Trayvon Martin - black kid armed with skittles killed in "self-defense"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

On this point I will say they included, as fact, something that did not occur.

In the sworn affidavit, the officers claim the dispatcher told Zimmerman to wait for officers.

Nowhere in the call Zimmerman made to police will you hear the dispatcher tell Zimmerman to wait. So, unless they're going to state there was a separate call in which this was said to Zimmerman, I'm at a loss to explain why they would include information known to be inaccurate.


One word, Nifong. Prosecutors lie. Prosecutors looking for a book or movie deal may just push the envelope. It didn't work out for Nifong but, hey, maybe this prosecutor thinks it's worth a shot.


Or worse. But, fact remains, they provide no probable cause -- in a probable cause affidavit -- to show Zimmerman started the confrontation.


I don't know, you explain it.


Being tangible doesn't make it fact.

Its quite simple how to explain it. She has all the information availbable to her. We do not.

And being not tangible prevents it from being fact. Get it. I am not going to take all the hearsay as fact like when you say:


We know Zimmerman was injured in a way consistent with what we are hearing he's claiming.

Anyway you are trying guilt by association on the prosecutor because of someone she has no relationship with so you can confirm your bias. Shame on you.

This has become asinine. I will wait for something meaningful to come out and I will reenter the discussion.

[Creepn]

Now we're going with the "prosecutors lie" route?? Lol is that how far yall are willing to go to defend this murderer?

[Yonivore]

I am not going to take all the hearsay as fact like when you say:


We know Zimmerman was injured in a way consistent with what we are hearing he's claiming.
What's not factual about that statement?

The injuries described in the police report are consistent with Zimmerman's claim (and, please note I correctly identify it as a claim not a fact) he was struck in the face and on his back on the ground and had the back of his head struck against something hard.

I believe it is a factual statement to say; the injuries described in the police report are consistent with what we've heard Zimmerman claim. I didn't take the assertion any further.

I'm not saying that's how the injuries occurred; just that the described injuries are consistent with the story.

[ChumpDumper]

Now we're going with the "prosecutors lie" route?? Lol is that how far yall are willing to go to defend this murderer?Cops lie.

Witnesses lie.

Defendants lie.

Defense attorneys lie.

Think that about covers it.

[boutons_deux]

prosecutors lie

[Stringer_Bell]

I hope you never have reason to see how they really work.

Being a prosecutor has very little to do with the truth.

There is no doubt in my mind that the charges are politically motivated, but I don't believe her "success" is based on whether she gets a conviction. She's already won by putting Zimmerman in handcuffs and saying she prayed with the Martin family when she started the investigation. She's a winner, even once they let Zimmerman go.

Still waiting on Eric Holder to say something about those terroristic threats from the New Black Panther Party....

[TheSkeptic]

There is no doubt in my mind that the charges are politically motivated, but I don't believe her "success" is based on whether she gets a conviction. She's already won by putting Zimmerman in handcuffs and saying she prayed with the Martin family when she started the investigation. She's a winner, even once they let Zimmerman go.

Still waiting on Eric Holder to say something about those terroristic threats from the New Black Panther Party....

...Or she interviewed witnesses, looked at what the Feds came up with, reviewed the coroner's report, talked to forensics experts, and then came to the conclusion that murder 2 was the appropriate charge. The jury can still convict on a lesser charge or choose to exonerate him after all.

Political pressure is a possibility but the fact that the defense is invoking SYG specifically after saying that wasn't the plan could also mean that there's new evidence we haven't seen/heard of yet.

If the judge was able to agree that there was probable cause for murder 2 it's not like the prosecutor was completely out to lunch here.

[Wild Cobra]

You have 230 posts in this thread. Your heels are dug in.
Were you blind to some early ones that I stated it looked like Zimmerman was in the wrong?

I suggest you go back and carefully consider my words on at least the first 5 pages.

Do you realize how bad your assumption makes you look?

[Wild Cobra]

So you're "applying critical thinking" to the "known facts" that yourself don't think are enough "to know who started the altercation that escalated to George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin".
Why are you a chronic liar?

He is not saying he knows the facts.

He is saying what the release of current facts appear to be.

What are you?

A liar, or a fucking idiot? I doubt there is something in between. You chronically do that with me, and I see I'm not your only target for you unethical harassment.

You are a fucking disgrace.

[Wild Cobra]

Pot meet Kettle. You should've done that before stalking that online chick.
See...

Liar...

Stalking never occurred.

Again, are you stupid, or a liar?

[Wild Cobra]

what we know as fact is that he stalked the kid and killed him.

zimmerman can say whatever he wants since he killed the other guy that knows.
He did not "stalk" the kid, by any accounts we are aware of.

Do you really expect anyone with an ounce of intelligence to listen to you when you cannot keep simple facts strait?

now if you have some first hand knowledge of the incident, I suggest you offer yourself as a witness.

[Wild Cobra]

Now we're going with the "prosecutors lie" route?? Lol is that how far yall are willing to go to defend this murderer?
The prosecutor absolutely did lie, unless there is audio not released that had them telling Zimmerman not to follow.

[Wild Cobra]

A voice of reason:

As I said would happen – and as I thought should happen – George Zimmerman has been charged with 2nd degree murder in the shooting death of Treyvon Martin.

Just a few points on the various press conferences yesterday. First of all … that prosecutor from Jacksonville. Just something a little unsettling there. Maybe that feeling will go away as I see this lady in action, but she seemed to really be into this 15-minutes of fame thing. Step up to the microphones, announce the charges, answer a few questions, and then leave and get to work.

Then there’s Treyvon’s family. I’ve heard from people who know them that that Treyvon’s mom and dad are really good people. But that image of Al Sharpton standing next to them last night was, to say the least, disgusting. Al Sharpton is drenched in the blood of Crown Heights and Freddy’s Fashion Mart. He is a vile, disgusting race hustler. A question for you: Have you ever seen Sharpton standing glumly next to the mother of a young black man killed by another young black man? That happens, you know, but have you ever seen Al Sharpton in that picture? Matter of fact .. have you ever seen Al Sharpton ask for the arrest of a black male for any crime? Just wondering, because I can’t remember that either. Al Sharpton is in the middle of this situation for one reason … to promote the white-against-black narrative that gives him his power.

But now for George Zimmerman:

Thus far I haven’t seen anyone screaming raaaaaacism because Zimmerman was charged with 2nd degree murder, and not 1st. A 1st degree murder charge requires premeditation. Clearly that element wasn’t there … but I still suspect this will be an issue with some race hustlers.

Stand-your-ground laws are under attacking by the left in this case. The anti-gun folks don’t like the idea of people defending or protecting themselves with firearms. Leftist prefer the laws that require you to turn and run – even when you’re in your own home – if you’re confronted by a predator. Stand-your-ground isn’t in play here. If you’ll remember the 911 call, Zimmer admitted that he was following Treyvon Martin. He was, in essence, in pursuit. Pursuing someone is not standing your ground.

I’ve wondered in the past, however, whether or not Zimmer could possibly use the Stand-Your-Ground statute if he had abandoned the pursuit of Treyvon Martin, returned to his car, and was then suddenly confronted by Treyvon. This one’s iffy. Zimmerman initiated this encounter … to attach Stand-Your-Ground to the situation late in the game seems to be to be a stretch.

George Zimmerman was a cop wannabe. Reports are that he had been trying to or had expressed his desire to become a police officer. My guess is that he was in a pretend-cop mode when he made his reconnaissance trips through his neighborhood .. making almost 50 calls to 911, most of which law enforcement considered to be nuisance calls.

George Zimmerman didn’t want to kill anyone. Treyvon Martin didn’t want to rob or steal from anyone. These two came together in a scenario initiated by Zimmerman, and Treyvon Marton ended up losing his life. The jury is going to have a hard time figuring this one out --- and the job isn’t going to be made any easier by jerks like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Moonpie “Who Dat” Muhammad and the array of race pimps who are going to use this situation to boost their images as civil rights heroes.

[boutons_deux]

"George Zimmerman didn’t want to kill anyone"

bullshit. He went, armed and loaded, on vigilante patrol, on offense, not on not-your-ground defense, ready to shoot, to kill, if the opportunity arose.

[TheProfessor]

I hope you never have reason to see how they really work.

Being a prosecutor has very little to do with the truth.
I'm a prosecutor, and I find this offensive. Prosecutors have an ethical duty, not to obtain convictions, but to see that justice is done. If a prosecutor does his job properly, the truth means everything. I'm sorry if you had some bad experience in the past, and there are prosecutors who screw up and give others a bad name. But the vast majority work hard for very little pay because they believe in what they do.

[TheSkeptic]

I'm a prosecutor, and I find this offensive. Prosecutors have an ethical duty, not to obtain convictions, but to see that justice is done. If a prosecutor does his job properly, the truth means everything. I'm sorry if you had some bad experience in the past, and there are prosecutors who screw up and give others a bad name. But the vast majority work hard for very little pay because they believe in what they do.

You're a prosecutor?

Respect. :toast

[TheProfessor]

You're a prosecutor?

Respect. :toast
Appreciate it.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm a prosecutor, and I find this offensive. Prosecutors have an ethical duty, not to obtain convictions, but to see that justice is done. If a prosecutor does his job properly, the truth means everything. I'm sorry if you had some bad experience in the past, and there are prosecutors who screw up and give others a bad name. But the vast majority work hard for very little pay because they believe in what they do.

Sorry you were offended but you have to admit that the metric of success and basis for promotion in your profession is convictions, not fairness.

[CosmicCowboy]

BTW, I appreciate the fact that the job needs to be done and they don't pay y'all shit for the hours you put in.

Just console yourself with all the money you are gonna make with your contacts when you go into private practice defending drug dealers LOL.

[Blake]

You are not privy to any of that information is the point yet you fill in the gaps by picking and choosing which hearsay you prefer.


:lmao

pot, meet kettle


I hope you never have reason to see how they really work.

Being a prosecutor has very little to do with the truth.


I'm a prosecutor, and I find this offensive. ........ But the vast majority work hard for very little pay because they believe in what they do.

CosmicKettle just running on hearsay per the usual

[CosmicCowboy]

Blake just nibbling at the ankles of his betters per the usual.

[Yonivore]

I'm a prosecutor, and I find this offensive. Prosecutors have an ethical duty, not to obtain convictions, but to see that justice is done. If a prosecutor does his job properly, the truth means everything. I'm sorry if you had some bad experience in the past, and there are prosecutors who screw up and give others a bad name. But the vast majority work hard for very little pay because they believe in what they do.
As a prosecutor, do you see any problems with the affidavit of probable cause?

