Londo_Jowo
Lifer
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html
He stated that GZ statements have inconsistencies that don't match the evidence.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html
He stated that GZ statements have inconsistencies that don't match the evidence.
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
Did George Zimmerman Have a Reasonable Suspicion that Trayvon Martin Intended to Commit a Crime?
August 25, 2012
I believe it may be useful to compare what a police officer may have been able to do to Trayvon Martin, if he had seen him walking in the rain.
A police officer could not have stopped Trayvon Martin and temporarily detained him to determine his identity and investigate what he was doing in the neighborhood, unless he had a reasonable suspicion that Trayvon had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.
Whenever you see the word reasonable, as part of a legal test or rule, you should immediately realize that the test or rule is objective, not subjective.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that George Zimmerman actually believed Trayvon Martin was, as he put it, up to no good. In other words, he had a subjective hunch that Trayvon was casing the neighborhood looking for a house to burglarize or someones property to steal.
A subjective hunch is not a reasonable suspicion unless there were sufficient articulable facts and circumstances such that a reasonable person in George Zimmermans situation would have suspected Trayvon intended to burglarize someones home or steal someones property.
We know the answer to that question is No, because Chris Serino told him that. Based on what George Zimmerman claimed to have seen, he did not have a reasonable basis to stop and detain Trayvon Martin.
Regardless what the Zimmerman supporters say, this is an undisputed fact and conclusion of law.
Serino was right. Walking through the neighborhood looking around at houses and hanging out in the covered mailbox area while it was raining does not suggest criminal activity of any kind is about to happen.
Serino also told him that his hoodie notwithstanding, Martin was not dressed in gang attire because he was wearing tan chinos and white tennis shoes.
Therefore, a police officer would have violated Trayvons Fourth Amendment right to privacy, if he had stopped and detained him for a few minutes to check his identification and ask him what he was doing in the neighborhood.
Police also have a community caretaker responsibility, however, that does not necessarily involve preventing criminal activity. If an officer saw a front door open, for example, she could walk up to the open door and look inside or call out to see if anyone is home.
If she saw Trayvon walking in the rain looking around at houses, she could approach him and ask him if he needed any assistance. That type of contact does not constitute a stop because the person contacted is free to leave at any time. The protections of the Fourth Amendment do not apply to those types of contacts.
George Zimmerman passed up two opportunities to do the same thing, but declined to do so.
By the way, if you should ever find yourself in an ambiguous situation after being contacted by a police officer, just ask the officer politely if you are free to go.
If the answer is No, the protections of the Fourth Amendment apply to you. You can be temporarily detained long enough for the police officer to determine your identity and confirm or reject his suspicion. If the officer determines that there is probable cause to arrest, he may arrest you and take you to jail. If not, he must release you.
At any time, you may assert your 4th Amendment right to refuse to consent to a search, your 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer questions, and your 6th Amendment right to counsel. If you decide to assert any or all of these rights, do so politely.
Be advised that operating a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right. If you are pulled over for suspicion of DUI and asked to take a breathalyzer, your refusal will result in a suspension of your license, regardless if you are subsequently acquitted of DUI. You can always insist on a blood test.
Probable cause is reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a crime. As such, it is more than reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed a crime.
I believe its now clear that George Zimmerman assumed Trayvon Martin was a criminal looking for a house to burglarize or some property to steal and he hunted him down with the intent of detaining him in order to prevent him from getting away. He was so determined to do that that he intentionally and willfully disregarded the Neighborhood Watch rules and the NEN dispatchers admonition.
Acting as a private citizen, he had no authority or right to touch Trayvon, let alone restrain him.
Now that we have reviewed and understand the SYG law, we realize that Trayvon had the right to stand his ground and use reasonably necessary force to defend himself.
I am not satisfied that he used any force to defend himself, but if he did, he had a right to do so.
Since George Zimmerman was the aggressor, he had no right to use any force, let alone deadly force to defend himself.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Trayvon Martin used excessive and deadly force to defend against George Zimmermans initial use of force, George Zimmerman would have been required to attempt to withdraw from the confrontation and offer to quit fighting before he could lawfully use deadly force to defend himself.
George Zimmerman never claimed that he did and there is no evidence that he did.
Therefore, George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. He committed an imminently dangerous act with a depraved mind indifferent to human life and that is the definition of murder in the second degree.
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
August 25, 2012
I believe it may be useful to compare what a police officer may have been able to do to Trayvon Martin, if he had seen him walking in the rain.
A police officer could not have stopped Trayvon Martin and temporarily detained him to determine his identity and investigate what he was doing in the neighborhood, unless he had a reasonable suspicion that Trayvon had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime.
Whenever you see the word reasonable, as part of a legal test or rule, you should immediately realize that the test or rule is objective, not subjective.
Let us assume for the sake of argument that George Zimmerman actually believed Trayvon Martin was, as he put it, up to no good. In other words, he had a subjective hunch that Trayvon was casing the neighborhood looking for a house to burglarize or someones property to steal.
A subjective hunch is not a reasonable suspicion unless there were sufficient articulable facts and circumstances such that a reasonable person in George Zimmermans situation would have suspected Trayvon intended to burglarize someones home or steal someones property.
We know the answer to that question is No, because Chris Serino told him that. Based on what George Zimmerman claimed to have seen, he did not have a reasonable basis to stop and detain Trayvon Martin.
Regardless what the Zimmerman supporters say, this is an undisputed fact and conclusion of law.
Serino was right. Walking through the neighborhood looking around at houses and hanging out in the covered mailbox area while it was raining does not suggest criminal activity of any kind is about to happen.
Serino also told him that his hoodie notwithstanding, Martin was not dressed in gang attire because he was wearing tan chinos and white tennis shoes.
Therefore, a police officer would have violated Trayvons Fourth Amendment right to privacy, if he had stopped and detained him for a few minutes to check his identification and ask him what he was doing in the neighborhood.
Police also have a community caretaker responsibility, however, that does not necessarily involve preventing criminal activity. If an officer saw a front door open, for example, she could walk up to the open door and look inside or call out to see if anyone is home.
If she saw Trayvon walking in the rain looking around at houses, she could approach him and ask him if he needed any assistance. That type of contact does not constitute a stop because the person contacted is free to leave at any time. The protections of the Fourth Amendment do not apply to those types of contacts.
George Zimmerman passed up two opportunities to do the same thing, but declined to do so.
By the way, if you should ever find yourself in an ambiguous situation after being contacted by a police officer, just ask the officer politely if you are free to go.
If the answer is No, the protections of the Fourth Amendment apply to you. You can be temporarily detained long enough for the police officer to determine your identity and confirm or reject his suspicion. If the officer determines that there is probable cause to arrest, he may arrest you and take you to jail. If not, he must release you.
At any time, you may assert your 4th Amendment right to refuse to consent to a search, your 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer questions, and your 6th Amendment right to counsel. If you decide to assert any or all of these rights, do so politely.
Be advised that operating a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right. If you are pulled over for suspicion of DUI and asked to take a breathalyzer, your refusal will result in a suspension of your license, regardless if you are subsequently acquitted of DUI. You can always insist on a blood test.
Probable cause is reasonable grounds to believe that a person has committed a crime. As such, it is more than reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed a crime.
I believe its now clear that George Zimmerman assumed Trayvon Martin was a criminal looking for a house to burglarize or some property to steal and he hunted him down with the intent of detaining him in order to prevent him from getting away. He was so determined to do that that he intentionally and willfully disregarded the Neighborhood Watch rules and the NEN dispatchers admonition.
Acting as a private citizen, he had no authority or right to touch Trayvon, let alone restrain him.
Now that we have reviewed and understand the SYG law, we realize that Trayvon had the right to stand his ground and use reasonably necessary force to defend himself.
I am not satisfied that he used any force to defend himself, but if he did, he had a right to do so.
Since George Zimmerman was the aggressor, he had no right to use any force, let alone deadly force to defend himself.
Assuming for the sake of argument that Trayvon Martin used excessive and deadly force to defend against George Zimmermans initial use of force, George Zimmerman would have been required to attempt to withdraw from the confrontation and offer to quit fighting before he could lawfully use deadly force to defend himself.
George Zimmerman never claimed that he did and there is no evidence that he did.
Therefore, George Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. He committed an imminently dangerous act with a depraved mind indifferent to human life and that is the definition of murder in the second degree.
