12 PM In all fairness he has the right to the cell phone info ... this is a murder trial so withholding any request would open up a reversal or new trial in the appellate courts just making it drag on and on. The smart thing to do is just give them the damn phone. I can't understand this f up stand your ground law. You have a duty to avoid such situations. I have a Martial arts master rank. I can't clobber someone for insulting me..even when I would like to :-) I would go to jail right now ..as I am bound to avoid such situations as Bobart said. He was carrying a firearm even more restrictive ... he was legally bound to avoid the situation as the police ordered him to stand down .. second degree murder is the right charge I think but I am no lawyer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Jun 13 - 12:15 PM No arguement at all, old dude. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 13 Jun 13 - 07:35 PM Please explain, ol'ster, how pics from weeks or even days before Martin was murdered is evidence in this case... I mean, if there was one with Martin holding up a sign saying he was going to whup Zimmerman's ass, yeah... Haven't heard that such a pic existed or that Martin even knew that Zimmerman existed... Where, exactly, is any evidence???\ Martin smoked pot??? Last I heard that smoking pot wasn't a capital offense... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: pdq Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:00 PM "...he was legally bound to avoid the situation as the police ordered him to stand down..." Zimmerman said he was following the suspect and the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that." First, that is a suggestion, not an order to "stand down". Second, it came from the dispatcher (not a cop) who has no authority to order a civilian to do anything. Besides, Zimmerman was the authorized neighborhood watchman at that time. "...I can't understand this f up stand your ground law. You have a duty to avoid such situations... The man who wrote the Stand Your Ground law says it does not apply in this case. The district attorney, all the lawyers involved in the case, and most of the national pundits say the Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with this case. Why do so many Mudcatters even bring it up? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:09 PM Come on, pdq... That is a ridiculous argument... Order v. suggestion, my butt... Look, dude... Zimmerman called the police... Not vice versa... The dispatcher told him to stay in his vehicle and that real police were being dispatched... Suggestion??? Get real, man... You are spinning faster than a top... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Jack the Sailor Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:29 PM " The district attorney, all the lawyers involved in the case, and most of the national pundits say the Stand Your Ground has nothing to do with this case. Why do so many Mudcatters even bring it up?" I don't know why they bring it up. I have guess. I'm pretty sure it was the excuse Sanford Law enforcement gave for not Prosecuting Zimmerman in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 14 Jun 13 - 12:25 AM The relevant UK law (as it seems to me) is discussed in part 4 of the Law Commission Report here - http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/lc290_Partial_Defences_to_Murder.pdf My first thought is that it would be impossible under UK law for Zimmerman's use of a firearm to have been "reasonable force" for the purposes of the law of self defence since it would have been impossible under UK law for Zimmerman's carriage and discharge of a firearm to ahve been lawful. My second thought is that if one ignores the firearm element the defence of self defence would only have been possible if Martin attacked Zimmerman rather than the other way round. This becomes somewhat convoluted in that (assuming that Martin did not intend to kill Zimmerman - possibly a large assumption) if Martin genuinely and reasonably apprehended an assault on him by Zimmerman (a belief that I would have thought eminently reasonable) he would have been entitled to use reasonable force to defend himself from that apprehended assault, and the known damage to Zimmerman (if caused by Martin, another possible issue) would seem to be within that level of force. But (and so it goes round) it seems inescapable that if Martin attacked Zimmerman ( believing it to be in self defence) it is hard to doubt that Zimmerman would be likely to believe that he was being assaulted - in which case he would be entitled himself to use reasonable force. So there are two pathways to Zimmerman being convicted of murder. First if it be found that he attacked Martin, I think he would be guilty of murder under English law. Second if it be found that he was attacked by Martin but then used excessive force, he would be guilty. I do not see how, under English law, the use of an unlawful firearm could be anything other than excessive force. Another issue of fact would be whether Martin was merely trying to get away when Zimmerman shot him. If so the English law is beyond doubt, Zimmerman would be guilty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: catspaw49 Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:38 AM Thank you Richard for the link and the analysis. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 08:23 AM TO REPEAT: Since Bobert continues... Bobert, I gave you a scenario where the TEXTS would be significant, and you keep going on about the PHOTOS. BOTH were withheld- Are you trying to get around the fact that I answered your question??? Or are you just being an asshole on general principles, as your racist friend Greggie is? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jun 13 - 08:29 AM No, bb, I am not "being an asshole" at all... That's projectionism on your part... Proclaiming that you have answered the question and actually having provided a reasonable answer are two different things... You are strong at proclamations but weak in logic or honesty... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:08 AM From the Guardian re Stand Your Ground Laws. I've read elsewhere that Zimmerman's defense may try to use SYG if the jury trial doesn't work out. Considering Martin's ethnicity it could be his ace in the hole in Florida, if they're allowed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:37 AM Bobert, YOU have never acknowledged, or discusses the strength of MY comment. Do I have to repeat it another time??? Have you forgotten it? Are you just ignoring anything you don't agree with? I gave you a sample text that WOULD HAVE BEEN EVIDENCE that could have been on the phone, and withheld by the prosecution - Yet you keep on about pictures? Why? YOUR posting as if I had not answered your request, WHICH I DID, is being an asshole. If you don't want to be considered an asshole, stop acting like one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:42 AM From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:10 AM And what IF a text that was kept from the defense was like this: "I'm gonna check out *** house, and see what I can take. And if anybody gets in my way, I'll beat the shit outta him." Sure want to be sure that the defense can't get anything like that- why , the lynching might not go as Bobert wants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:45 AM From: beardedbruce - PM Date: 05 Jun 13 - 09:33 AM Bobert, "Tell me, anyone, how a picture that trevon took of himself a month before is fucking "evidence"??????????????????????????????????????? Or shut the fuck up about withheld so-called "evidence"... Yes, beardedbruce... You brought this up... Use your wildest imagination on how these pics are relevant to the evidence in this case... " My posts: *IF* Bobert sees no reason to require the prosecution TO FOLLOW THE LAW in this case, I see no difference between him and those who lynch people they are "sure" ( from news reports) have committed some crime. Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:10 AM And what IF a text that was kept from the defense was like this: "I'm gonna check out *** house, and see what I can take. And if anybody gets in my way, I'll beat the shit outta him." Sure want to be sure that the defense can't get anything like that- why , the lynching might not go as Bobert wants. Such a text message MIGHT lead a reasonable jury to believe that Zimmerman was attacked, and that makes a difference, doesn't it? "He stalked the kid, the kid died, shot with his gun." OR "He followed a suspected burglar, was attacked by the suspect, and in fear of his life while having his head pounded into the cement, shot the suspect with his gun" Whether he showed good judgement in following the suspect I will not state- but THIS is as likely as any other scenario. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:51 AM Bobert, YOU are the one who is strong at proclamations but weak or entirely failing in logic or honesty... "That's projectionism on your part... Proclaiming that you have answered the question and actually having provided a reasonable answer are two different things..." You have NEVER addressed my response, except to say that it is not reasonable. Why, Can you even give a reason you reject it out of hand besides YOUR conviction that Zimmerman should be lynched to make up for past injustices of the system? You have never provided ANY reason that the evidence SHOULD be withheld from the Defense, yet continue to protest any statement that the prosecution needs to play by the law IN ORDER TO HAVE A FAIR TRAIL. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jun 13 - 10:06 AM Shear numbers of posts do not strengthen your arguments, bb... If you can't make a point with a single post then that points to nothing but spin and more spin... Guess better the first time, dude... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 10:13 AM Again, Bobert, you attack me and DO NOT DISCUSS the answer I gave to your question. As this is not the first time, I have to conclude that you agree it is reason enough to be evidence, and thus YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE for your continued discussion about "Pictures not being evidence " when the point is EVIDENCE BEING WITHHELD BY THE PROSECUTION. " Shear numbers of posts do not strengthen your arguments, bb... If you can't make a point with a single post then that points to nothing but spin and more spin... " And HOW MANY times are you going to bring up the non-relevant pictures? Sheer numbers of posts DO NOT strengthen your ( nonexistent) argument. If you can't make a point with a single post then that points to nothing but spin and more spin... As someone I used to have some respect for once said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:00 PM Tell ya' what, bruce... First of all, I don't read any posts by anyone who feels they have to SCREAM... Second of all, nor do most people... Thirdly, people who feel they have to SCREAM at people are rude, boorish and 99% wrong... When you can act like a sane person and quit with your rude SCREAMING then maybe I'll read your stuff... Until then. you are SCREAMING in the middle of the forest all by yourself... Bye until you quit with the insane SCREAMING... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:06 PM Bobert, In other words, you refuse to address the issue. As I said, you are acting like a real asshole. If you have a problem with my example of possible evidence, let me know why and what you disagree with- denying that I have given one makes you a liar. And people who have one set of rules for those they agree with, and a different set for those they disagree with are bigots, whether they like the term or not. If the rules you apply to others do not apply to yourself, you might as well tell me to go sit in the back of the bus, or use separate water fountains. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:08 PM Again, Bobert, you attack me and do not discuss the answer I gave to your question. As this is not the first time, I have to conclude that you agree it is reason enough to be evidence, and thus you are an asshole for your continued discussion about "Pictures not being evidence " when the point is *** Evidence being withheld by the Prosecution. *** " Shear numbers of posts do not strengthen your arguments, bb... If you can't make a point with a single post then that points to nothing but spin and more spin... " And how many times are you going to bring up the non-relevant pictures? Sheer numbers of posts do not strengthen your ( nonexistent) argument. If you can't make a point with a single post then that points to nothing but spin and more spin... As someone I used to have some respect for once said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:09 PM Wow... Two posts without a single episode... Good start... I'll read them later... Break time is over... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:10 PM Yassa, Bossman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:13 PM 200 |