Because, I'm not a prosecutor and, no, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night but, what I have done is work in law enforcement for a number of decades and I have written complaints, affidavits, and statements. I've proofed those written by others and I'm pretty familiar with how they are constructed -- in Texas, anyway.

The elements of the Zimmerman affidavit that most bothered me -- or at least jumped out at me?

1) Describing the investigative experience of the investigators making the sworn statements. Theoretically, facts speak for themselves and a first year homicide investigator can match those facts to the elements comprising a crime just as easily as an investigator with 40 years experience. Sure, experience is important during the investigation and it would be only right for these two officers to have been involved in this investigation but, listing the experience in the probable cause affidavit is unnecessary fluff that doesn't -- or shouldn't -- matter in supporting the stated facts therein.

2) The affidavit doesn't list any of the important elements of the charge of 2nd Degree Murder. One of the things a careful investigator will do, when writing a probable cause affidavit, is to repeat -- verbatim from the statute -- the elements of the crime being alleged. I was fully expecting to see Chapter 782.04(2) specifically written into the affidavit. When I was writing and proofing these, "back in the day," one of the first statements in the affidavit would have read: "On the evening of February 29, 2012 at approximately 7:19 P.M. and, in violation of Florida Statutes, Chapter 782.04(2), George Zimmerman did, then and there unlawfully kill Trayvon Martin by perpetrating an act imminently dangerous and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life but, without any premeditated design to effect the death of Trayvon Martin; to wit:"

And, then, you get into the probable cause that meets the elements of the crime. This can usually be copied over from the original criminal complaint unless, of course, the prosecutor has decided to go with a different charge.

3) Include statements that directly contradict known facts. The officers made the claim in the affidavit that Zimmerman was told by police to wait for the officer. That never happened. They also claim Zimmerman was pursuing Martin -- not simply following, as was stated in the call. There is a distinct difference. When you pursue, it is with the intent of overtaking; one can follow without pursuing simply to keep a suspicious person in sight until police arrive. The first thing is more troubling than the second because, they could have other evidence that indicates Zimmerman was actually in pursuit but, unless there is another call we haven't heard about, the claim he was told to wait is inaccurate. That's sloppy.

4) The two investigators claim Zimmerman disregarded the police "information" (because they said the dispatcher "informed," not instructed, not directed, not ordered -- but "informed" Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer. Aside from the fact half this statement is untrue, it is an important choice of words to say they merely informed Zimmerman. Also, there is nothing in the public record to indicate -- as they claim -- Zimmerman disregarded that information...and, they don't give any indication in the affidavit of any probable cause to believe he did other than to make the claim it was Zimmerman that confronted Martin.

5) The affidavit relies -- to an incredible degree -- on hearsay; particularly the impression of witnesses on who was screaming on the call recording.

and

6) The boldly claim the most important element of this whole incident without one shred of support -- George Zimmerman confronted Trayvon Martin.

But, that's just me; what do you think counselor?

[Blake]

CosmicKettle still thinking he's better after being shown up per the usual.

[TheProfessor]

BTW, I appreciate the fact that the job needs to be done and they don't pay y'all shit for the hours you put in.

Just console yourself with all the money you are gonna make with your contacts when you go into private practice defending drug dealers LOL.
I have no interest in private practice, personally - I saw the effect it had on my father, who did defend a lot of drug dealers.

As to what you say about convictions, it may be the end-all for some prosecutors, but I would say the majority understand their ethical obligations. Well-publicized cases such as this are certainly judged that way. And if we're talking about federal prosecutors (AUSAs), then convictions are absolutely the name of the game.

[TheProfessor]

As a prosecutor, do you see any problems with the affidavit of probable cause?

...

1) Describing the investigative experience of the investigators making the sworn statements. Theoretically, facts speak for themselves and a first year homicide investigator can match those facts to the elements comprising a crime just as easily as an investigator with 40 years experience. Sure, experience is important during the investigation and it would be only right for these two officers to have been involved in this investigation but, listing the experience in the probable cause affidavit is unnecessary fluff that doesn't -- or shouldn't -- matter in supporting the stated facts therein
See your point, but just because some affidavits don't include experience doesn't mean you can't. It would make an enormous difference to a jury, for instance.

2) The affidavit doesn't list any of the important elements of the charge of 2nd Degree Murder. One of the things a careful investigator will do, when writing a probable cause affidavit, is to repeat -- verbatim from the statute -- the elements of the crime being alleged. I was fully expecting to see Chapter 782.04(2) specifically written into the affidavit. When I was writing and proofing these, "back in the day," one of the first statements in the affidavit would have read: "On the evening of February 29, 2012 at approximately 7:19 P.M. and, in violation of Florida Statutes, Chapter 782.04(2), George Zimmerman did, then and there unlawfully kill Trayvon Martin by perpetrating an act imminently dangerous and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life but, without any premeditated design to effect the death of Trayvon Martin; to wit:"

And, then, you get into the probable cause that meets the elements of the crime. This can usually be copied over from the original criminal complaint unless, of course, the prosecutor has decided to go with a different charge
Looks like this is a supporting affidavit. I'm used to PC statements where the elements are listed there as well, not sure if there's another document with the elements.

3) Include statements that directly contradict known facts. The officers made the claim in the affidavit that Zimmerman was told by police to wait for the officer. That never happened. They also claim Zimmerman was pursuing Martin -- not simply following, as was stated in the call. There is a distinct difference. When you pursue, it is with the intent of overtaking; one can follow without pursuing simply to keep a suspicious person in sight until police arrive. The first thing is more troubling than the second because, they could have other evidence that indicates Zimmerman was actually in pursuit but, unless there is another call we haven't heard about, the claim he was told to wait is inaccurate. That's sloppy.
Honestly, we don't know what the "facts" are, just what we've heard in media and on tape. And argumentative language isn't forbidden in a PC.

4) The affidavit relies -- to an incredible degree -- on hearsay; particularly the impression of witnesses on who was screaming on the call recording.
Hearsay is a problem in court. Officers rely on hearsay all the time. That does not mean that the officers can repeat hearsay in court, just that they need the original witness or a hearsay exception. Those witnesses can be subpoenaed. The screaming itself likely falls under an excited utterance exception or isn't offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

5) The boldly claim the most important element of this whole incident without one shred of support -- George Zimmerman confronted Trayvon Martin.

But, that's just me; what do you think counselor?
Eh, it's a PC affidavit. They just have to prove it in court. There's enough there circumstantially to infer some confrontation. I personally would prefer that they use simpler language that paints that picture instead of using argumentative language, but these people have been doing it a lot longer than I have.

[Yonivore]

See your point, but just because some affidavits don't include experience doesn't mean you can't. It would make an enormous difference to a jury, for instance.
I agree. I didn't say they couldn't just that it was unnecessary fluff.


Looks like this is a supporting affidavit. I'm used to PC statements where the elements are listed there as well, not sure if there's another document with the elements.
That would be good to know and see because, putting this forward as probable cause for a charge of 2nd degree murder, isn't very pretty.


Honestly, we don't know what the "facts" are, just what we've heard in media and on tape. And argumentative language isn't forbidden in a PC.
On this, I disagree. I'm not sure you've listened to the call between Zimmerman and the dispatcher but, it is a fact the dispatcher never told Zimmerman to wait for an officer. And, the reason I'm stuck on this one item is because I believe (and, you can disagree) the investigators are claiming Zimmerman's disregard of police instructions is evidence of him "evincing a depraved mind." It seems to be an important point for the investigators to establish George Zimmerman was told to do something by police and he didn't.

Sure, PC affidavits are usually perfunctory exercises used to move a case forward but, they are still sworn statements in which perjury rules apply, no?


Hearsay is a problem in court. Officers rely on hearsay all the time. That does not mean that the officers can repeat hearsay in court, just that they need the original witness or a hearsay exception.
Agreed but, that seems to be the meat of their affidavit -- the hearsay appears to be on what they relied to reach the conclusion of 2nd degree murder -- not that the hearsay supports other facts leading them to that belief.


Eh, it's a PC affidavit. They just have to prove it in court. There's enough there circumstantially to infer some confrontation. I personally would prefer that they use simpler language that paints that picture instead of using argumentative language, but these people have been doing it a lot longer than I have.
It's sloppy work in a high-profile case. And, hell, I could tell you there was a confrontation -- but, there is not enough, in my mind, to circumstantially infer that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation...they just state that as fact.

Another thing that bothers me is the Special Prosecutor chose to by pass the Grand Jury. It's true they're not obligated to use a Grand Jury, except in certain cases, but in a high-profile and contested case, such as this -- as a prosecutor, I would want the political cover a Grand Jury provides.

Either this prosecutor doesn't have confidence in her charge or she's a media whore that didn't want to risk being shown up by a bunch of punk citizens.

[TheProfessor]

Another thing that bothers me is the Special Prosecutor chose to by pass the Grand Jury. It's true they're not obligated to use a Grand Jury, except in certain cases, but in a high-profile and contested case, such as this -- as a prosecutor, I would want the political cover a Grand Jury provides.

Either this prosecutor doesn't have confidence in her charge or she's a media whore that didn't want to risk being shown up by a bunch of punk citizens.
I don't think we know why she chose not to go to a Grand Jury, and I wouldn't speculate. Calling her a "media whore" is going way too far.

[clambake]

the guy that deliberately went hunting didn't instigate a confrontation. lol

[Yonivore]

I don't think we know why she chose not to go to a Grand Jury, and I wouldn't speculate. Calling her a "media whore" is going way too far.
Did you watch her press conference? Have you ever seen a prosecutor ham it up like that over such a serious case? But, I merely suggested it was a possibility, anyway.

I'm more interested in what you believe are the legitimate reasons a prosecutor would want to bypass a Grand Jury.

[CosmicCowboy]

She couldn't stop smiling at the press conference because she just hit the prosecutors lottery. She's gonna make millions on the book...Marcia Clark II.

[TheProfessor]

Did you watch her press conference? Have you ever seen a prosecutor ham it up like that over such a serious case? But, I merely suggested it was a possibility, anyway.

I'm more interested in what you believe are the legitimate reasons a prosecutor would want to bypass a Grand Jury.
First off, there's no obligation for a state-level DA's Office to use Grand Juries, since that federal right was not selectively incorporated (and Florida only requires them with regard to capital offenses). It could be that the prosecutor just wanted to make that decision herself, which is fine. I think what you're suggesting is that she was afraid of getting no-billed by the Grand Jury because there is not probable cause for the charges. But honestly, I don't think that's a problem given how this case was charged.