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
Zimmerman: Did George Zimmerman’s Conduct Exhibit Premeditation? UPDATED Below
August 22, 2012
We not only have considerable evidence of a depraved mind with no regard for human life, we have substantial evidence of premeditation that could lead a grand jury to indict Zimmerman for Murder in the First Degree, if the prosecution were inclined to seek an indictment, because the evidence from out of his own mouth shows that he
(1) grabbed his gun,
(2) extended his arm beyond his left hand so that he would not accidentally shoot it,
(3) aimed his gun at point blank range,
(4) pulled the trigger shooting Martin in the chest,
(5) rolled Martin’s body over so that it was face down in the wet grass,
(6) told witnesses not to call 911 because he had already done that even though he knew that no ambulance was on the way because the dispatcher at the non-emergency number that he called had only dispatched an officer to the neighborhood, rather than to a specific address, to investigate a suspicious circumstance, and
(7) mounted him by straddling his body with his full weight on Martin’s back while, according to winesses Mary Cutcher and Selma Mora), leaning forward with his hands on Martin’s neck restricting Martin’s airway.
Proof of premeditation does not require a minimum amount of time. It does require evidence that a defendant formed the specific intent to kill, reflected on the decision to kill, and went ahead and killed the person.
In Berube v. State, 5 So. 3d 734 (2009), the Court defined premeditation as follows:
GZ’s actions after the shot also are probative of his intentions before the shot, unless he wants to argue that he was just trying to euthanize Martin to prevent him from suffering, which would be exceedingly unwise to argue for reasons that I am certain I do not have to explain.
In other words, if he had not premeditated the death of TM, he would not have continued his attempt to kill him by suffocating him and delaying the arrival of emergency medical assistance.
He had an opportunity to change his mind, but he decided to continue his effort to kill Martin.
If I were Angela Corey, I would be inclined to leave the charge as is at second degree murder because it’s punishable by life in prison and GZ’s conduct is so extremely depraved and shocking to human sensibility that a life sentence is likely.
Since the probable sentence would be the same, there is no reason to prosecute him for the more serious offense.
Last, but by no means least, GZ’s depraved behavior after the shot exhibits consciousness of guilt because:
(1) He is not reasonably in imminent danger of suffering death or serious bodily injury, and
(2) He is attempting to kill the only witness who could definitively refute his claim that he shot Martin in self-defense
Put another way, if he truly shot Martin in self-defense as he claims, he would not have any reason to attempt to delay the arrival of medical attention to the maximum extent possible while attempting to secretively and furtively finish the job of killing him by smothering him to death in front of many witnesses, including children.
UPDATE: Mary Cutcher filled out a handwritten statement dated February 26th, the night of the shooting (p.102 of 184), in which she told the police she and her roommate, Selma Mora stepped out on their patio after the shot and twice asked George Zimmerman what was going on. She said he told the to “just call the police.” Her handwritten statement was released in the first document dump. (H/T to CommonSenseForChange)
UPDATE 2: Mirre commented,
His behavior prior to telling them to call 911 demonstrated no concern for Martin.
Equally important, I think, is that he did not call 911 to seek emergency medical treatment for himself. That suggests he knew his injuries were minor, even if bleeding and painful, and it was more important to him to gain more time for Trayvon Martin to die than it was to get medical assistance for himself.
How chilling is that?
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
August 22, 2012
We not only have considerable evidence of a depraved mind with no regard for human life, we have substantial evidence of premeditation that could lead a grand jury to indict Zimmerman for Murder in the First Degree, if the prosecution were inclined to seek an indictment, because the evidence from out of his own mouth shows that he
(1) grabbed his gun,
(2) extended his arm beyond his left hand so that he would not accidentally shoot it,
(3) aimed his gun at point blank range,
(4) pulled the trigger shooting Martin in the chest,
(5) rolled Martin’s body over so that it was face down in the wet grass,
(6) told witnesses not to call 911 because he had already done that even though he knew that no ambulance was on the way because the dispatcher at the non-emergency number that he called had only dispatched an officer to the neighborhood, rather than to a specific address, to investigate a suspicious circumstance, and
(7) mounted him by straddling his body with his full weight on Martin’s back while, according to winesses Mary Cutcher and Selma Mora), leaning forward with his hands on Martin’s neck restricting Martin’s airway.
Proof of premeditation does not require a minimum amount of time. It does require evidence that a defendant formed the specific intent to kill, reflected on the decision to kill, and went ahead and killed the person.
In Berube v. State, 5 So. 3d 734 (2009), the Court defined premeditation as follows:
“Premeditation is the essential element which distinguishes first-degree murder from second-degree murder.
“Premeditation is defined as more than a mere intent to kill; it is a fully formed conscious purpose to kill.
“This purpose to kill may be formed a moment before the act but must exist for a sufficient length of time to permit reflection as to the nature of the act to be committed and the probable result of that act.”
The evidence that establishes intent to kill is the shooting itself. Depravity, reflection and renewed intent to kill (i.e., premeditation) are established by the multiple acts after the shot to delay, to the maximum extent possible, the arrival of emergency medical assistance that, from his perspective, might have saved TM’s life, while at the same time secretively and furtively attempting to administer the coup de grace in the dark area between the two buildings of townhouses within view of many witnesses, including children.“Premeditation is defined as more than a mere intent to kill; it is a fully formed conscious purpose to kill.
“This purpose to kill may be formed a moment before the act but must exist for a sufficient length of time to permit reflection as to the nature of the act to be committed and the probable result of that act.”
GZ’s actions after the shot also are probative of his intentions before the shot, unless he wants to argue that he was just trying to euthanize Martin to prevent him from suffering, which would be exceedingly unwise to argue for reasons that I am certain I do not have to explain.
In other words, if he had not premeditated the death of TM, he would not have continued his attempt to kill him by suffocating him and delaying the arrival of emergency medical assistance.
He had an opportunity to change his mind, but he decided to continue his effort to kill Martin.
If I were Angela Corey, I would be inclined to leave the charge as is at second degree murder because it’s punishable by life in prison and GZ’s conduct is so extremely depraved and shocking to human sensibility that a life sentence is likely.
Since the probable sentence would be the same, there is no reason to prosecute him for the more serious offense.
Last, but by no means least, GZ’s depraved behavior after the shot exhibits consciousness of guilt because:
(1) He is not reasonably in imminent danger of suffering death or serious bodily injury, and
(2) He is attempting to kill the only witness who could definitively refute his claim that he shot Martin in self-defense
Put another way, if he truly shot Martin in self-defense as he claims, he would not have any reason to attempt to delay the arrival of medical attention to the maximum extent possible while attempting to secretively and furtively finish the job of killing him by smothering him to death in front of many witnesses, including children.
UPDATE: Mary Cutcher filled out a handwritten statement dated February 26th, the night of the shooting (p.102 of 184), in which she told the police she and her roommate, Selma Mora stepped out on their patio after the shot and twice asked George Zimmerman what was going on. She said he told the to “just call the police.” Her handwritten statement was released in the first document dump. (H/T to CommonSenseForChange)
UPDATE 2: Mirre commented,
“I thought 46 seconds was a long time. If you listen to Selma’s statement, knowing that Trayvon may have been concious, the depraved mind becomes very obvious. In Tchoupi’s chart, you can also see that one second before W18 tells the dispatcher, she sees GZ getting up, W3 tells the dispatcher she can see the police arriving on TTL.
Depraved mind indeed.”
Looks like George Zimmerman may have already known the police had arrived when he told Mary Cutcher and Selma Mora to “just call the police.”Depraved mind indeed.”
His behavior prior to telling them to call 911 demonstrated no concern for Martin.
Equally important, I think, is that he did not call 911 to seek emergency medical treatment for himself. That suggests he knew his injuries were minor, even if bleeding and painful, and it was more important to him to gain more time for Trayvon Martin to die than it was to get medical assistance for himself.
How chilling is that?
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
Zimmerman: Did He Act With a Depraved Mind After He Shot Trayvon Martin?
August 21, 2012
George Zimmerman’s defense suffered a huge hit this week.
Rene Stutzman of the Orlando Sentinel reported that two forensic pathologists who reviewed Trayvon Martin’s autopsy report, Dr William L. Manion from Mt. Holly, NJ and Dr. William Anderson, the former Medical Examiner for Orange and Osceola counties, told her that Trayvon Martin would have survived “for several minutes” after George Zimmerman shot him in the heart.
