So what is gonna happen with the Neighborhood Watch shooting?

[thumping]

Originally Posted by Travis Waldher

Until facts start exchanging hands, the prosecution has the physical evidence that either backs up or works against zimmerman's story.

The defense has Zimmerman's side of the story.

As I said earlier, if the prosecution's story isn't strong they wouldn't have charged 2nd degree.

Of course, I could don some tinfoil. Prosecutor lady concludes that Zimmerman is in the clear, tells her superiors, they fear riots. So, she agrees to "fall on a sword" and bring him to trial that will find him not guilty, several months later after people cool off. She get's canned or quits due to public outcry and brought in to Obama's staff.



Don't recall anyone saying they had to be obeyed. BUT HE WAS A FUCKING DUMBASS FOR NOT TAKING THEIR ADVICE! Had he listened to them and heeded their advice, he wouldn't be in this situation now.

But... I know... you're part of the vigilante squad that feels you have the authorization and right to question anyone in your area that doesn't fit.

Wrong again....the prosecution can't hide evidence until court. The defense has a right to know every peace of evidence the prosecution has.

[DRM]

Originally Posted by 0ILBURNER

They threw the Murder2 charge out there to passify the masses that are calling for blood, there is no way they can convict him of that unless there is substantial evidence that has yet to be revealed.
I can see them angling for a plea down to manslaughter, it will be interesting to see his defense strategy.

I agree - and the fact that they let him go in the first place pretty much tells me they don't have some super secret magic-bullet evidence to roll out.

If I were his defense attorney, based on what I see now - I'd not be doing any bargaining and hold my ground that my client is not only innocent, but acted in self defense well within his rights.

[gipper]

Originally Posted by 0ILBURNER

They threw the Murder2 charge out there to passify the masses that are calling for blood, there is no way they can convict him of that unless there is substantial evidence that has yet to be revealed.
I can see them angling for a plea down to manslaughter, it will be interesting to see his defense strategy.

My strategy would be to say "okay, prove it", and then ask the jurors how plausible the prosecution's scenario was given the actual evidence.

Assuming there's no additional evidence, there should be an acquittal without much at all from the defense.

[Travis Waldher]

Originally Posted by rockota

please don't insert any facts when travis is trying to convict someone...

I'm not trying to convict anyone, my point this entire time is that there isn't enough information to know for sure what went down.

YOU guys are the ones convicting Martin of committing some action that warranted his death without even knowing for sure what happened or how it started.

Just because I point out that Zimmerman may have been in a frame of mind that doesn't match your perception of reality doesn't mean I believe it.

[DRM]

Originally Posted by gipper

He's cracked. He's in a daze and not listening to his attorneys. The first pair saw the warning signs and got out while they could. This guy may put himself in jail yet.

Probably - but I still think the previous lawyers *were* in touch with him, and DID get him steered in the right direction before they bailed. There is just no other reason for the lawyers to announce on TV they are quitting, unless that was orchestrated too.

BTW - I like the new lawyer from what I saw of him this morning... he's not in your face, and I think that is the image they need, someone firm but softer spoken to again portray the "average guy just trying to do right" image. Having your legal defense go on the offensive here is not the way to win hearts and minds.

[gipper]

Originally Posted by thumping

Wrong again....the prosecution can't hide evidence until court. The defense has a right to know every peace of evidence the prosecution has.

Technically you're right. But hiding/delaying production of evidence is a favorite pass time of prosecutors.

[Travis Waldher]

Originally Posted by thumping

Wrong again....the prosecution can't hide evidence until court. The defense has a right to know every peace of evidence the prosecution has.

Please point out where I said the prosecution could hide evidence from the defense until court.

Well... go ahead.

[gipper]

Originally Posted by DRM

Probably - but I still think the previous lawyers *were* in touch with him, and DID get him steered in the right direction before they bailed. There is just no other reason for the lawyers to announce on TV they are quitting, unless that was orchestrated too.

BTW - I like the new lawyer from what I saw of him this morning... he's not in your face, and I think that is the image they need, someone firm but softer spoken to again portray the "average guy just trying to do right" image. Having your legal defense go on the offensive here is not the way to win hearts and minds.

He's a better client manager for sure.

[thumping]

Originally Posted by Travis Waldher

Just as they have the right to tell you to fuck off. But you made it clear PAGES ago that Martin didn't have that right in Zimmerman's neighborhood. I'll paraphrase, said DRM, "If he would have just answered his questions this wouldn't have happened".



He was told during his pursuit they didn't need him to do that. From his 911 call, is that he agreed to meet the police at the mail boxes, then asked to have the responding call him so he could tell him where he is at.

Doesn't sound like someone waiting at mailboxes to me.

Please point out any fact anywhere that states Zimmerman even spoke to Martin...I'll be waiting.

[Travis Waldher]

Originally Posted by thumping

Please point out any fact anywhere that states Zimmerman even spoke to Martin...I'll be waiting.

I'm not the one that made that assertion pages back - your buddies in this thread did.

[thumping]

Originally Posted by Travis Waldher

Please point out where I said the prosecution could hide evidence from the defense until court.

