Now we're going with the "prosecutors lie" route?? Lol is that how far yall are willing to go to defend this murderer?
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:
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.We know Zimmerman was injured in a way consistent with what we are hearing he's claiming.
This has become asinine. I will wait for something meaningful to come out and I will reenter the discussion.
Now we're going with the "prosecutors lie" route?? Lol is that how far yall are willing to go to defend this murderer?
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.
Cops lie.
Witnesses lie.
Defendants lie.
Defense attorneys lie.
Think that about covers it.
prosecutors lie
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.
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?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 04-17-2012 at 03:12 AM.
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 ing 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 ing disgrace.
See...
Liar...
Stalking never occurred.
Again, are you stupid, or a liar?
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.
The prosecutor absolutely did lie, unless there is audio not released that had them telling Zimmerman not to follow.
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.
"George Zimmerman didn’t want to kill anyone"
bull . 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.
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.
Appreciate it.You're a prosecutor?
Respect.
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.
BTW, I appreciate the fact that the job needs to be done and they don't pay y'all 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.
CosmicKettle just running on hearsay per the usual
pot, meet kettle
Blake just nibbling at the ankles of his betters per the usual.
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 su ious 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?
Last edited by Yonivore; 04-17-2012 at 10:20 AM.
CosmicKettle still thinking he's better after being shown up per the usual.
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.
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.
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 do ent with the elements.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
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.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 su ious 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.
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.4) The affidavit relies -- to an incredible degree -- on hearsay; particularly the impression of witnesses on who was screaming on the call recording.
Eh, it's a PC affidavit. They just have to prove it in court. There's enough there cir stantially 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.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?
There are currently 8 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 8 guests)
Posting Permissions