The two doctors agreed that Trayvon remained conscious for a time. Anderson suggested the teenager may have been conscious for several minutes. Manion estimated it at just 20 to 30 seconds.
“He certainly would have experienced pain,” Manion said.
Our very own Patricia contacted Ms. Stutzman after her article appeared in the Orlando Sentinel on Friday, August 17th and asked her to follow-up regarding how long Trayvon Martin might have been conscious.
Ms. Stutzman responded yesterday with this email:
Thanks to Patricia’s persistent questioning and Rene Stutzman’s reporting, we now have solid evidence that George Zimmerman “evinced a depraved mind.”
Murder Second Degree is defined as:
Conduct “evincing a depraved mind” is conduct that shows no regard for human life.
Before I read Ms. Stutzman’s article and her follow-up email, I believed there was considerable evidence that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not reasonably believe he was in imminent danger of suffering death or grievous bodily harm when drew his gun, extended his arm, aimed and shot Trayvon Martin in the heart.
This additional evidence eliminates all doubt that Zimmerman might not have acted with a depraved mind.
Zimmerman told the police that he did not know if the shot he fired hit Martin and he subsequently claimed he did not know Martin had died until later that evening at the police station.
Nevertheless, he sat on Martin’s back after the shooting and one witness said he appeared to have his hands on Martin’s neck.
Sitting on Martin’s back would have restricted Martin’s airway and when W13 arrived, he specifically told him not to call 911.
When he did that he necessarily knew that a police officer was en route to the neighborhood to investigate a non-emergency situation with no specific address to go to in the neighborhood to conduct that investigation. He also necessarily knew that no ambulance was on the way to render medical assistance.
Yet he not only told the witness not to call 911, he told someone else to call his wife and tell her that he shot someone. He also told several witnesses he had already called 911 when, in fact, he knew that was false. Then he waited for the police.
In other words, he not only did absolutely nothing to apply CPR or summon emergency medical assistance, he intentionally attempted to delay its arrival for as long as possible and I believe there is only one reason why he did that. He did not want Trayvon Martin to survive.
If that isn’t acting with “absolutely no regard for TM’s life,” I don’t know what is.
Some people may argue that whatever Zimmerman did or failed to do after the shooting is not relevant, but that argument fails because Trayvon Martin was alive, conscious and feeling pain after the shooting.
Prompt medical intervention probably would not have saved Trayvon Martin’s life, but that is immaterial because George Zimmerman did not know that and his conduct attempting to delay the arrival of medical intervention that, for all he knew, might save Trayvon Martin’s life “evinced a depraved mind regardless of human life.”
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
August 21, 2012
George Zimmerman’s defense suffered a huge hit this week.
Rene Stutzman of the Orlando Sentinel reported that two forensic pathologists who reviewed Trayvon Martin’s autopsy report, Dr William L. Manion from Mt. Holly, NJ and Dr. William Anderson, the former Medical Examiner for Orange and Osceola counties, told her that Trayvon Martin would have survived “for several minutes” after George Zimmerman shot him in the heart.
“You’re talking about minutes, at least, for him to survive,” said Dr. William Anderson . . . “I think he would have been conscious … for a little time, anyway.”
[snip]
The two doctors agreed that Trayvon remained conscious for a time. Anderson suggested the teenager may have been conscious for several minutes. Manion estimated it at just 20 to 30 seconds.
“He certainly would have experienced pain,” Manion said.
Our very own Patricia contacted Ms. Stutzman after her article appeared in the Orlando Sentinel on Friday, August 17th and asked her to follow-up regarding how long Trayvon Martin might have been conscious.
Ms. Stutzman responded yesterday with this email:
I followed up today with Dr. William Anderson, one of the pathologists quoted in the story.
He says that a penetrating gunshot wound to the chest, such as Trayvon suffered, results in the gradual deflation of the lungs. They do not, he said, collapse like a balloon that’s been popped.
Trayvon could have spoken after the shooting for a few seconds or a bit longer, he said.
So now we know that Trayvon Martin probably survived for awhile after the mortal gunshot wound to his heart. He may have been conscious for 20-30 seconds (Anderson) or for several minutes (Manion) and would have experienced pain while conscious (Manion). He also could have spoken for a few seconds or a bit longer (Anderson).He says that a penetrating gunshot wound to the chest, such as Trayvon suffered, results in the gradual deflation of the lungs. They do not, he said, collapse like a balloon that’s been popped.
Trayvon could have spoken after the shooting for a few seconds or a bit longer, he said.
Thanks to Patricia’s persistent questioning and Rene Stutzman’s reporting, we now have solid evidence that George Zimmerman “evinced a depraved mind.”
Murder Second Degree is defined as:
The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
[Emphasis supplied]
Conduct “evincing a depraved mind” is conduct that shows no regard for human life.
Before I read Ms. Stutzman’s article and her follow-up email, I believed there was considerable evidence that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not reasonably believe he was in imminent danger of suffering death or grievous bodily harm when drew his gun, extended his arm, aimed and shot Trayvon Martin in the heart.
This additional evidence eliminates all doubt that Zimmerman might not have acted with a depraved mind.
Zimmerman told the police that he did not know if the shot he fired hit Martin and he subsequently claimed he did not know Martin had died until later that evening at the police station.
Nevertheless, he sat on Martin’s back after the shooting and one witness said he appeared to have his hands on Martin’s neck.
Sitting on Martin’s back would have restricted Martin’s airway and when W13 arrived, he specifically told him not to call 911.
When he did that he necessarily knew that a police officer was en route to the neighborhood to investigate a non-emergency situation with no specific address to go to in the neighborhood to conduct that investigation. He also necessarily knew that no ambulance was on the way to render medical assistance.
Yet he not only told the witness not to call 911, he told someone else to call his wife and tell her that he shot someone. He also told several witnesses he had already called 911 when, in fact, he knew that was false. Then he waited for the police.
In other words, he not only did absolutely nothing to apply CPR or summon emergency medical assistance, he intentionally attempted to delay its arrival for as long as possible and I believe there is only one reason why he did that. He did not want Trayvon Martin to survive.
If that isn’t acting with “absolutely no regard for TM’s life,” I don’t know what is.
Some people may argue that whatever Zimmerman did or failed to do after the shooting is not relevant, but that argument fails because Trayvon Martin was alive, conscious and feeling pain after the shooting.
Prompt medical intervention probably would not have saved Trayvon Martin’s life, but that is immaterial because George Zimmerman did not know that and his conduct attempting to delay the arrival of medical intervention that, for all he knew, might save Trayvon Martin’s life “evinced a depraved mind regardless of human life.”
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
Yet another ridiculous post, with completely illogical and biased statements (before she made her edits, anyway.. I can't keep up since she edits every post multiple times after posting)
There is a huge difference between 'what a LEO can do' versus what a private citizen or neighborhood watch can do.
There is NO evidence whatsoever, of zimmerman doing ANYTHING other than keeping an eye on trayvon before he was attacked. Watch the gas station video... it's extremely evident that keeping an eye on the little thug is totally justified. The gas station attendants watched him while in the store, and zimmerman watched him while in his neighborhood.
Trayvon being annoyed at being watched is understandable. If he didn't like that type of attention he shouldn't bring it upon himself via his life choices. Trayvon attacked zimmerman is completely unacceptable... and that is how he wound up dead.... Over feeling "disrespected".
There is a huge difference between 'what a LEO can do' versus what a private citizen or neighborhood watch can do.
There is NO evidence whatsoever, of zimmerman doing ANYTHING other than keeping an eye on trayvon before he was attacked. Watch the gas station video... it's extremely evident that keeping an eye on the little thug is totally justified. The gas station attendants watched him while in the store, and zimmerman watched him while in his neighborhood.
Trayvon being annoyed at being watched is understandable. If he didn't like that type of attention he shouldn't bring it upon himself via his life choices. Trayvon attacked zimmerman is completely unacceptable... and that is how he wound up dead.... Over feeling "disrespected".
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
Will George Zimmerman Testify?
August 18, 2012
Many of you have asked questions regarding whether George Zimmerman must testify at the immunity hearing or at trial. Others, particularly Zimmerman supporters, have expressed an opinion that he can prevail without having to testify because he already said everything that needs to be said to the police.