It's funny to me that legal scholars like Alan Dershowitz consider Grand Juries a "rubber stamp" for prosecutors until state prosecutors exercise their right not to use one; then they're suddenly gatekeepers of justice.

[clambake]

She couldn't stop smiling at the press conference because she just hit the prosecutors lottery. She's gonna make millions on the book...Marcia Clark II.

who's gonna buy that book?

[CosmicCowboy]

who's gonna buy that book?

Probably the same ones that bought OJ's book. Marcia Clark made 5 million in royalties.

[clambake]

Probably the same ones that bought OJ's book. Marcia Clark made 5 million in royalties.

i'm gettin mighty sick o yern additude.

meet me at the corral, ok?

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol

[johnsmith]

This whole thing has already turned into the "Casey Anthony Trial for Men".

[clambake]

This whole thing has already turned into the "Casey Anthony Trial for Men".

yah, but she was slutty.

[johnsmith]

yah, but she was slutty.

True....I would have hit it.......well, before she killed her kid anyway......ok, I still would.

[Yonivore]

First off, there's no obligation for a state-level DA's Office to use Grand Juries, since that federal right was not selectively incorporated (and Florida only requires them with regard to capital offenses). It could be that the prosecutor just wanted to make that decision herself, which is fine.
Fair enough, I'm not as familiar with what the obligations are once the State or Feds step in. But, on that point, I'm seem to recall reading the Sanford Prosecutor was preparing the case for presentation to a Grand Jury when all the nonsense about how Sanford was going to just let a murderer walk scott free.

Would you agree that it is not uncommon for police and prosecutors to wait on filing charges and pursuing prosecution if they believe they lack enough evidence to win a conviction? I know of several cases where it took years to develop a case.

Point being, unless Zimmerman was believed to be a continuing threat -- there is nothing out of the ordinary with not arresting a suspect until you have probable cause to do so.

I think that police officer that murdered two wives is a good example.


I think what you're suggesting is that she was afraid of getting no-billed by the Grand Jury because there is not probable cause for the charges. But honestly, I don't think that's a problem given how this case was charged.
That is what I'm suggesting. I think it's also why the local prosecutor was reluctant to seek an arrest warrant.

My belief notwithstanding, what are some of the legitimate reasons a prosecutor would not want the Grand Jury to review the case?


It's funny to me that legal scholars like Alan Dershowitz consider Grand Juries a "rubber stamp" for prosecutors until state prosecutors exercise their right not to use one; then they're suddenly gatekeepers of justice.
I've never believed Grand Juries were "rubber stamps," in fact, I know the opposite to be true where I was involved in such things. No bills were just as likely as indictments.

One rule of thumb I know prosecutors weigh -- and, again, correct me if I'm wrong in this generalization -- is what value will a Grand Jury review provide. The courts are overflowing and, if the prosecutor has a slam dunk case, there is no reason to burden the Grand Jury for an indictment.

However, if there is a high-profile case, where the facts are contested, and where it is possible the prosecutor's objectivity might be questioned it has been my experience the prosecutor will send the case to a Grand Jury. And, even there, they then have the bully pulpit where they can characterize the case however they believe will result in an indictment with the full confidence there will be no defense presentation of exculpatory facts.

I would think a prosecutor in this case would want that cover and can't imagine, short of not having the evidence to prove a case, that she wouldn't do it in this case. I don't see the downside of a Grand Jury presentation, in this case, unless you don't have a case.

I don't know what Dershowitz has ever said on that on that.

[TheProfessor]

After doing a little online research, it appears Florida does not use Grand Juries for non-capital felony offenses. So this doesn't appear out of the ordinary.

[ElNono]

I've never believed Grand Juries were "rubber stamps," in fact, I know the opposite to be true where I was involved in such things. No bills were just as likely as indictments.

IIRC, the indictment rate of Grand Juries both at the state and federal level is in the 98%-99% range, which is where the "rubber stamp" argument came from.

[Yonivore]

After doing a little online research, it appears Florida does not use Grand Juries for non-capital felony offenses. So this doesn't appear out of the ordinary.
That's all well and good but, this isn't an ordinary case and, so far as I know, the prosecutor isn't precluded from presenting the case to a Grand Jury.

I'm having trouble constructing a Google search that doesn't result, almost exclusively, in article discussing the Special Prosecutor's decision not to use the Grand Jury but, I seem to recall, this case was originally headed to a Grand Jury when it was handed over to the Special Prosecutor.

[Yonivore]

IIRC, the indictment rate of Grand Juries both at the state and federal level is in the 98%-99% range, which is where the "rubber stamp" argument came from.
Grand Juries aren't a defense venue so, a high percentage of indictments isn't unexpected.

[Blake]

Grand Juries aren't a defense venue so, a high percentage of indictments isn't unexpected.

An indictment would be expected in this case as well.

Not as big a deal as you're making it out to be

[Yonivore]

An indictment would be expected in this case as well.
Expected but not guaranteed.


Not as big a deal as you're making it out to be
You're right; it's not as big as why the investigators -- with decades of experience -- wrote such a crappy PC affidavit and included, as fact, a fabrication.

[ElNono]

Maybe things don't work the way you think they do, Yoni. You just had a prosecutor here tell you as much.

[Yonivore]

Maybe things don't work the way you think they do, Yoni. You just had a prosecutor here tell you as much.
Wasn't it Lumpy Rutherford that would stand behind Wally and affirm everything he said to Eddie Haskell saying something like, "Yeah, Eddie! You don't know!"

You sound like TheProfessor's Lumpy.

I don't think TheProfessor and I disagree over much here.

I think we both agree the Probable Cause affidavit was a mess; but, we disagree over the importance of it's construction and contents.

I think we both agree the Special Prosecutor was not obligated to present the case to a Grand Jury; but, we disagree on the wisdom and reason for this prosecutor not doing so. Actually, I don't know that we disagree on this point as TheProfessor is unwilling to speculate.

[Yonivore]

Well, in keeping with the Law Enforcement theme, I probably should have said you were playing Barney Fife to TheProfessor's Sheriff Andy Taylor.

[ElNono]

I think we both agree the Probable Cause affidavit was a mess; but, we disagree over the importance of it's construction and contents.

I don't agree with that view at all.

And you'll have to excuse me for giving more weight to the opinion of a prosecutor over legal matters than somebody with a law enforcement background.

After all, you don't ask a cop to defend you when you go on trial.

[Yonivore]

I don't agree with that view at all.
Which view? The view TheProfessor and I agree the affidavit was poorly done? Or, the view TheProfessor and I disagree over the importance of that?


And you'll have to excuse me for giving more weight to the opinion of a prosecutor over legal matters than somebody with a law enforcement background.
I'm a bit unclear on this point but, I believe state prosecutors are considered law enforcement officers; many are commissioned as peace officers.

That's what I recall from my previous life. TheProfessor?


After all, you don't ask a cop to defend you when you go on trial.
You don't call a prosecutor to defend you either. Unless, of course, he's no longer prosecuting and has hung up his shingle as a defense attorney.

[ElNono]

Which view? The view TheProfessor and I agree the affidavit was poorly done? Or, the view TheProfessor and I disagree over the importance of that?

This...


Eh, it's a PC affidavit. They just have to prove it in court. There's enough there circumstantially to infer some confrontation. I personally would prefer that they use simpler language that paints that picture instead of using argumentative language, but these people have been doing it a lot longer than I have.

...is "agreeing that it was poorly done"?

I disagree that's what the Professor is stating.


I'm a bit unclear on this point but, I believe state prosecutors are considered law enforcement officers; many are commissioned as peace officers.

That's what I recall from my previous life. TheProfessor?

If anything, that would imply prosecutors to be much more knowledgeable than your average law enforcement officer. That would make sense seeing they had to study law. It does not, however, means that your average cop is well versed in the legalese.


You don't call a prosecutor to defend you either. Unless, of course, he's no longer prosecuting and has hung up his shingle as a defense attorney.

If I had a prosecutor friend, I would be more than comfortable to ask him for legal advice.

Your average cop, and that includes you, never had a legal degree to begin with.

[Yonivore]

This...

...is "agreeing that it was poorly done"?

I disagree that's what the Professor is stating.
Okay. But, there was bit more than what you quoted that led me to believe the professor and I agree this was not a stellar effort in probable cause affidavits.

I'll let TheProfessor speak for himself.


If anything, that would imply prosecutors to be much more knowledgeable than your average law enforcement officer. That would make sense seeing they had to study law. It does not, however, means that your average cop is well versed in the legalese.
In Texas, chief prosecutors -- at the District Court level -- are elected officials. They hire assistants to actually do the prosecuting. I've met some District Attorneys that are dumb as bricks about law enforcement but, could shake a hand and kiss a baby like nobody's business.

I don't know how they get in their positions in Florida. And, I don't know the background of either the local Sanford prosecutor (whether he was the equivalent of the District Attorney or an ADA) or the Special Prosecutor.


If I had a prosecutor friend, I would be more than comfortable to ask him for legal advice.
But, he wouldn't defend you in court...which was your point. And, if you're charged with a crime in his jurisdiction, it'd be a conflict for him to provide you with such advice -- and you'd be a real jerk to ask for it.


Your average cop, and that includes you, never had a legal degree to begin with.
I'm not suggesting the officers need to try the facts as prosecutors but that they have an obligation to do due diligence in developing probable cause. You don't need a law degree to do that.

And, quit acting like I'm the only person that is criticizing the case against George Zimmerman. There are actual lawyers and prosecutors out there doing the same.

TheProfessor is perfectly within his wheelhouse to be making the observations he has, that disagree with me. We don't have to convince each other the other of us is wrong. He stated his case and reasons for thinking as he does (even though he kind of dodged the question of what legitimate reasons a prosecutor would have for skipping out on a Grand Jury when it was available and a prudent course of action) and I mine.

What is your role here besides being some kind of gnat that finds it necessary to buzz around my head confirming what we already know, TheProfessor is a prosecutor and I'm not. In that regard, I believe I've shown TheProfessor adequate deference and even asked for his impressions?

[TheProfessor]

TheProfessor is perfectly within his wheelhouse to be making the observations he has, that disagree with me. We don't have to convince each other the other of us is wrong. He stated his case and reasons for thinking as he does (even though he kind of dodged the question of what legitimate reasons a prosecutor would have for skipping out on a Grand Jury when it was available and a prudent course of action) and I mine.
I dodged nothing. You wanted me to agree with you that the special prosecutor elected to avoid Grand Jury indictment because she feared getting no-billed. In Florida, non-capital cases apparently do not go to Grand Jury as a matter of course (http://www.south-floridaattorney.com/criminal-defense/when-is-a-grand-jury-trial-necessary-in-florida/). Any point you're trying to make off of that is moot.