Well... go ahead.

Sure as hell read that way to me.

Until facts start exchanging hands, the prosecution has the physical evidence that either backs up or works against zimmerman's story.

The defense has Zimmerman's side of the story.

As I said earlier, if the prosecution's story isn't strong they wouldn't have charged 2nd degree.

[thumping]

Originally Posted by Travis Waldher

I'm not the one that made that assertion pages back - your buddies in this thread did.

And you are running with it...no?

[rockota]

Originally Posted by Travis Waldher

I'm not trying to convict anyone, my point this entire time is that there isn't enough information to know for sure what went down.

YOU guys are the ones convicting Martin of committing some action that warranted his death without even knowing for sure what happened or how it started.

Just because I point out that Zimmerman may have been in a frame of mind that doesn't match your perception of reality doesn't mean I believe it.

That's an out right lie.

[JediJesus]

Originally Posted by gipper

My strategy would be to say "okay, prove it", and then ask the jurors how plausible the prosecution's scenario was given the actual evidence.

Assuming there's no additional evidence, there should be an acquittal without much at all from the defense.

Exactly. If they can't prove it beyond all reasonable doubt he walks without having to have a defense at all. Murder 2 is going to be beyond hard to prove with that 911 call, and the evidence so far.

[rockota]

Originally Posted by JediJesus

Exactly. If they can't prove it beyond all reasonable doubt he walks without having to have a defense at all. Murder 2 is going to be beyond hard to prove with that 911 call, and the evidence so far.

I predict a guilty charge... reversed on appeal.

[JediJesus]

Originally Posted by rockota

I predict a guilty charge... reversed on appeal.

I doubt it gets that far honestly, hopefully the defense calls for mistrial and never gets a conviction. The jury pool is obviously tainted with the media exposure. It'll go before the supreme court next year.

[Travis Waldher]

Originally Posted by thumping:14246234

Sure as hell read that way to me.

Until facts start exchanging hands, the prosecution has the physical evidence that either backs up or works against zimmerman's story.

The defense has Zimmerman's side of the story.

As I said earlier, if the prosecution's story isn't strong they wouldn't have charged 2nd degree.

Then you are allowing your prejudices cloud your judgement.

[rockota]

Originally Posted by Travis Waldher

Then you are allowing your prejudices cloud your judgement.

HOLY HELL!

[JediJesus]

Originally Posted by Travis Waldher

Then you are allowing your prejudices cloud your judgement.

Has he been arraigned? Submitted a plea? The prosecution doesn't have any info the defense doesn't have, the way you wrote that made it sound like they had something the defense didn't, hence "hiding" it. That's grounds for dismissal if they don't present the evidence before trial. Even "new" evidence if they don't give the defense adequate time to review and defend against.

[apeters89]

Originally Posted by Travis Waldher

He was told during his pursuit they didn't need him to do that. From his 911 call, is that he agreed to meet the police at the mail boxes, then asked to have the responding call him so he could tell him where he is at.

Doesn't sound like someone waiting at mailboxes to me.

From the rest of that call, he said (paraphrased) I'd rather not say outloud where I am going to be 'cause I don't know where he is at, he may be listening in.

[Roc Doc]

Originally Posted by DRM

I agree - and the fact that they let him go in the first place pretty much tells me they don't have some super secret magic-bullet evidence to roll out.

The FL Stand Your Ground law requires that the burden of proof be on the prosecution, so until they had enough evidence or had time to properly vet the evidence, they could not charge him. It seems to me that there was not a lot of opportunity for evidence to be generated, as the whole episode played out fairly quickly.

Nevada has a Stand Your Ground law as well, but the burden of proof is on the person invoking the self defense claim.

[Sue]

Originally Posted by apeters89

From the rest of that call, he said (paraphrased) I'd rather not say outloud where I am going to be 'cause I don't know where he is at, he may be listening in.

I keep wondering what is plan was if he did find Martin.


EDIT: Not that it really matters, just wondering what his intention was

[thumping]

Originally Posted by Travis Waldher

Then you are allowing your prejudices cloud your judgement.

Damn...I can't decide if you're just stupid or trolling.

[gipper]

Originally Posted by Roc Doc

The FL Stand Your Ground law requires that the burden of proof be on the prosecution, so until they had enough evidence or had time to properly vet the evidence, they could not charge him. It seems to me that there was not a lot of opportunity for evidence to be generated, as the whole episode played out fairly quickly.

Nevada has a Stand Your Ground law as well, but the burden of proof is on the person invoking the self defense claim.

No. They could "arrest", and actually did put him in cuffs in question. The obvious issue is that all of the initial evidence pointed to a good shoot. That's why he wasnt charged.

Same issue in Nevada, regardless of law. You'll be arrested and charged only if you're suspected of an actual crime.


That's just a legal garble you posted of a number of different issues. Arrest and charging is separate from burden of proof.

[gipper]

Originally Posted by Sue

I keep wondering what is plan was if he did find Martin.


EDIT: Not that it really matters, just wondering what his intention was

Give His interactions with the last few burglars, I'd guess he'd ask him what he was up to