The quick answer is he is not legally required to testify, but he cannot possibly win unless he does testify. How else does he get his self-defense claim into evidence?
Yet, at the same time, he probably cannot win because of his many conflicting statements.
First, every defendant in a criminal case has a 5th Amendment right to refuse to testify and, if they decide not to testify, the jury will be instructed that it cannot assume anything regarding why the defendant chose not to testify.
The reason for this rule is that a defendant may decide not to testify for any number of possible reasons and it would be unfair to allow the jury to speculate as to the “real” reason. In addition, a defendant cannot be punished for exercising a constitutional right.
Second, every defendant has a right to testify, if he decides to do so. The decision to testify or not to testify is his and his alone. The defendant’s lawyer can recommend for or against testifying, but it’s up to the defendant to make that decision.
Third, if the defendant testifies, he can be cross examined regarding everything he said and the Court will grant a prosecutor wide latitude to cross examine.
Therefore, George Zimmerman gets to decide whether he will testify at the immunity hearing and the trial.
Next, let’s take a look at all of his statements to date and group them into two categories: statements to police officials during custodial interrogations and statements to other people.
Statements to police officials during custodial interrogations are admissible at trial,
(1) if he was advised of his 5th Amendment right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to contact an attorney and have him present during the interrogation; and
(2) he voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently decided to waive or give up those rights and answer questions.
This is the foundational requirement that the prosecution must satisfy to introduce a defendant’s custodial statement into evidence. It is based on Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). I have reviewed the discovery and believe all of his custodial statements satisfy the Miranda Rule and are admissible subject to the hearsay rule.
Statements to others, including the Sean Hannity interview, have no foundational argument like Miranda and are admissible, subject to the hearsay rule.
Now we get down to the difficult part of the analysis, which is understanding the hearsay rule.
Let us begin with a definition. Evidence Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as follows:
Right?
Nope, because even though it meets the definition of hearsay, the rules of evidence carve out a huge exception to the rule that’s called an Admission by a Party Opponent. See Rule 801(d)(2). This rule specifically defines admissions by a party opponent as non-hearsay.
This is the way it works. George Zimmerman is a party to this case because he is the defendant. The party opponent is the State of Florida, which is represented by the Angela Corey and her team of prosecutors.
Pursuant to this rule they can introduce into evidence any statement by Zimmerman that they choose, including his custodial statements to the police, assuming they satisfy the Miranda rule, which they apparently do.
Notice that they are not required to introduce any of his statements and the defense has no say in which statements they introduce and which statements they leave out.
This means that all of the exculpatory statements he made to support his claim of self-defense are inadmissible hearsay, unless the prosecution decides to offer one or more of them as an admission by a party opponent.
Needless to say, the prosecution is not going to do him any favors and introduce any of his exculpatory statements and, since the defense cannot introduce them, the judge will not be able to consider them during the immunity hearing and the jury will never get to hear them at the trial.
But that’s not fair, you say.
That complaint happens in every courtroom across America every day, but it’s the law.
This is why, as a practical matter, George Zimmerman must take the stand and testify.
Can he refer to his exculpatory statements while he is testifying?
No, because they are hearsay.
What happens after he finishes telling his side of the story by answering his lawyer’s questions on direct examination?
The prosecutor who cross examines him will confront him with every statement he made to a police official or to any other witness it knows about that is inconsistent with or contradicts a statement he made while testifying on direct examination.
Given the number of times he has made improbable, inconsistent and contradictory statements, the cross examination could last several days.
I know this because I have done it to witnesses many times.
Cross examination by confronting witnesses with their prior inconsistent statements is one of the most effective and powerful tools a trial lawyer has to utterly destroy a witness.
The key to cross examining George Zimmerman will be not to beat him up so bad that the jury begins to feel sorry for him.
This is why it is so vitally important for suspects to keep their mouths shut when they are questioned by police. They cannot help themselves because their exculpatory statements will be inadmissible hearsay at trial. They can only hurt themselves by saying something that the prosecution uses to damage their case pursuant to the admission-by-a-party-opponent rule.
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
August 18, 2012
Many of you have asked questions regarding whether George Zimmerman must testify at the immunity hearing or at trial. Others, particularly Zimmerman supporters, have expressed an opinion that he can prevail without having to testify because he already said everything that needs to be said to the police.
The quick answer is he is not legally required to testify, but he cannot possibly win unless he does testify. How else does he get his self-defense claim into evidence?
Yet, at the same time, he probably cannot win because of his many conflicting statements.
First, every defendant in a criminal case has a 5th Amendment right to refuse to testify and, if they decide not to testify, the jury will be instructed that it cannot assume anything regarding why the defendant chose not to testify.
The reason for this rule is that a defendant may decide not to testify for any number of possible reasons and it would be unfair to allow the jury to speculate as to the “real” reason. In addition, a defendant cannot be punished for exercising a constitutional right.
Second, every defendant has a right to testify, if he decides to do so. The decision to testify or not to testify is his and his alone. The defendant’s lawyer can recommend for or against testifying, but it’s up to the defendant to make that decision.
Third, if the defendant testifies, he can be cross examined regarding everything he said and the Court will grant a prosecutor wide latitude to cross examine.
Therefore, George Zimmerman gets to decide whether he will testify at the immunity hearing and the trial.
Next, let’s take a look at all of his statements to date and group them into two categories: statements to police officials during custodial interrogations and statements to other people.
Statements to police officials during custodial interrogations are admissible at trial,
(1) if he was advised of his 5th Amendment right to remain silent and his 6th Amendment right to contact an attorney and have him present during the interrogation; and
(2) he voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently decided to waive or give up those rights and answer questions.
This is the foundational requirement that the prosecution must satisfy to introduce a defendant’s custodial statement into evidence. It is based on Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). I have reviewed the discovery and believe all of his custodial statements satisfy the Miranda Rule and are admissible subject to the hearsay rule.
Statements to others, including the Sean Hannity interview, have no foundational argument like Miranda and are admissible, subject to the hearsay rule.
Now we get down to the difficult part of the analysis, which is understanding the hearsay rule.
Let us begin with a definition. Evidence Rule 801(c) defines hearsay as follows:
“Hearsay” is a statement, other than one made by the declarant (i.e., the person who made the statement) while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
For example, if Blue Shenanigans were to testify that George Zimmerman (i.e., the declarant) told her he knew Trayvon Martin was dead before the police arrived at the scene, and the prosecution offered it during its case in chief to prove that he knew Trayvon Martin was dead before the police arrived at the scene (i.e., the matter asserted in the statement), the statement would be hearsay.
Right?
Nope, because even though it meets the definition of hearsay, the rules of evidence carve out a huge exception to the rule that’s called an Admission by a Party Opponent. See Rule 801(d)(2). This rule specifically defines admissions by a party opponent as non-hearsay.
This is the way it works. George Zimmerman is a party to this case because he is the defendant. The party opponent is the State of Florida, which is represented by the Angela Corey and her team of prosecutors.
Pursuant to this rule they can introduce into evidence any statement by Zimmerman that they choose, including his custodial statements to the police, assuming they satisfy the Miranda rule, which they apparently do.
Notice that they are not required to introduce any of his statements and the defense has no say in which statements they introduce and which statements they leave out.
This means that all of the exculpatory statements he made to support his claim of self-defense are inadmissible hearsay, unless the prosecution decides to offer one or more of them as an admission by a party opponent.
Needless to say, the prosecution is not going to do him any favors and introduce any of his exculpatory statements and, since the defense cannot introduce them, the judge will not be able to consider them during the immunity hearing and the jury will never get to hear them at the trial.
But that’s not fair, you say.
That complaint happens in every courtroom across America every day, but it’s the law.
This is why, as a practical matter, George Zimmerman must take the stand and testify.
Can he refer to his exculpatory statements while he is testifying?
No, because they are hearsay.
What happens after he finishes telling his side of the story by answering his lawyer’s questions on direct examination?
The prosecutor who cross examines him will confront him with every statement he made to a police official or to any other witness it knows about that is inconsistent with or contradicts a statement he made while testifying on direct examination.
Given the number of times he has made improbable, inconsistent and contradictory statements, the cross examination could last several days.
I know this because I have done it to witnesses many times.