Also, I don't think the affidavit was "poorly done."

[Blake]

I can only imagine the number of Yoni's affidavits that were rejected by prosecutors because they were poorly done.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yoni, you really should stop. You already looked bad. Now its being certified. I am going to go out on a limb and say he doesn't appreciate your characterizations.

If you are going to speak for him don't only do it such that hes agreeing with you.

[Wild Cobra]

Blake just nibbling at the ankles of his betters per the usual.
That's all these small people can reach for.

[Blake]

That's all these small people can reach for.

Hardly. Reposting your black surgeon and flaglot quotes easily makes your butt hurt.

[Wild Cobra]

Hardly. Reposting your black surgeon and flaglot quotes easily makes your butt hurt.

No, I'm over how stupid it makes the people of this forum look. The few of you who don't understand context isn't enough to bring our overall average intelligence down enough to matter.

[Yonivore]

I dodged nothing. You wanted me to agree with you that the special prosecutor elected to avoid Grand Jury indictment because she feared getting no-billed. In Florida, non-capital cases apparently do not go to Grand Jury as a matter of course (http://www.south-floridaattorney.com/criminal-defense/when-is-a-grand-jury-trial-necessary-in-florida/). Any point you're trying to make off of that is moot.
Actually, I didn't necessarily want you to agree. I was wondering what -- other than wanting to avoid a No Bill, because you wanted complete credit (hence, my indelicate "media whore" comment), or as you rightly observed because you don't have to take anything less than a capital crime to a Grand Jury -- could be reasons for bypassing the opportunity to have your case validated by a Grand Jury?

From the Florida Bar's website (http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/RHandbook01.nsf/1119bd38ae090a748525676f0053b606/badd5b4fce22d788852569cb004cc254!OpenDocument)...


In Florida, a grand jury indictment is required only to try a person for a capital offense; i.e., one where the death penalty may be given.3 Otherwise, the state attorney has concurrent authority to file a formal accusation of the commission of a crime (an "information").4 The information is used routinely to charge individuals in Florida. In addition to capital cases, grand juries often are utilized for controversial cases such as those involving alleged wrongdoing by public officials.
I certainly think the Martin shooting would be characterized as a "controversial case." I realize that doesn't obligate the prosecutor to use the Grand Jury but, it was what informed my opinion that she should have. I think declining to take the case to a Grand Jury gives the appearance her case is weak. I also think the PC affidavit only tends to confirm that assessment.


Also, I don't think the affidavit was "poorly done."
Very good, I'll not make the claim again.

[Blake]

No, I'm over how stupid it makes the people of this forum look. The few of you who don't understand context isn't enough to bring our overall average intelligence down enough to matter.

lol context

You're a racist. EVERYBODY in this forum that's read that thread knows it.

[Wild Cobra]

lol context

You're a racist. EVERYBODY in this forum that's read that thread knows it.

People who know me would disagree and say how stupid you are. Especially my girlfriend.

Why is it you and others can't stay on topic, and have to make this personal?

[clambake]

People who know me would disagree and say how stupid you are. Especially my girlfriend.

Why is it you and others can't stay on topic, and have to make this personal?

the responses you get are based on your character.

[Blake]

People who know me would disagree and say how stupid you are. Especially my girlfriend.

Either your girlfriend hasn't read your quote on black surgeons or she is just as stupid as you.


Why is it you and others can't stay on topic, and have to make this personal?

"others" including you? I was responding to your lame junk talk aimed my way.

you are seriously retarded. Seriously.

[Wild Cobra]

the responses you get are based on your character.


Either your girlfriend hasn't read your quote on black surgeons or she is just as stupid as you.



"others" including you? I was responding to your lame junk talk aimed my way.

you are seriously retarded. Seriously.

There's no way to convince the two of you how stupid you are about this, so I'm not going to try. Can we get back to this thread, or are you two that obsessed with me that all threads I participate in have to become about me?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There's no way to convince the two of you how stupid you are about this, so I'm not going to try. Can we get back to this thread, or are you two that obsessed with me that all threads I participate in have to become about me?

When I started doing a case study with examples of how he was stupid, thats what got him to put me on ignore. Be careful he might put you on ignore too. :lol

[clambake]

There's no way to convince the two of you how stupid you are about this, so I'm not going to try. Can we get back to this thread, or are you two that obsessed with me that all threads I participate in have to become about me?

it's impossible to separate your post from your character.

[clambake]

When I started doing a case study with examples of how he was stupid, thats what got him to put me on ignore. Be careful he might put you on ignore too. :lol

just another example of ignore list means i surrender.

[ElNono]

Okay. But, there was bit more than what you quoted that led me to believe the professor and I agree this was not a stellar effort in probable cause affidavits.

He didn't agree with you. Deal with it.


In Texas, chief prosecutors -- at the District Court level -- are elected officials. They hire assistants to actually do the prosecuting. I've met some District Attorneys that are dumb as bricks about law enforcement but, could shake a hand and kiss a baby like nobody's business.

I don't know how they get in their positions in Florida. And, I don't know the background of either the local Sanford prosecutor (whether he was the equivalent of the District Attorney or an ADA) or the Special Prosecutor.

Cool narrative. Still misses the point entirely.


But, he wouldn't defend you in court...which was your point. And, if you're charged with a crime in his jurisdiction, it'd be a conflict for him to provide you with such advice -- and you'd be a real jerk to ask for it.

That wasn't my point at all. My point, well established in my previous post, is that I'll ask for legal advice to people with a law degree, not your average cop (like you).


I'm not suggesting :blah:blah:blah

Followed by more meaningless banter...

[Sec24Row7]

Nothing hurts a troll more than ignoring it.

[clambake]

^can anyone see this post?

[Blake]

There's no way to convince the two of you how stupid you are about this, so I'm not going to try. Can we get back to this thread, or are you two that obsessed with me that all threads I participate in have to become about me?

You do realize that you just posed an off topic question about you?

Probably not.

i have an ignore button and I'm not afraid to use it!

[CosmicCowboy]

*

[Wild Cobra]

*
Which post #?

[clambake]

*

get off my feathers you fuggin parrot!

[clambake]

damn you edit pussy!!!!1

[CosmicCowboy]

damn you edit pussy!!!!1

:lol

Doofus snuck a post in ahead of me.

[clambake]

:lol

Doofus snuck a post in ahead of me.

so that was meant for me?








you bitch

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol

[Yonivore]

He didn't agree with you. Deal with it.
I did.


Cool narrative. Still misses the point entirely.
It didn't miss the point I was making.


That wasn't my point at all. My point, well established in my previous post, is that I'll ask for legal advice to people with a law degree, not your average cop (like you).
Actually, in your post previous to the previous post you're referencing; you said this...


And you'll have to excuse me for giving more weight to the opinion of a prosecutor over legal matters than somebody with a law enforcement background.

After all, you don't ask a cop to defend you when you go on trial.
...to which I responded, "You don't ask a prosecutor to defend you either."

It's all about the context, baby.


Followed by more meaningless banter...
Need help understanding?

[ElNono]

It didn't miss the point I was making.

You never made a point. Other than you talking to yourself.

An actual prosecutor walked in here and told you your faux-outrage has no merit. crofl


Actually, in your post previous to the previous post you're referencing; you said this...

...to which I responded, "You don't ask a prosecutor to defend you either."

It's all about the context, baby.

So, in a nutshell, I was completely right that your LE background gives zero authority to your interpretation of a legal document.

All about context indeed. :lol

[Yonivore]

You never made a point. Other than you talking to yourself.

An actual prosecutor walked in here and told you your faux-outrage has no merit. crofl
OMG! It's settled then.

At least you didn't say THE Prosecutor walked in here...


So, in a nutshell, I was completely right that your LE background gives zero authority to your interpretation of a legal document.
No, you were wrong.


All about context indeed. :lol
Indeed, it is.

[ElNono]

No, you were wrong.

lol overridden by an actual prosecutor. :lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

alleged prosecutor...after all, this is an anonymous internet forum

[Yonivore]

lol overridden by an actual prosecutor. :lmao
Overridden? How so?

[ElNono]

alleged prosecutor...after all, this is an anonymous internet forum

alleged law enforcement... cuts both ways...

[ElNono]

Overridden? How so?


I don't think TheProfessor and I disagree over much here.

I think we both agree the Probable Cause affidavit was a mess


Also, I don't think the affidavit was "poorly done."

:lmao

[Yonivore]

:lmao
I owned up to being wrong about TheProfessor agreeing with me.

I still think the affidavit was a piece of crap.

I guess that means I think TheProfessor is wrong.

We're both entitled to our opinions. Just as is Andrew McCarthy (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295997/martin-case-affidavit-andrew-c-mccarthy#more), a former federal prosecutor that has probably seen more than few probable cause affidavits in his life.


I strongly disagree with David French’s analysis. I’m inclined, instead, to agree with commentators ranging from former Reagan Justice Department official Mark Levin to Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz that the affidavit is stunningly weak — “unethical,” as Prof. Dershowitz puts it. In fact, I go further (which, after nearly 20 years of writing and supervising the writing of complaint affidavits, I think I’m qualified to do). This affidavit is not law, it is agitprop: invoking, for example, the explosive term “profiled” but carefully avoiding any discussion of what it means and failing to note that (a) there is no evidence of racial profiling, and (b) absent an invidious racial component there is nothing wrong with profiling (indeed, we want police to do it so that innocent people don’t get hassled).

...

...one thing I can say with confidence is that there is not probable cause in that affidavit for the charge the prosecutor has selected, second-degree murder. It requires proof of depraved indifference to human life. Nothing in the affidavit, and nothing we otherwise know about Zimmerman, indicates such a state of mind — and it’s really not close.
I encourage you to read all of it.

It appears both I and Andrew McCarthy disagree with TheProfessor. There's no shame in that, it just is.

You are overridden.

[Yonivore]

It also seems McCarthy sees merit in the "media whore" moniker...


If I were a cynic, I’d say that an ambitious special prosecutor — exploiting the rabble-rousing of the U.S. attorney general and the racial grievance industry — filed an exceedingly serious charge for which she lacks evidence, second degree murder, in order to bask in the mob’s adulation while pressuring Zimmerman to plead guilty to a lesser charge, manslaughter, on which the special prosecutor runs a high risk of losing if Zimmerman forces a trial. So I’m sure glad I’m not a cynic.

[Yonivore]

alleged law enforcement... cuts both ways...
Absolutely, I've never asked anyone to believe me. But, please note, I took at face value TheProfessor's claim of being a prosecutor.

I have no reason to doubt that.

I now have reason to doubt he's a good one (if, as he says, he believes the Probable Cause Affidavit is good work), but, no reason to doubt he is one.

[Yonivore]

Oh yeah, and hanging out on a political forum during a regular workday for prosecutors (they're all government employees and today isn't a holiday) would also tend to support TheProfessor is not exactly diligent in his duties either.

I can see where he just might be capable of writing a shoddy probable cause affidavit like the one in the Martin shooting case.

Yep.

[ElNono]

You're still talking to yourself :lmao

[MannyIsGod]

:lol

SMH

[Blake]

It appears both I and Andrew McCarthy disagree with TheProfessor. There's no shame in that, it just is.

You are overridden.

The actual prosecutor approved the affidavit.

You are over overridden

[FuzzyLumpkins]

alleged prosecutor...after all, this is an anonymous internet forum

He lies too then. when you cannot counter the merits of an argument claim they are lying. At least i have the decency to wait until I can demonstrate they are lying before I call them out.

From what i can tell your opinion towards prosecutors is flavored by having been prosecuted yourself. Plea bargain or guilty verdict?

[Yonivore]

You're still talking to yourself :lmao
Apparently not.

[ElNono]

Apparently not.

Who are you trying to convince, Yoni? :lol

[TheProfessor]

alleged prosecutor...after all, this is an anonymous internet forum
:lol

Yoni, if it makes you feel better, I am taking a sick day. I can't even access these forums at work. But I see how it works - I disagree with you (and whatever Articles you find) and so you feel the need to attack me to validate your opinion. Do not pretend that we are being civil if this is the way you operate. It is cowardly and you are pitiful.

As to the affidavit, I already expressed that I had issues with it, but it's just a determination of probable cause. Not exactly a high burden. As it says at the bottom, not a summation of all the evidence and testimony that will be elicited at trial.

[Yonivore]

Yoni, if it makes you feel better, I am taking a sick day. I can't even access these forums at work. But I see how it works - I disagree with you (and whatever Articles you find) and so you feel the need to attack me to validate your opinion. Do not pretend that we are being civil if this is the way you operate. It is cowardly and you are pitiful.
It doesn't make me feel better. You are absolutely right, I was wrong. It was an unwarranted attack and characterization you didn't invite. I sincerely apologize.


As to the affidavit, I already expressed that I had issues with it, but it's just a determination of probable cause. Not exactly a high burden. As it says at the bottom, not a summation of all the evidence and testimony that will be elicited at trial.
But, there is a burden no?

The "whatever article" I chose to reference is written by Andrew C. McCarthy, a somewhat notable federal prosecutor. His opinion is the probable cause affidavit didn't meet that burden and, in fact, damn near amounted to prosecutorial malpractice.

It is my understanding a general principle, common to all affidavits, is it must "stand on its own" and be based on "what is within its four corners." That there must not only be sufficient information to cover all requisite elements necessary to support the charge, all such support must actually be in the affidavit. Is that your understanding?

To be honest, this affidavit, within its “four corners” arguably does not even meet the necessary burden of probable cause for Manslaughter under Florida section 782.07, much less the “depraved mind” necessary under Florida’s Second Degree Murder charge in section 782.04(2).

George Zimmerman may have committed a crime, but it is not demonstrated in this affidavit.

[ElNono]

It is my understanding a general principle, common to all affidavits, is it must "stand on its own" and be based on "what is within its four corners."

Hmmm... where did I read that before....

And the general principle common to all such affidavits, whether for search, arrest or charging, is that it must “stand on its own” based on “what is within its four corners”

and

To be honest, this affidavit, within its “four corners” arguably does not even meet the necessary burden of probable cause for Manslaughter under Florida section 782.07, much less the “depraved mind” necessary under Florida’s Second Degree Murder charge under section 782.04(2) as charged in the information. George Zimmerman may have committed a crime, but it is not demonstrated in this affidavit, and certainly is not as to the crime charged, Second Degree Murder. Charles Blow can praise this thing until the cows come home in the august pages of the New York Times, but it is still a pile of junk.

Oh yeah... http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/04/14/zimmerman-anatomy-of-an-deficient-probable-cause-affidavit/#more-26370

[Yonivore]

Why is any of this important?

Because, when prosecutors can just claim you violated the law, write it on a piece of paper, and have you thrown in jail - based on that unsupported claim, we've kind of crossed a line, don't you think?

I get the sense you believe the probable cause affidavit is perfunctory and not that important in the course of a criminal action.

I disagree with that as well. I believe it is part of the due process we're guaranteed in the 5th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. George Zimmerman may be cooling his heels in jail when he did nothing wrong.

[Yonivore]

Hmmm... where did I read that before....

And the general principle common to all such affidavits, whether for search, arrest or charging, is that it must “stand on its own” based on “what is within its four corners”

Oh yeah... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2872216/posts
Not where I got it but, now you've got me wondering if my source or Free Republic said it first.

Nice.

It is my understanding that is correct. Is it yours?

[ElNono]

Not where I got it but, now you've got me wondering if my source or Free Republic said it first.

Nice.

It is my understanding that is correct. Is it yours?

Nope. It's mere opinion. One that the presiding judge didn't share, apparently.

Fortunately, Zimmerman is still not guilty of anything. He will be tried and that will be determined then.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:sleep

I see Yoni is still trying to convince himself.

[ElNono]

:sleep

I see Yoni is still trying to convince himself.

Add not being above plagiarizing opinions to pretend he understands what he's talking about.

[TheSkeptic]

:lol

Yoni, if it makes you feel better, I am taking a sick day. I can't even access these forums at work. But I see how it works - I disagree with you (and whatever Articles you find) and so you feel the need to attack me to validate your opinion. Do not pretend that we are being civil if this is the way you operate. It is cowardly and you are pitiful.

As to the affidavit, I already expressed that I had issues with it, but it's just a determination of probable cause. Not exactly a high burden. As it says at the bottom, not a summation of all the evidence and testimony that will be elicited at trial.

Hi, I don't know if you're still here but if you are I was wondering if you could give an opinion on why the prosecution went for Murder 2 instead of manslaughter. Given the evidence that I've been seeing I thought manslaughter would've been easier to prove?

[Blake]

Add not being above plagiarizing opinions to pretend he understands what he's talking about.

:lol

[Wild Cobra]

ElNono.

Ever give it a thought as to reasons why you could be wrong about the accuracy of Owen's voice analysis?

[TheSkeptic]

ElNono.

Ever give it a thought as to reasons why you could be wrong about the accuracy of Owen's voice analysis?

...Really?

[Wild Cobra]

...Really?

How about you?

Did you follow the exchange where ElNono thought he was the shit, bringing up all the stuff I already knew about the way audio comparative software works? No answer went I asked if he thought the voice had a fingerprint also.

You see, there are two key factors I did not bring up, that I haven't seen anyone else bring up. Care to guess what they are? It is very relevant as to why a best match could be around 50% by that software and short sample.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How about you?

Did you follow the exchange where ElNono thought he was the shit, bringing up all the stuff I already knew about the way audio comparative software works? No answer went I asked if he thought the voice had a fingerprint also.

You see, there are two key factors I did not bring up, that I haven't seen anyone else bring up. Care to guess what they are? It is very relevant as to why a best match could be around 50% by that software and short sample.

Does any one person that reads WC think that his 'knowledge' about audio signal processing and analysis is anything more than what he could find on a google search?

Anyone?

[CosmicCowboy]

Hi, I don't know if you're still here but if you are I was wondering if you could give an opinion on why the prosecution went for Murder 2 instead of manslaughter. Given the evidence that I've been seeing I thought manslaughter would've been easier to prove?

The hold your ground/self defense hurdle is the biggest one the prosecution has to climb on both charges. If they clear that one, they might as well go all in on murder 2.

[ElNono]

ElNono.

Ever give it a thought as to reasons why you could be wrong about the accuracy of Owen's voice analysis?

We had a discussion over voice fingerprinting and analysis in general, specifically after you made some inane claims as to the underlying technology. And you were outed as a fraud not just by me, but also Sportcamper.

Owen's voice analysis is his. Whether it's right or wrong I guess only Owen knows. Which really has nothing to do with the ignorant posts you made here with regards to the underlying technology.

[jack sommerset]

We had a discussion over voice fingerprinting and analysis in general, specifically after you made some inane claims as to the underlying technology. And you were outed as a fraud not just by me, but also Sportcamper.

Owen's voice analysis is his. Whether it's right or wrong I guess only Owen knows. Which really has nothing to do with the ignorant posts you made here with regards to the underlying technology.

WC, I think that is a no. God bless

[ElNono]

How about you?

Did you follow the exchange where ElNono thought he was the shit, bringing up all the stuff I already knew about the way audio comparative software works? No answer went I asked if he thought the voice had a fingerprint also.

You see, there are two key factors I did not bring up, that I haven't seen anyone else bring up. Care to guess what they are? It is very relevant as to why a best match could be around 50% by that software and short sample.

I must have missed that post, whatever that was.
Let first establish you know what you're talking about...

Please describe under which circumstances you would not use a hidden Markov model for speaker recognition.

[TeyshaBlue]

How about you?

Did you follow the exchange where ElNono thought he was the shit, bringing up all the stuff I already knew about the way audio comparative software works? No answer went I asked if he thought the voice had a fingerprint also.

You see, there are two key factors I did not bring up, that I haven't seen anyone else bring up. Care to guess what they are? It is very relevant as to why a best match could be around 50% by that software and short sample.

This should be good. Illuminate me.

[Wild Cobra]

We had a discussion over voice fingerprinting and analysis in general, specifically after you made some inane claims as to the underlying technology. And you were outed as a fraud not just by me, but also Sportcamper.

Owen's voice analysis is his. Whether it's right or wrong I guess only Owen knows. Which really has nothing to do with the ignorant posts you made here with regards to the underlying technology.

So you haven't done any thinking about why you might be wrong. Why doesn't that surprise me?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The judge recused herself from the case citing a conflict of interest. I agree though that watching WC make an ass out of himself is entertaining.

[jack sommerset]

Does anyone here think George will be found guilty? I don't. God bless.

[Wild Cobra]

This should be good. Illuminate me.

The system compares various tonal qualities which make it more advanced than other methods. The specific shapes of out chest and head is why the software can work so well. However, samples are normally taken from sitting or standing. when you have one sample standing or sitting, and the other with a person laying on their back, that changes the way the chest cavity lays due to gravity. now you get someone holding you down, and that changes the chests resonance features even more.

This, along with the stress, small number of sampling, scream vs. talking, all make for an understandable low match.

[Wild Cobra]

Does anyone here think George will be found guilty? I don't. God bless.
I wish I had more details. My biggest fear is he will be innocent, but found guilty.

[Blake]

Does anyone here think George will be found guilty? I don't. God bless.

I find him guilty of dumbfuckery

[TeyshaBlue]

The system compares various tonal qualities which make it more advanced than other methods. The specific shapes of out chest and head is why the software can work so well. However, samples are normally taken from sitting or standing. when you have one sample standing or sitting, and the other with a person laying on their back, that changes the way the chest cavity lays due to gravity. now you get someone holding you down, and that changes the chests resonance features even more.

This, along with the stress, small number of sampling, scream vs. talking, all make for an understandable low match.

Oh. Modeling. Advanced? Perhaps. Accurate?

[ElNono]

The specific shapes of out chest and head is why the software can work so well.

Wrong :lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Does any one person that reads WC think that his 'knowledge' about audio signal processing and analysis is anything more than what he could find on a google search?

Anyone?

[Wild Cobra]

Wrong :lmao
OK...

If you say so.

We will disagree. I guess you will also claim if someone had extensive surgery to change the shape of their nasal cavities, the software will still be fine with that.

[TeyshaBlue]

OK...

If you say so.

We will disagree. I guess you will also claim if someone had extensive surgery to change the shape of their nasal cavities, the software will still be fine with that.

Nasal cavity surgery? Really? Strawman much?

[CosmicCowboy]

Y'all heard of any new controversial murders? I'm tired of this one already.

[ElNono]

So you haven't done any thinking about why you might be wrong. Why doesn't that surprise me?

Unlike you, I'm not invested nor interested in the case. And I know the science behind the technology. I studied it, I use it, and I had to write software that uses it. The part where I wonder if there's anything wrong with the science or the technology is long in the past. I know what the caveats are for using any particular method.

Which brings me to the question I asked specifically to test your knowledge in the area. Are you going to answer that?

[Wild Cobra]

Nasal cavity surgery? Really? Strawman much?
I had to ask.

I forget the right terminology, but everything the software relies on is insufficient between the two samples it had to be tested with. I don't care if ElNono acknowledges it or not. The chest cavity is part of what makes our voices unique from one another. Sitting or laying down makes subtle difference. Being pinned down, even more.

From the start of the "owens" thing, I said that 90% is too high to expect under the circumstances and samples. Unless someone can prove otherwise, I will maintain that.

Not that it matters (or does it,) but I hear Owens is being paid for this as a witness.

[TheSkeptic]

Unlike you, I'm not invested nor interested in the case. And I know the science behind the technology. I studied it, I use it, and I had to write software that uses it. The part where I wonder if there's anything wrong with the science or the technology is long in the past. I know what the caveats are for using any particular method.

Which brings me to the question I asked specifically to test your knowledge in the area. Are you going to answer that?

I see. So since this software has been used in court apparently and the mother/father said it was their son that would probably be enough in court right?

[TeyshaBlue]

If you can't grok the terminology, then allow me to completely dismiss any conclusions you draw from your faulty understanding of accoustic modeling.

[ElNono]

OK...

If you say so.

We will disagree. I guess you will also claim if someone had extensive surgery to change the shape of their nasal cavities, the software will still be fine with that.

This is like talking to a caveman. People might sound different after such surgeries, but it's very unlikely that they'll change the way they talk.
You still think this kind of pattern analysis is only done on pitch, etc. You're dead wrong.

[ElNono]

I don't care if ElNono acknowledges it or not. The chest cavity is part of what makes our voices unique from one another.

I'll acknowledge you don't know what you're talking about.

[ElNono]

I see. So since this software has been used in court apparently and the mother/father said it was their son that would probably be enough in court right?

I'm sure the Police will use similar technology to determine who says what on that call. Unlike the bullshit you've been posting, there's nothing wrong with the underlying technology.

Are you going to answer the question?

[Wild Cobra]

This is like talking to a caveman. People might sound different after such surgeries, but it's very unlikely that they'll change the way they talk.
You still think this kind of pattern analysis is only done on pitch, etc. You're dead wrong.
"The pitch"

So...

Yelling help loudly and under high stress, laying down, probably pinned down should yield a 90%+ result when compared to normal talking and sitting down or standing? Then on two different voice delivery systems as well?

Really now.

[TheSkeptic]

I'm sure the Police will use similar technology to determine who says what on that call. Unlike the bullshit you've been posting, there's nothing wrong with the underlying technology.

Are you going to answer the question?

Is this portion directed at me?

Thanks for the info by the way.

[ElNono]

"The pitch"

Yelling help loudly and under high stress, laying down, probably pinned down should yield a 90%+ result when compared to normal talking and sitting down or standing? Then on two different voice delivery systems as well?

Really now.

Absolutely. *Especially* when people are under severe stress. Because it's even more unlikely that a person will try to fake the way they talk.

[ElNono]

Is this portion directed at me?

Thanks for the info by the way.

No, that was for Cobra. Completely missed it was your post. Sorry.

[TheSkeptic]

No, that was for Cobra. Completely missed it was your post. Sorry.

I figured. :lol No problem.

[ElNono]

BTW, the correct answer is that you would never not use HMM.

Even with a neural network, which is less susceptible to acquire statistical noise from the input and thus better at detecting discrete phonemes, you can't do temporal dependencies with it. So it's good to be used as a pre-process to HMM, but you still have to run HMM over the entire sample.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

BTW, the correct answer is that you would never not use HMM.

Even with a neural network, which is less susceptible to acquire statistical noise from the input and thus better at detecting discrete phonemes, you can't do temporal dependencies with it. So it's good to be used as a pre-process to HMM, but you still have to run HMM over the entire sample.

I for one would love to hear WC discuss stochastics.

[TeyshaBlue]

Stochastics....That's my favorite cheap Vodka.

[ElNono]

I for one would love to hear WC discuss stochastics.

I wouldn't.

[Blake]

i for one would love to hear wc discuss stochastics.

+1

[TeyshaBlue]

I wouldn't.

Wuss

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Stochastics....That's my favorite cheap Vodka.

I really like Stolichnaya.

[Blake]

Stochastics....That's my favorite cheap Vodka.

:lol I think I saw it at costco for $10.99

[ElNono]

Wuss

:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

I really like Stolichnaya.

I can't put down Tito's from Austin. That's some smooth Vodka.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I can't put down Tito's from Austin. That's some smooth Vodka.

Good choice if i may say so myself. :toast

[Wild Cobra]

Unlike you, I'm not invested nor interested in the case. And I know the science behind the technology. I studied it, I use it, and I had to write software that uses it. The part where I wonder if there's anything wrong with the science or the technology is long in the past. I know what the caveats are for using any particular method.

Which brings me to the question I asked specifically to test your knowledge in the area. Are you going to answer that?

I don't believe you know as much as you think you do. Saying Timbre is important, then dismissing physical changes that change timbre is real telling.

[ElNono]

I don't believe you know as much as you think you do. Saying Timbre is important, then dismissing physical changes that change timbre is real telling.

This is very common from you. Because you see something as a big black box you don't understand, you dismiss it with technicalities that have been dealt with a long time ago. State of the art complex statistical models are only new to you. They've been used in all sorts of fields for a fairly long time. HMM models are used from speaker recognition to things like cryptoanalysis (which is a lot closer to home for me).

And the real problem here is not what I know, but what YOU know nothing about. After all, it isn't me making stupid assertions. And it wasn't just me calling you out on it.

[Wild Cobra]

This is very common from you. Because you see something as a big black box you don't understand, you dismiss it with technicalities that have been dealt with a long time ago. State of the art complex statistical models are only new to you. They've been used in all sorts of fields for a fairly long time. HMM models are used from speaker recognition to things like cryptoanalysis (which is a lot closer to home for me).

And the real problem here is not what I know, but what YOU know nothing about. After all, it isn't me making stupid assertions. And it wasn't just me calling you out on it.
Believe as you wish. You are correct that I am not versed in these areas, but I do know there are limitations and that 90% is unreasonable under the situation. I simply cannot believe you accept Owen's stated conclusion. Especially after he "cautions" about not having a sample of martin's voice. isn't it obvious that he leaves open the possibility it is not martin's voice? Would you say if martin only had a 48% match as well, that a third person was screaming for help?

I guess we will wait for the outcomes as they are announced.

Don't you think it's possible Owen purposely said things like he did to be on the case as a paid witness? I did recently read that he is now just that. A witness for the prosecution.

What will you say if he turns out looking like a fool?

[CosmicCowboy]

I can't believe y'all are still arguing about the freaking tapes.

[CosmicCowboy]

I can't put down Tito's from Austin. That's some smooth Vodka.

Yep, Tito's is the best. I also tried Enchanted Rock but think Tito's is still better. Also priced right...$27 for 1.75 liter @ Costco.

[ElNono]

Believe as you wish. You are correct that I am not versed in these areas

That didn't stop you from stating you "have experience in the field", and pretending you know how it all works, did it? :lol


I can't believe y'all are still arguing about the freaking tapes.

Cobra doesn't like to be called out on his ignorance. Took him a good 50+ posts until finally admitting he's "no versed in these areas". Heck, this argument came back up after he claimed I was avoiding answering some more of his asinine claims.


He's still missing I made no qualifications as to whether Owen is right or wrong. I'm not invested in this case as he is. It's his arbitrary claims on the underlying technology what he got called out on. Hopefully that can be put to rest now.

[ElNono]

Yep, Tito's is the best. I also tried Enchanted Rock but think Tito's is still better. Also priced right...$27 for 1.75 liter @ Costco.

I'm gonna have to try that one...

[RandomGuy]

http://thismodernworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/TMW2012-03-28colorlowres.jpg

[elbamba]

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg

Here is a picture of the back of his head three minutes after Zimmerman shot Martin.

Here is the ABC story.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-case-exclusive-photo-shows-bloodied-back/story?id=16177849#.T5FQs9lWBIQ

[clambake]

thats strange. anyone else see anything strange about that?

[boutons_deux]

a strange looking, strange colored head.

The blood seems very bright red for being how old?

So an armed, racist, vigilante wanna-be cop stalks and provokes an unarmed kid (a "young black male" Z's friend said he was obsessed with) into "standing his ground" and then kills the kid. Cased closed, Z is a murderer.

[cantthinkofanything]

thats strange. anyone else see anything strange about that?

yeah...I'm not taking any sides but it isn't what I would expect given the story that's been told so far.

I really have no clue about head injuries and what they should look like. But I would think getting your head banged into the ground wouldn't result in that. It looks like it was cut with something. And to me the location looks too high to have occurred from someone on top of him banging his head into the ground.

Although looking at it again, the injury on the lower right side would seem to fit.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't see anything strange about it.

:lmao

Laughing at Boushit for saying the blood is too red.

[cantthinkofanything]

I don't see anything strange about it.

:lmao

Laughing at Boushit for saying the blood is too red.

Look... I've been hunting all my life. And many times, I end up having to beat the animal's head into the ground to finish it off. The resulting head wounds never look like the one on Zimmerman.

[Fabbs]

Look... I've been hunting all my life. And many times, I end up having to beat the animals head into the ground to finish it off. The resulting head wounds never look like the one on Zimmerman.
I see a special witness being called by the Travon Prosecution team. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Look... I've been hunting all my life. And many times, I end up having to beat the animals head into the ground to finish it off. The resulting head wounds never look like the one on Zimmerman.

:lmao

You forgot to put that in blue.

[boutons_deux]

I don't see anything strange about it.

:lmao

Laughing at Boushit for saying the blood is too red.

blood that's several hours old is not bright red, unless you believe movie/tv fake blood as bright red hours or days old (instead of black).

[CosmicCowboy]

blood that's several hours old is not bright red, unless you believe movie/tv fake blood as bright red hours or days old (instead of black).

More reading comprehension fail by Boushit.

The article explicitly states the picture was taken 3 minutes after Martin was shot.

[cantthinkofanything]

More reading comprehension fail by Boushit.

The article explicitly states the picture was taken 3 minutes after Martin was shot.

cue boutons to talk about the VRWC or repugs or something

[Yonivore]

Look... I've been hunting all my life. And many times, I end up having to beat the animals head into the ground to finish it off. The resulting head wounds never look like the one on Zimmerman.
:tu I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!

[DisAsTerBot]

blood that's several hours old is not bright red, unless you believe movie/tv fake blood as bright red hours or days old (instead of black).

lol, you gotta READ!!!

[clambake]

he's married? he and his wife live with his mommy and daddy?

yep, he's a happy dude.

[clambake]

lol reading the bible.

[CosmicCowboy]

Apparently the judge in the case agrees with Yoni that the charge was a little exaggerated. He grilled their ass at the bond hearing this morning (BTW, 150K bond was set)

http://southflorida.sun-sentinel.com/news/os-george-zimmerman-bond-hearing-20120420,0,4802623.story


State Attorney's investigator Dale Gilbreath testified earlier. O'Mara questioned him about the probable cause affidavit he signed for the second-degree murder charge. Gilbreath said he did not expect to testify at the hearing.

O'Mara grilled Gilbreath on his use of the word "profiling" in describing Zimmerman's behavior that night, asking why he used the term. Gilbreath said the term indicates that Zimmerman saw the teen, then formed an opinion of him not based on any facts.

O'Mara asked Gilbreath about unattributed statements in several sections of the affidavit.

"'Zimmerman confronted Martin.' Those words, where'd you get them from," O'Mara asked.

"According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occured," Gilbreath said. He said "confronted," the word O'Mara took issue with, was one of probably 30 he could have used.

Prosecutor Bernie De La Rionda then questioned Gilbreath. He asked is there was any evidence that Trayvon Martin shouldn't have been in the neighborhood where the shooting occurred, or was breaking any law. Gilbreath said no.

Gilbreath testified that there is video of Trayvon Martin buying Skittles and iced tea before the shooting. He also said that Trayvon was unarmed.

During further questioning by O'Mara, Gilbreath admitted that the state has no evidence who started the fight. There is also no evidence that Zimmerman didn't walk back to his car after chasing Martin on foot, as the defendant has claimed.

[CosmicCowboy]

Gilbreath admitted that the state has no evidence who started the fight. There is also no evidence that Zimmerman didn't walk back to his car after chasing Martin on foot, as the defendant has claimed.

2nd degree murder? Overcharge, did we?

[clambake]

idk, a grown, married man living with mommy and daddy?

i'm sure he's emotionally stable.

[clambake]

2nd degree murder? Overcharge, did we?

its 2nd degree cuz the guy deliberately stalked and ended up killing the kid.

[CosmicCowboy]

its 2nd degree cuz the guy deliberately stalked and ended up killing the kid.

Technically stalking in a legal sense requires multiple repeated acts.

But you knew that, didn't you?

[CosmicCowboy]

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/stalking/


A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking.

[clambake]

i don't think he cared about legal sense.

[Yonivore]

i don't think he cared about legal sense.
Well, fortunately for the rest of us, whether he cared or not, the law suggests there was no stalking.

[clambake]

he was out looking for prey.........with a gun.

should we call that.........hunting?

[CosmicCowboy]

he was out looking for prey.........with a gun.

should we call that.........hunting?

Now you are just trolling.

[clambake]

Now you are just trolling.

what would you call it?

[CosmicCowboy]

I still call it a tragic misunderstanding by both parties.

And based on these new admissions by the prosecution IMHO they don't have a snowballs chance in Florida of getting a 2nd degree murder conviction.

[boutons_deux]

hunting, yep, exactly what the vigilante was doing.

Armed and stalking his young black male hoodie prey, confronting him aka went in for the kill, and then killing him. Mission Accomplished, got his trophy.

[clambake]

I still call it a tragic misunderstanding by both parties.

george didn't know what he was doing?

[CosmicCowboy]

hunting, yep, exactly what the vigilante was doing.

Armed and stalking his young black male hoodie prey, confronting him aka went in for the kill, and then killing him. Mission Accomplished, got his trophy.

Boushit!

Why call the police ahead of time then where they would arrive almost simultaneously? That makes absolutely no sense.

[CosmicCowboy]

george didn't know what he was doing?

Sure, he knew he was trying to keep an eye on Martin until the police got there.

Are you really going to troll this again?

[clambake]

Boushit!

Why call the police ahead of time then where they would arrive almost simultaneously? That makes absolutely no sense.

i agree. george really fucked up. big time.

dude got issues.

[clambake]

Sure, he knew he was trying to keep an eye on Martin until the police got there.

Are you really going to troll this again?

dude is packin a gun. he has intent. and he's pissed......about everything in his life.

[Bill_Brasky]

Boushit!

Why call the police ahead of time then where they would arrive almost simultaneously? That makes absolutely no sense.

To make it look more accidental.

"im gonna call 911 to cover my ass then disregard everything they tell me"

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

Blue team is on fire with comedy this morning...

[clambake]

george's parents are probably happy. anything to get this guy and his wife outta the house.

[Yonivore]

I still call it a tragic misunderstanding by both parties.

And based on these new admissions by the prosecution IMHO they don't have a snowballs chance in Florida of getting a 2nd degree murder conviction.
I disagree. Someone intentionally escalated the encounter to violence.

That's not a misunderstanding.

[clambake]

I disagree. Someone intentionally escalated the encounter to violence.

That's not a misunderstanding.

yep, he knew what he was doin.

[CosmicCowboy]

I disagree. Someone intentionally escalated the encounter to violence.

That's not a misunderstanding.

Try to keep up Yoni.

Zimmerman saw a black kid in a hoodie and thought he was looking for something to steal.

That was a misunderstanding.

Martin saw a Mexican following him (possibly to rob or mug him?) and allegedly decided to confront him about it.

That was a misunderstanding.

The fact that it escalated to violence was tragic, but if the police have no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the escalation to violence then IMHO they can't possibly prove 2nd degree murder. Beyond a shadow of a doubt is a damn high threshold.

[clambake]

why didn't the guy just enlist?


oh....yeah.....the enemy packs heat.







nevermind.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Stalking :lol

So celebrity stalkers stalk their victims for only 20 minutes or so???????
They go to jail for years for something that takes about the same amount of time as a good morning dump????? :lol

[Yonivore]

Try to keep up Yoni.

Zimmerman saw a black kid in a hoodie and thought he was looking for something to steal.

That was a misunderstanding.

Martin saw a Mexican following him (possibly to rob or mug him?) and allegedly decided to confront him about it.

That was a misunderstanding.

The fact that it escalated to violence was tragic, but if the police have no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the escalation to violence then IMHO they can't possibly prove 2nd degree murder. Beyond a shadow of a doubt is a damn high threshold.
I'm keeping up fine. At some point, the misunderstandings had to result in one of the two involved making a conscious decision to do something that exceeded a reasonable response to either of the misunderstandings you describe.

According to the girlfriend, Trayvon asked Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" Also, according to the girlfriend, Zimmerman responded, "What are you doing here?"

It was at that point someone made a conscious decision to escalate the misunderstanding to violence.

And, taking all we know about the incident so far, I'm led to believe that because Trayvon Martin didn't simply say, "I live here -- what fucking business is it of your?," that it was him that made that decision.

That's my opinion. That's what Zimmerman claims. And, so far, all the public fact known about the case are consistent with that scenario. Could it be wrong should other information come to light? Absolutely.

[clambake]

comparing this to celebrity stalking? really?

[clambake]

george has the luxury of claiming whatever he wants.

[DarrinS]

Grass cuts

http://gothamist.com/attachments/byakas/42012zimmemran1.jpg

[cantthinkofanything]

george has the luxury of claiming whatever he wants.

including the truth

[clambake]

Grass cuts

http://gothamist.com/attachments/byakas/42012zimmemran1.jpg

probably fell down from the recoil.

[clambake]

including the truth

including whatever it takes to get off.

thats his truth.

[Yonivore]

george has the luxury of claiming whatever he wants.
Well, that's not exactly true.

He can't claim things that contradict the physical evidence.

[clambake]

Well, that's not exactly true.

He can't claim things that contradict the physical evidence.

are you suggesting that he'll take the stand during trial?

[CosmicCowboy]

are you suggesting that he'll take the stand during trial?

Interesting question, but based on what has come out so far I don't see why he wouldn't.

[clambake]

he pulls his gun out while he's on his back, supposedly getting his head bashed in?

i smell a rat.

[cantthinkofanything]

including whatever it takes to get off.

thats his truth.

which could be the real truth

[CosmicCowboy]

he pulls his gun out while he's on his back, supposedly getting his head bashed in?

i smell a rat.

LOL I smell a troll.

[Winehole23]

Interesting question, but based on what has come out so far I don't see why he wouldn't.The charges are 2nd degree murder; you don't see the danger of letting him take the stand in his own defense?

Maybe that's why someone else gets the big bucks to defend him, counselor Cosmic Cowboy...

[Yonivore]

he pulls his gun out while he's on his back, supposedly getting his head bashed in?

i smell a rat.
That could be Zimmerman's desperation to stay alive you smell, they are similar.

[djohn2oo8]

The charges are 2nd degree murder; you don't see the danger of letting him take the stand in his own defense?

Maybe that's why someone else gets the big bucks to defend him, counselor Cosmic Cowboy...
:lmao True, the prosecution would tear him apart.

[clambake]

That could be Zimmerman's desperation to stay alive.

could be he already had it out.

the kid can't tell us his side.

[Yonivore]

could be he already had it out.

the kid can't tell us his side.
You're right.

But, that's something physical evidence and a careful review of the facts can answer.

For instance; if he already had it out, how and why would he allow Martin to break his nose and proceed to beat his head against a concrete sidewalk before pulling the trigger?

Also, ballistics and an autopsy will answer questions about proximity, trajectory, whether there was evidence the gun was trapped between the two men's bodies when it was fired, whether Martin's hands may have been on the gun when it was fired -- indicating a fight over the gun; etc...

[clambake]

what do mean broke his nose? never saw any bruising.

[CosmicCowboy]

The charges are 2nd degree murder; you don't see the danger of letting him take the stand in his own defense?

Maybe that's why someone else gets the big bucks to defend him, counselor Cosmic Cowboy...

So smartass, do you know any other way he can get his narrative of how the events unfolded on the record?

[Yonivore]

what do mean broke his nose? never saw any bruising.
Police reported Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and back of his head. Zimmerman claims his nose was broken.

I'm sure medical records will confirm or refute at trial, if he exaggerated the injury. But, police did report he was bleeding from the nose. An injury that would be consistent with Zimmerman's claim Martin punched him in the nose.

[clambake]

So smartass, do you know any other way he can get his narrative of how the events unfolded on the record?

in florida? did you see any of the anthony trial?

[Yonivore]

So smartass, do you know any other way he can get his narrative of how the events unfolded on the record?
He's already made statements to police. Those should be sufficient to tell his side of the story.

I don't see him taking the stand.

But, to be honest, I don't see this going to trial. I think it could be dismissed.

[CosmicCowboy]

in florida? did you see any of the anthony trial?

No

You watched it?

:lmao

[clambake]

No

You watched it?

:lmao

yeah, they showed clips of the trial on all the networks. her attorney made some pretty wild claims.

[Yonivore]

yeah, they showed clips of the trial on all the networks. her attorney made some pretty wild claims.
You watch the networks? :lmao

[clambake]

You watch the networks? :lmao

it was on all the networks, including local. including fox......what being fair and balanced and all.

[Winehole23]

So smartass, do you know any other way he can get his narrative of how the events unfolded on the record?No, I don't, but that don't mean there ain't one.

I ain't a lawyer either, but the dangers of testimony are susceptible to common sense. A completely truthful witness might not do so well on the stand for a number of reasons -- looks, level of education, dialect, race, nervousness, emotional fragility etc.., or the seriousness of the charges might make it inadvisable for the defendant to testify without powerful, highly specific reasons for doing so.

Aren't the lawyers allowed to revisit their theories in summation?

(shrugs)

[Yonivore]

it was on all the networks, including local. including fox......what being fair and balanced and all.
Yeah, I don't watch those anymore...not in years.

[clambake]

Yeah, I don't watch those anymore...not in years.

you don't watch your local news from time to time?

[Yonivore]

No, I don't, but that don't mean there ain't one.

I ain't a lawyer either, but the dangers of testimony are susceptible to common sense. A completely truthful witness might not do so well on the stand for a number of reasons -- looks, level of education, dialect, race, nervousness, emotional fragility etc.., or the seriousness of the charges might make it inadvisable for the defendant to testify without powerful, highly specific reasons for doing so.

Aren't the lawyers allowed to revisit their theories in summation?

(shrugs)
I also think in this case the Defense has the luxury of allowing the facts speak for themselves.

But, you're right, a innocent person in the hands of an unscrupulous prosecutor can be made to appear guilty. It happened this morning during the bail hearing when prosecutors started badgering Zimmerman about whether or not he changed his story over the course of several interviews he gave to police.

[clambake]

I also think in this case the Defense has the luxury of allowing the facts speak for themselves.

But, you're right, a innocent person in the hands of an unscrupulous prosecutor can be made to appear guilty. It happened this morning during the bail hearing when prosecutors started badgering Zimmerman about whether or not he changed his story over the course of several interviews he gave to police.

didn't see it. he took the stand this morning?

why?

[Winehole23]

Zimmerman's innocent until proven guilty. I find it humorous that you resent the prosecution for doing its job, tho.

[Yonivore]

didn't see it. he took the stand this morning?

why?
I heard it on the radio.

If I heard correctly, he took the stand to respond to Trayvon's mother's questions asked in the media last week and to offer an apology, I believe.

Of course, the prosecutor to the opportunity to badger him over the case and the Martin's attorney has already called his apology self-serving.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20/Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral


With ABC News’ release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans’ head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”
After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”
Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."
When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, “We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it …
"I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors,” Dershowitz said, “and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"
Dershowitz added, "I'm not taking sides, but I'm insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules."

[GSH]

what do mean broke his nose? never saw any bruising.

You never saw the injuries to the BACK of his head either. There's a lot of shit you moonbats talked about, without knowing any of the facts. This picture was taken at the scene of the shooting, the night it happened.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_ssh.jpg

Oops.

And, for the record, SEVERAL neighbors have spoken about the bandages and swelling on his nose, the following day.

[GSH]

Zimmerman's innocent until proven guilty. I find it humorous that you resent the prosecution for doing its job, tho.

And we find it humorous that so many of you presumed that the original prosecution hadn't done its job, just because they didn't see fit to release all the evidence to the public. You never even considered the possibility that they were gathering evidence, or that the preliminary facts suggested that there simply wasn't sufficient evidence to charge the man. Nice try at turning things around, though.

Which one of you wingnuts said that the next person to say "innocent until proven guilty" should be punched in the face? The concept is suddenly not so far-fetched, is it?

[GSH]

One more thing - if Zimmerman really set out to kill a poor, innocent black kid that night, they way so many of you suggested when this thing first started, he wouldn't have just allowed Treyvon to smash his head into the sidewalk first. If he really was the cold-blooded, racist murderer you people insisted he was, he would have just shot the kid and been done with it. Or do you think that Treyvon did that to Zimmerman AFTER he got shot? (Actually, I'm surprised we haven't heard that theory yet.)

You made up your minds without the facts, and now a bunch of you are trying to back-pedal, or at least shift to other narratives. You won't admit that you were assholes, so other people are obligated to do it for you.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

comparing this to celebrity stalking? really?

Of course. Is it different because these people aren't celebrities? Do we put popular people on a higher pedestal? Stalking is stalking is stalking. You and other people are harping on "stalking". 20 or so minutes is not "stalking"

[boutons_deux]

"he wouldn't have just allowed Treyvon to smash his head into the sidewalk first"

M was lighter but maybe he stronger, faster, more agile, better fighter than the greasebag be@ner. be@ner couldn't hold his own as Z "stood his ground" in self-defense, so be@ner used his gun to "even the playing field" and shot Z.

I don't think Z went out to kill anybody specific, but going out on simple neighborhood patrol with loaded gun says he was ready to kill.

[Blake]

Was Zimmerman lying on the ground with Martin on top of him when he shot him?

Or has that not yet been revealed?

[Wild Cobra]

its 2nd degree cuz the guy deliberately stalked and ended up killing the kid.
Love to see you try to get your definition of stalked past the court system.

[Wild Cobra]

Now you are just trolling.

I don't think he's trolling. I think he believes it.

[Wild Cobra]

Grass cuts

http://gothamist.com/attachments/byakas/42012zimmemran1.jpg
Are those worse than paper cuts?

[boutons_deux]

stalking is one definition

carry a concealed, loaded gun is totally separate

putting the two together in Z would make him highly suspect of murder.

[Wild Cobra]

He's already made statements to police. Those should be sufficient to tell his side of the story.

I don't see him taking the stand.

But, to be honest, I don't see this going to trial. I think it could be dismissed.
In the real world, it should be. Too many people want a mob lynching type justice. They don't care about the facts, they want revenge.

[GSH]

Oh, and here's Zimmerman's "violent past" that so many people used as an excuse to judge him guilty of murder.

In 2005, Zimmerman was arrested in Orange County, Fla., and accused of battering a police officer and obstructing justice. He pleaded to a lower charge and was ordered to attend an anger management program.

Both his wife and father testified that Zimmerman had seen two men in civilian clothes shoving his friend against a wall and that the officers never identified themselves as police. However, a police affidavit claimed that when the officers showed their badges Zimmerman said, "I don't care who you are."


I know several people who got arrested for standing up to police who were abusing their power, and just being general assholes. Sometimes people don't understand that once the cops identify themselves, they are immune from interference, no matter what they are doing. Hell, Tom Waits got arrested for standing up to a couple of off-duty cops in a bar, who were trying to jump ahead of people in line.

It doesn't automatically make them guilty of the next thing they are accused of. Only evidence does that.

[Yonivore]

Was Zimmerman lying on the ground with Martin on top of him when he shot him?

Or has that not yet been revealed?
And eyewitness quoted in the media, early on, said Zimmerman was on his back and Martin was on top of him, beating him up. The eyewitness called 911 and retreated upstairs (presumably to his home). By the time he got to the top of the stairs and looked back down; the man who had been on top doing the beating was lying in the grass lifeless.

That would be consistent with Zimmerman shooting Martin while he was on top of him on the ground. But, it's also possible that as the witness retreated, Martin quit beating him, got on his feet, and then Zimmerman shot him.

That's a question ballistics and the autopsy can certainly answer.

[Trill Clinton]

smh@ those piece of shit injuries:lmao

I've fallen and scraped my knee and had more blood that that. It wasn't serious enough for him to get stitched up so that pic is irrelevant.

At this point its looking more and more like this creep is going to get off. I hope they do and we get some street justice.

[GSH]

stalking is one definition

carry a concealed, loaded gun is totally separate

putting the two together in Z would make him highly suspect of murder.


Trying to talk to an unknown person in your neighborhood isn't stalking, nor is it illegal. It was also perfectly legal for Zimmerman to be carrying the weapon. Two legal acts "together" don't make a person highly suspect of anything illegal. If they did, I have no doubt that people would be tracking your weird ass down and making citizens arrests.

Once again, you should be glad that the rest of the people don't follow your twisted rules for life. And if you ever get accused of anything, you better hope like hell you don't get people like yourself on the jury.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

stalking is one definition

carry a concealed, loaded gun is totally separate

putting the two together in Z would make him highly suspect of murder.

:lmao

Gfy. Repeatedly