Cross examination by confronting witnesses with their prior inconsistent statements is one of the most effective and powerful tools a trial lawyer has to utterly destroy a witness.
The key to cross examining George Zimmerman will be not to beat him up so bad that the jury begins to feel sorry for him.
This is why it is so vitally important for suspects to keep their mouths shut when they are questioned by police. They cannot help themselves because their exculpatory statements will be inadmissible hearsay at trial. They can only hurt themselves by saying something that the prosecution uses to damage their case pursuant to the admission-by-a-party-opponent rule.
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
Are you asking me to belive the Neighborhood Watch Captain does not know a street address in the gated community he has lived in for two+ years? Come on, it is one street over from his house and where he supposedly walks his dog.
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
Tasha... you can't just link posts like this. You need to provide some sort of input on your own. We are all excited to hear your thoughts.
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
I thought I should post the thoughts of real defense attorney and someone who knows a thing or two about the law so that pseudo-lawyers and general dumbfucks like Geosurface, Spidey, Druidx, Londo and the most recent asshole "Adrenaline" can stfu.
Most of what I post here are opinions of someone who knows more than I do and were actually my thoughts before I found validation for them from someone else.
My thoughts have always been;
1. Zimmerman acted with malice towards Martin that he exhibited BEFORE he exited his vehicle. Intent
2. Zimmerman meant to cause harm to Martin.
3. There is NO PROOF that Martin caused any head scratches sustained by Zimmerman.
4. Zimmerman was not seriously hurt.
5. Zimmerman lied about being in fear after he had shot Martin at point blank range.
6. Zimmerman was not screaming for help.
7. Zimmerman confronted Martin.
Most of what I post here are opinions of someone who knows more than I do and were actually my thoughts before I found validation for them from someone else.
My thoughts have always been;
1. Zimmerman acted with malice towards Martin that he exhibited BEFORE he exited his vehicle. Intent
2. Zimmerman meant to cause harm to Martin.
3. There is NO PROOF that Martin caused any head scratches sustained by Zimmerman.
4. Zimmerman was not seriously hurt.
5. Zimmerman lied about being in fear after he had shot Martin at point blank range.
6. Zimmerman was not screaming for help.
7. Zimmerman confronted Martin.
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
As usual you retarded fuck I just said I am only posted proof that MY THOUGHTS have legitmacy from someone else. Everything this man said recently I've said since I started posting here months ago. Learn to read you ignorant bas-TARD. lol
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
Ok, well don't come on here spamming someone's site who has the same credibility as spidey's stormfront sources. There is no difference whatsoever between the two.
You need to stop reading a bunch of biased info and basing your conclusions on that.
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
Zimmerman: Did the Defense Change Strategy?
August 17, 2012
Up until Mr. O’Mara’s press conference on Monday afternoon, the defense had been claiming that George Zimmerman was not following Trayvon Martin.
Instead, he was coincidentally running in the same direction looking for a street name and an address to provide to the dispatcher so that he could relay it to the officer en route.
Unfortunately for the defense, however, Zimmerman jogged right on past the front doors and garage doors of several townhouses directly in front of him and slightly to his right on Twin Trees Lane. Yes, the addresses were in plain view.
When the dispatcher picked up on his heavy breathing and asked him if he were following Martin, he answered, “Yes.”
The dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that,” and Zimmerman responded, “Okay.” Nevertheless, he continued to breathe hard as though he continued running for another 15 seconds or so.
He told the police he went past the open space between the two rows of townhouses, where he had seen Martin disappear, to the next street over. That street is Retreat View Circle, but as it fortuitously turned out, he did not have to find a street sign to discover that because he recognized it as the street he lives on.
Will wonders never cease.
He told the police he looked around but could not find any addresses to give the dispatcher, so he decided to retrace his steps intent on returning to his truck.
There is no shortage of addresses that would have been visible there although none of them were close to where he had last seen Martin.
As he approached the T intersection where the N/S sidewalk between the two rows of townhouses intersects the cut-through sidewalk between Twin Trees Lane and Retreat View Circle, he told the dispatcher to tell the officer en route to call him when he reached the neighborhood. Then he terminated the call.
He said Martin materialized suddenly out of the gloom standing on the N/S sidewalk a few feet south of the intersection and asked him if he had a problem.
When he said, “No,” and reached for his phone to call 911, Martin said, “Now you do,” and punched him in the nose stunning him and knocking him to the ground.
He said Martin then jumped on top of him and straddled him as he was lying on his back and began repeatedly slamming the back of his head into the concrete sidewalk. As he was about to lose consciousness, he grabbed his gun and shot Martin in the chest killing him.
Aside from the absurd claim that he was searching for a street name and an address to provide the officer en route — there are only three streets and he had lived in the neighborhood for three years and patrolled it for several months — there is a major timing problem and Martin’s body was found approximately 40 feet south of the T intersection..
Approximately two minutes went by before he encountered Martin.
Where was he and what was he doing?
I believe he lied to the police when he told them he did not follow Martin and when he claimed Martin assaulted him at the T intersection.
I believe the evidence at trial will show beyond any doubt that he was hunting Martin with the intent of restraining him until the officer arrived.
At the press conference on Monday, Mark O’Mara conceded that this is not a stand-your-ground case. He said it is a traditional self-defense case. He still intends to seek a dismissal of the murder charge at an immunity hearing, but he will not be arguing that Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground.
Sounds to me that the defense has decided to jettison Zimmerman’s claim that he did not follow Martin and did not stray south of the T intersection.
But if he admits to hunting Martin, isn’t the jury likely to conclude that he was hunting with the intent of physically restraining Martin?
Recall how he so indelicately expressed his frustration earlier during the call with the dispatcher,
“These assholes, they always get away.”
Did he not intend to make certain that Martin was one “asshole” who was not going to get away?
My question for y’all is, assuming I am right, will this decision help or hurt the defense?
Specifically, can giving up the obvious lie and apologizing for it, transform Zimmerman into a credible witness, or just make matters worse?
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
August 17, 2012
Up until Mr. O’Mara’s press conference on Monday afternoon, the defense had been claiming that George Zimmerman was not following Trayvon Martin.
Instead, he was coincidentally running in the same direction looking for a street name and an address to provide to the dispatcher so that he could relay it to the officer en route.
Unfortunately for the defense, however, Zimmerman jogged right on past the front doors and garage doors of several townhouses directly in front of him and slightly to his right on Twin Trees Lane. Yes, the addresses were in plain view.
When the dispatcher picked up on his heavy breathing and asked him if he were following Martin, he answered, “Yes.”
The dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that,” and Zimmerman responded, “Okay.” Nevertheless, he continued to breathe hard as though he continued running for another 15 seconds or so.
He told the police he went past the open space between the two rows of townhouses, where he had seen Martin disappear, to the next street over. That street is Retreat View Circle, but as it fortuitously turned out, he did not have to find a street sign to discover that because he recognized it as the street he lives on.
Will wonders never cease.
He told the police he looked around but could not find any addresses to give the dispatcher, so he decided to retrace his steps intent on returning to his truck.
There is no shortage of addresses that would have been visible there although none of them were close to where he had last seen Martin.
As he approached the T intersection where the N/S sidewalk between the two rows of townhouses intersects the cut-through sidewalk between Twin Trees Lane and Retreat View Circle, he told the dispatcher to tell the officer en route to call him when he reached the neighborhood. Then he terminated the call.
He said Martin materialized suddenly out of the gloom standing on the N/S sidewalk a few feet south of the intersection and asked him if he had a problem.
When he said, “No,” and reached for his phone to call 911, Martin said, “Now you do,” and punched him in the nose stunning him and knocking him to the ground.
He said Martin then jumped on top of him and straddled him as he was lying on his back and began repeatedly slamming the back of his head into the concrete sidewalk. As he was about to lose consciousness, he grabbed his gun and shot Martin in the chest killing him.
Aside from the absurd claim that he was searching for a street name and an address to provide the officer en route — there are only three streets and he had lived in the neighborhood for three years and patrolled it for several months — there is a major timing problem and Martin’s body was found approximately 40 feet south of the T intersection..
Approximately two minutes went by before he encountered Martin.
Where was he and what was he doing?
I believe he lied to the police when he told them he did not follow Martin and when he claimed Martin assaulted him at the T intersection.
I believe the evidence at trial will show beyond any doubt that he was hunting Martin with the intent of restraining him until the officer arrived.
At the press conference on Monday, Mark O’Mara conceded that this is not a stand-your-ground case. He said it is a traditional self-defense case. He still intends to seek a dismissal of the murder charge at an immunity hearing, but he will not be arguing that Zimmerman had a right to stand his ground.
Sounds to me that the defense has decided to jettison Zimmerman’s claim that he did not follow Martin and did not stray south of the T intersection.
But if he admits to hunting Martin, isn’t the jury likely to conclude that he was hunting with the intent of physically restraining Martin?
Recall how he so indelicately expressed his frustration earlier during the call with the dispatcher,
“These assholes, they always get away.”
Did he not intend to make certain that Martin was one “asshole” who was not going to get away?
My question for y’all is, assuming I am right, will this decision help or hurt the defense?
Specifically, can giving up the obvious lie and apologizing for it, transform Zimmerman into a credible witness, or just make matters worse?
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
Rofl... Ok, I'm sure we can come up with some super legit links confirming all of our opinions, this brings no legitimacy whatsoever to your craziness.
Druidx
Platinum Member
- Jul 16, 2002
- 2,971
- 0
- 76
LOL at Tasha trying to justify herself by using post on leathermans blog. The same person who said anyone who didn't agree with him was a racist.
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/?s=racist
I guess that's is why she goes to his blog, for the unbiased commentary.
LMAO
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/?s=racist
I guess that's is why she goes to his blog, for the unbiased commentary.
LMAO
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
My own conclusions? Just a minute ago you read someone else coming to the SAME CONCLUSIONS but then asked me to relay my own thoughts. You are retarded as fuck.
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
We said you are a racist as well. I guess we have been saying something all along that Leatherman also agrees with. It looks like Leatherman has been getting his info from me, JLK, Lotus and Emperus lol
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
Come on... slow down now, focus on what we're actually talking about.
I'm saying it's against forum rules to just come in here spamming other people's thoughts with links to their page.. You need to add something to the discussion, not just spam the thread with copy/pasted info.
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
Bahaha that is fantastic.... I love the irony in this. Tasha, spamming us with some guy's blog who says that anyone who disagrees with him is racist... Lol...
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
Zimmerman: The Power of Circumstantial Evidence
August 14, 2012
Because there are no eyewitnesses to the shooting except George Zimmerman, who claims he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense, the prosecution will have to rely on circumstantial evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense.
Unfortunately, Florida does not define circumstantial evidence other than to call it “indirect” evidence. See Wadman v. State, 750 So.2nd 655 (FL 1999).
Washington State, where I practiced law for many years, defines direct and circumstantial evidence as follows:
However, if you want to review the evidence to date, I recommend you watch this video prepared by our very own Whonoze.
Is there a discernible pattern to his lies that reveals his intent or are his lies mere random occurrences that happen due to chance?
Consider, for example, his stubborn insistence that Trayvon Martin suddenly came out of the bushes next to a townhouse or materialized out of the gloom on the N/S sidewalk a few feet south of the intersection and confronted him as he was on the sidewalk cut-through between TTL and RVC supposedly minding his own business returning to his vehicle parked on TTL.
Some who post here and at other internet sites contend that we must take GZ at his word and cannot look at other evidence (i.e., the circumstantial evidence) to determine if he is telling the truth and, if not, discern his intent.
Sorry, but that is not how trials work.
GZ claims that TM sucker punched him knocking him to the ground and then he jumped on him and started beating his head into the sidewalk and punching him repeatedly in the face.
Aside from the lack of physical injuries that would be consistent with such a claim, the location of the fight is inconsistent with the location of TM’s body. That is, if GZ is telling the truth, the body and the location of the fight should be in the same place, but they are not and he has no explanation for that other than he kind of sort of stumbled after TM hit him. Yet, that explanation only gets him a little less than halfway to the location of the body and various items found within a few feet of it, such as his phone, the earbuds, the can of iced tea, the Skittles, and the spent casing.
We have to ask ourselves what does the circumstantial evidence tell us regarding the fight that ended with TM’s death? That is, what can we reasonably infer from the evidence at the scene.
The initial conclusion is GZ lied about the nature and extent of Martin’s attack because his injuries do not support his story and his conflicting claim regarding where and how Martin confronted him tells us he changed his story during the walk-through video the next day when he realized there were no bushes at the scene behind which Martin could have been hiding.
What do these lies suggest?
They suggest GZ went looking for Martin in the area between the two rows of townhouses and found him where the shooting occurred.
If that is what happened, why would he lie about it?
The obvious conclusion is that he did not want to admit that he went hunting for Martin and found him.
Why is that a problem?
Maybe it has something to do with his statement, “These assholes, they always get away, fuckin’ coons.”
Hmmnn. That sounds like GZ was determined to make sure this “asshole” did not get away.
Why would GZ lie about Martin jumping him?
Could it be because he knew an aggressor cannot claim self-defense?
A pattern is apparent in these lies. They all appear to be motivated by a desire to cover up that he was the aggressor who hunted down TM and attempted to detain him, but TM did not submit to his authority willingly. A struggle ensued in which GZ sustained some minor injuries and he shot and killed TM without legal justification.
This is the incredible power of circumstantial evidence because, ultimately, the explanations GZ offers for each item of evidence become increasingly strained until they degenerate into irrelevant and irritating whining.
As I have said before, he is his own worst enemy and his conviction of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree will materialize out of his own lyin’ mouth and the abundant circumstantial evidence.
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
August 14, 2012
Because there are no eyewitnesses to the shooting except George Zimmerman, who claims he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense, the prosecution will have to rely on circumstantial evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman did not kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense.
Unfortunately, Florida does not define circumstantial evidence other than to call it “indirect” evidence. See Wadman v. State, 750 So.2nd 655 (FL 1999).
Washington State, where I practiced law for many years, defines direct and circumstantial evidence as follows:
Evidence may be either direct or circumstantial (WPIC 5.01).
Direct evidence is that given by a witness who testifies concerning facts which he or she has directly observed or perceived through the senses.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of facts or circumstances which, according to common experience permit a reasonable inference that other facts existed or did not exist.
The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. One is not necessarily more or less valuable than the other.
Wikipedia has a good discussion of circumstantial evidence:Direct evidence is that given by a witness who testifies concerning facts which he or she has directly observed or perceived through the senses.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of facts or circumstances which, according to common experience permit a reasonable inference that other facts existed or did not exist.
The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. One is not necessarily more or less valuable than the other.
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh’s trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, “Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence”. The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the “smoking gun”—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony. Thus strong circumstantial evidence can be a more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict.
In response to a Zimmerman supporter who posted recently here that circumstantial evidence can support conflicting conclusions, I said,Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the “smoking gun”—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other. Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times, and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony. Thus strong circumstantial evidence can be a more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict.
Anything is theoretically possible and the nature of circumstantial evidence is such that each individual circumstance in a chain of circumstances might indicate more than one possibility. However, when examined as a totality of circumstances, they add up to only one possibility.
Put another way, the more splainin’ that Zimmerman has to do by resorting to ridiculous extremes like, I was walking in the same direction as Martin but not following him because I was looking for a street name and an address to give the dispatcher, the more unlikely his story becomes. Especially when he has lived in the neighborhood for three years, patrolled it as the neighborhood watchman on a regular basis for months, and he walked right past townhouses on TTL with the addresses on them in plain view, ignored them, and never provided the dispatcher with an address. It doesn’t take any intelligence to figure out that he was never looking for an address.
Step by inexorable step he lies and lies and lies.
What is he concealing?
He wasn’t out there exercising in the rain.
He was hunting.
The answer is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell.
The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all theoretical doubt.
I am not going to detail every lie that we have revealed and discussed at length because I want to go macro on y’all and look at the big picture.Put another way, the more splainin’ that Zimmerman has to do by resorting to ridiculous extremes like, I was walking in the same direction as Martin but not following him because I was looking for a street name and an address to give the dispatcher, the more unlikely his story becomes. Especially when he has lived in the neighborhood for three years, patrolled it as the neighborhood watchman on a regular basis for months, and he walked right past townhouses on TTL with the addresses on them in plain view, ignored them, and never provided the dispatcher with an address. It doesn’t take any intelligence to figure out that he was never looking for an address.
Step by inexorable step he lies and lies and lies.
What is he concealing?
He wasn’t out there exercising in the rain.
He was hunting.
The answer is obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell.
The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all theoretical doubt.
However, if you want to review the evidence to date, I recommend you watch this video prepared by our very own Whonoze.
Is there a discernible pattern to his lies that reveals his intent or are his lies mere random occurrences that happen due to chance?
Consider, for example, his stubborn insistence that Trayvon Martin suddenly came out of the bushes next to a townhouse or materialized out of the gloom on the N/S sidewalk a few feet south of the intersection and confronted him as he was on the sidewalk cut-through between TTL and RVC supposedly minding his own business returning to his vehicle parked on TTL.
Some who post here and at other internet sites contend that we must take GZ at his word and cannot look at other evidence (i.e., the circumstantial evidence) to determine if he is telling the truth and, if not, discern his intent.
Sorry, but that is not how trials work.
GZ claims that TM sucker punched him knocking him to the ground and then he jumped on him and started beating his head into the sidewalk and punching him repeatedly in the face.
Aside from the lack of physical injuries that would be consistent with such a claim, the location of the fight is inconsistent with the location of TM’s body. That is, if GZ is telling the truth, the body and the location of the fight should be in the same place, but they are not and he has no explanation for that other than he kind of sort of stumbled after TM hit him. Yet, that explanation only gets him a little less than halfway to the location of the body and various items found within a few feet of it, such as his phone, the earbuds, the can of iced tea, the Skittles, and the spent casing.
We have to ask ourselves what does the circumstantial evidence tell us regarding the fight that ended with TM’s death? That is, what can we reasonably infer from the evidence at the scene.
The initial conclusion is GZ lied about the nature and extent of Martin’s attack because his injuries do not support his story and his conflicting claim regarding where and how Martin confronted him tells us he changed his story during the walk-through video the next day when he realized there were no bushes at the scene behind which Martin could have been hiding.
What do these lies suggest?
They suggest GZ went looking for Martin in the area between the two rows of townhouses and found him where the shooting occurred.
If that is what happened, why would he lie about it?
The obvious conclusion is that he did not want to admit that he went hunting for Martin and found him.
Why is that a problem?
Maybe it has something to do with his statement, “These assholes, they always get away, fuckin’ coons.”
Hmmnn. That sounds like GZ was determined to make sure this “asshole” did not get away.
Why would GZ lie about Martin jumping him?
Could it be because he knew an aggressor cannot claim self-defense?
A pattern is apparent in these lies. They all appear to be motivated by a desire to cover up that he was the aggressor who hunted down TM and attempted to detain him, but TM did not submit to his authority willingly. A struggle ensued in which GZ sustained some minor injuries and he shot and killed TM without legal justification.
This is the incredible power of circumstantial evidence because, ultimately, the explanations GZ offers for each item of evidence become increasingly strained until they degenerate into irrelevant and irritating whining.
As I have said before, he is his own worst enemy and his conviction of the crime of Murder in the Second Degree will materialize out of his own lyin’ mouth and the abundant circumstantial evidence.
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
Zimmerman: The Case of the Useless Press Conference
August 13, 2012
Mark O’Mara raised expectations late last week with an announcement that he would have an important announcement to make Monday morning and would follow it up with a press conference.
Having raised expectations, he effectively dashed them with a bucket of ice cold water early Monday afternoon when he announced that he was filing for a writ of prohibition in the Court of Appeals to get Judge Lester off the case.
Nothing surprising about this continuing foolishness to unseat the judge who dared not praise George Zimmerman and his partner in perjury, Shellie Zimmerman.
The motion to disqualify did not pass the straight-face test and this latest effort does not even merit a yawn.
Why did he do it?
The only reason I can think of is that he’s still trolling for dollars from anyone still willing to contribute money so that George and Shellie can continue to live in the style to which they have become accustomed.
Therefore, we had to endure yet another repetition of the absurd self-defense claim and lives-in-danger nonsense that is growing tiresome and old.
Absolute waste of time.
I said long ago that only a racist would believe that an innocent 17-year-old boy walking home in the rain talking to his girlfriend, after walking to the store to buy his little brother some Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea, would suddenly for no apparent reason go psycho, start speaking in 10-20 year-old ghetto slang and B-movie dialect, attack, and attempt to kill with his bare hands an older menacing man following him who outweighed him by more than 40 pounds and whom he had successfully eluded by running away and hiding.
I’ll say it again.
Anyone who believes George Zimmerman is a racist.
Anyone who contributes money to his continuing dog-and-pony show is a racist and stupid.
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
LMAO!!! I love how he doubles down on calling you fuckers racists for not agreeing. He really, really, means it and I really, really, agree!
August 13, 2012
Mark O’Mara raised expectations late last week with an announcement that he would have an important announcement to make Monday morning and would follow it up with a press conference.
Having raised expectations, he effectively dashed them with a bucket of ice cold water early Monday afternoon when he announced that he was filing for a writ of prohibition in the Court of Appeals to get Judge Lester off the case.
Nothing surprising about this continuing foolishness to unseat the judge who dared not praise George Zimmerman and his partner in perjury, Shellie Zimmerman.
The motion to disqualify did not pass the straight-face test and this latest effort does not even merit a yawn.
Why did he do it?
The only reason I can think of is that he’s still trolling for dollars from anyone still willing to contribute money so that George and Shellie can continue to live in the style to which they have become accustomed.
Therefore, we had to endure yet another repetition of the absurd self-defense claim and lives-in-danger nonsense that is growing tiresome and old.
Absolute waste of time.
I said long ago that only a racist would believe that an innocent 17-year-old boy walking home in the rain talking to his girlfriend, after walking to the store to buy his little brother some Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea, would suddenly for no apparent reason go psycho, start speaking in 10-20 year-old ghetto slang and B-movie dialect, attack, and attempt to kill with his bare hands an older menacing man following him who outweighed him by more than 40 pounds and whom he had successfully eluded by running away and hiding.
I’ll say it again.
Anyone who believes George Zimmerman is a racist.
Anyone who contributes money to his continuing dog-and-pony show is a racist and stupid.
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
LMAO!!! I love how he doubles down on calling you fuckers racists for not agreeing. He really, really, means it and I really, really, agree!
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
13 Reasons Why Zimmerman Was Not the Person Screaming on the 911 Tape
August 8, 2012
I recently listened again to the terrified scream that ended with a gunshot and, for the following reasons, I am now even more certain that TM was screaming.
(1) The scream abruptly stops with the gunshot, which is exactly what one would expect to happen, if TM were screaming. Since the bullet destroyed his right ventricle and collapsed both lungs, he would have lost consciousness almost immediately and would not have been able to push any air past his vocal cords to make a sound.
(2) If GZ were screaming, I do not believe he would have stopped screaming at the exact instant he fired the gun because he would not have known if his life was still in danger and he needed help.
(3) Indeed, according to GZ, he thought his life was still in danger and he kept calling for help. He said he did not know if the shot hit TM and did not find out that he killed TM until an hour and a half after he arrived at the police station. He said TM sat up and said something like, “You got it or you got me.” Then TM fell over or GZ pushed him aside and quickly straddled TM’s body, which was face down. He grabbed TM’s hands and spread them apart so that TM was in a Y-position and he could prevent him from getting up or reaching his gun. He said TM was struggling to get away and kept swearing at him. GZ added that when the neighbor showed up and asked if he should call 911, he told him “No. I need help controlling this guy. Help me, please.” If that story were true, and absolutely none of it is, he would not have stopped screaming or calling for help. Consider, for example, that TM’s body was face down in the grass with his hands under his chest.
(3) There are no audible screams or calls for help after the shot and the scream that ends abruptly with the shot is not a scream for help.
(4) The person is screaming, “No!”
(5) People seeking help do not scream “No.”
(6) We know GZ was lying because it would have been physically impossible for TM to have done any of the things GZ said he did after he fired the fatal shot.
(7) GZ would have realized that no one would believe he killed TM in self-defense, if TM were the person screaming. Therefore, he had to claim that he was the person screaming and he had to tell a story that would support his claim. Depicting TM as still struggling and swearing after the shot was part of that false narrative.
(8) Unfortunately for GZ, he got carried away with supplying false details to support his false narrative. He failed to realize that he would not have had any reason to stop screaming after the shot, if the details he provided about TM being still alive and struggling to get his gun were true and, of course, he did not know that the gunshot wound would prove that all of the unnecessary and inconsistent after-the-shot details he provided were false.
Of course, I have other reasons I have mentioned in previous articles and comments explaining why I believe TM was screaming for help. Briefly,
(9) GZ was an ex-bouncer who had worked security at raves and he was over 40 pounds heavier than TM. He was armed with a loaded gun and TM was unarmed. He would have had a significant physical advantage in a wrestling type encounter with TM.
(10) GZ’s injuries were superficial and no reasonable person would believe he was in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured. For example, the photographs taken at the police station do not support his claim that he had a broken nose and there are no X-rays to support his claim. The two small cuts to the back of his head do not support his claim that his head was repeatedly banged against a sidewalk and the pattern of the blood flow is not consistent with GZ lying on his back. It is consistent, however, with GZ’s head being upright and leaning forward. The absence of significant abrasions and swelling also are inconsistent with his claim.
(11) As mataharley pointed out yesterday, the debris field commencing with GZ’s small flashlight and key chain next to the N/S sidewalk a few feet south of the T intersection and extending south and a little beyond TM’s body indicates a struggle headed S/B toward the place where TM was staying. This is consistent with TM screaming and attempting to flee toward the place where he was staying with GZ in hot pursuit attempting to prevent him from getting away and inconsistent with GZ’s claim that TM assaulted and attempted to kill him with his bare hands up near the T intersection.
(12) The trajectory of the entry wound directly from front to back, the stippling around the wound, and the alignment of the two holes in the garments he was wearing with the wound indicate the sweatshirts were gripped together and pulled down when GZ fired the fatal shot with the muzzle of the gun in contact with the garment and 2-4 inches from the entry wound. This is not consistent with GZ’s claim of self-defense, but it is consistent with TM attempting to pull away and screaming “No” when GZ fired the fatal shot.
(13) The absence of any of GZ’s blood on the sleeves and cuffs of TM’s sweatshirts and the presence of only TM’s DNA on his fingernail scrapings is inconsistent with GZ’s claim that TM was hitting him repeatedly in the face, gripping and slamming his bloody head repeatedly into the concrete, and gripping his nose while attempting to close his mouth to suffocate him and prevent him from screaming.
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
August 8, 2012
I recently listened again to the terrified scream that ended with a gunshot and, for the following reasons, I am now even more certain that TM was screaming.
(1) The scream abruptly stops with the gunshot, which is exactly what one would expect to happen, if TM were screaming. Since the bullet destroyed his right ventricle and collapsed both lungs, he would have lost consciousness almost immediately and would not have been able to push any air past his vocal cords to make a sound.
(2) If GZ were screaming, I do not believe he would have stopped screaming at the exact instant he fired the gun because he would not have known if his life was still in danger and he needed help.
(3) Indeed, according to GZ, he thought his life was still in danger and he kept calling for help. He said he did not know if the shot hit TM and did not find out that he killed TM until an hour and a half after he arrived at the police station. He said TM sat up and said something like, “You got it or you got me.” Then TM fell over or GZ pushed him aside and quickly straddled TM’s body, which was face down. He grabbed TM’s hands and spread them apart so that TM was in a Y-position and he could prevent him from getting up or reaching his gun. He said TM was struggling to get away and kept swearing at him. GZ added that when the neighbor showed up and asked if he should call 911, he told him “No. I need help controlling this guy. Help me, please.” If that story were true, and absolutely none of it is, he would not have stopped screaming or calling for help. Consider, for example, that TM’s body was face down in the grass with his hands under his chest.
(3) There are no audible screams or calls for help after the shot and the scream that ends abruptly with the shot is not a scream for help.
(4) The person is screaming, “No!”
(5) People seeking help do not scream “No.”
(6) We know GZ was lying because it would have been physically impossible for TM to have done any of the things GZ said he did after he fired the fatal shot.
(7) GZ would have realized that no one would believe he killed TM in self-defense, if TM were the person screaming. Therefore, he had to claim that he was the person screaming and he had to tell a story that would support his claim. Depicting TM as still struggling and swearing after the shot was part of that false narrative.
(8) Unfortunately for GZ, he got carried away with supplying false details to support his false narrative. He failed to realize that he would not have had any reason to stop screaming after the shot, if the details he provided about TM being still alive and struggling to get his gun were true and, of course, he did not know that the gunshot wound would prove that all of the unnecessary and inconsistent after-the-shot details he provided were false.
Of course, I have other reasons I have mentioned in previous articles and comments explaining why I believe TM was screaming for help. Briefly,
(9) GZ was an ex-bouncer who had worked security at raves and he was over 40 pounds heavier than TM. He was armed with a loaded gun and TM was unarmed. He would have had a significant physical advantage in a wrestling type encounter with TM.
(10) GZ’s injuries were superficial and no reasonable person would believe he was in imminent danger of being killed or seriously injured. For example, the photographs taken at the police station do not support his claim that he had a broken nose and there are no X-rays to support his claim. The two small cuts to the back of his head do not support his claim that his head was repeatedly banged against a sidewalk and the pattern of the blood flow is not consistent with GZ lying on his back. It is consistent, however, with GZ’s head being upright and leaning forward. The absence of significant abrasions and swelling also are inconsistent with his claim.
(11) As mataharley pointed out yesterday, the debris field commencing with GZ’s small flashlight and key chain next to the N/S sidewalk a few feet south of the T intersection and extending south and a little beyond TM’s body indicates a struggle headed S/B toward the place where TM was staying. This is consistent with TM screaming and attempting to flee toward the place where he was staying with GZ in hot pursuit attempting to prevent him from getting away and inconsistent with GZ’s claim that TM assaulted and attempted to kill him with his bare hands up near the T intersection.
(12) The trajectory of the entry wound directly from front to back, the stippling around the wound, and the alignment of the two holes in the garments he was wearing with the wound indicate the sweatshirts were gripped together and pulled down when GZ fired the fatal shot with the muzzle of the gun in contact with the garment and 2-4 inches from the entry wound. This is not consistent with GZ’s claim of self-defense, but it is consistent with TM attempting to pull away and screaming “No” when GZ fired the fatal shot.
(13) The absence of any of GZ’s blood on the sleeves and cuffs of TM’s sweatshirts and the presence of only TM’s DNA on his fingernail scrapings is inconsistent with GZ’s claim that TM was hitting him repeatedly in the face, gripping and slamming his bloody head repeatedly into the concrete, and gripping his nose while attempting to close his mouth to suffocate him and prevent him from screaming.
http://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/
tashatexas
Golden Member
- Jun 21, 2012
- 1,039
- 0
- 0
Notice all of these articles are dated in August yet the defenders of the Martin family have made nearly all of these same points from the beginning.
Yet here is an experienced DEFENSE attorney systematically breaking down this case and validating things we have been saying all along.
Therefore people like Adrenaline and Rampant Android can kiss my natural black ass when they say things like, "OMG Tasha that is so ridiculous I'm blocking you" as if there is no basis for anything I've been saying all along. Please block yourselves you retarded dipshits and let others read and get educated on what the hell is really going on here.
Yet here is an experienced DEFENSE attorney systematically breaking down this case and validating things we have been saying all along.
Therefore people like Adrenaline and Rampant Android can kiss my natural black ass when they say things like, "OMG Tasha that is so ridiculous I'm blocking you" as if there is no basis for anything I've been saying all along. Please block yourselves you retarded dipshits and let others read and get educated on what the hell is really going on here.
SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
Girl, I bet you feel really justified right now
LOL thanks, tasha, for bringing us this really valuable info that all sudden makes you not a total psycho.
Oh shit, black woman been doing her homework. I'm curious to see what the Mighty Whitey Gang pulls out of their collective asses this time to defend Zimmerman.
"But... but... John!"
"No Law Was Broken."
"I'm glad he's dead, he was a thug!"
"Dat's wut you git for disrespekin', foo! Word to yo motha!"
Does that sum it up for the defense?
"But... but... John!"
"No Law Was Broken."
"I'm glad he's dead, he was a thug!"
"Dat's wut you git for disrespekin', foo! Word to yo motha!"
Does that sum it up for the defense?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter