Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[TerryMathews]

Because it isn't up to him. Its up to the judge.

By presenting a limited offer he's actually seeking to limit what the judge ultimately decides, and he wouldn't make the offer if there was any negative implication for his client in the limited time frame he proposed.

Your analogy isn't the same at all.

And I'm not complaining, I'm pointing out what his offer actually is. And it isn't a generous favor for the prosecution, and it shouldn't be. That isn't his job.

OMaras offer in no way limits what the judge could make available. Are you talking psychology, like "these aren't the droids youre looking for?"

Im still not seeing how this isnt generous? Hes offering 60 days when he is required to offer 0.

 

[Tom]

OMaras offer in no way limits what the judge could make available. Are you talking psychology, like "these aren't the droids youre looking for?"

Im still not seeing how this isnt generous? Hes offering 60 days when he is required to offer 0.

How is offering nothing, generous ?

The prosecution asks the judge for Zimmerman's medical records. All of them. They do not know what is in the records.

The defense proposes giving the prosecution limited access to the records. They DO know what is in the records.

I didn't say it limits the judge. The issue is the notion presented here that making a limited offer in the face of a request for unlimited access is somehow, "generous".

Mom controls the cookies. Billy say Mom can I have the cookies ? Sally says, Mom, let Billy have two cookies and that's all.

Is Sally being generous ? Generous with what ? Cookies that she has no say about ?

 

[Tom]

Let's say the defense finds some record of violent tendencies in Martin's school records, that will conceivably help Zimmerman's case.

What if they don't ? If there isn't any history of violent behavior, that is now going to be part of the prosecution's case.

 

[EagleKeeper]

An inventory on the EMT vehicle would not count unless that was a statement that such equipment was actually removed from the vehicle for use.

True but it would show whether it was a combo device or not.

We know an ECG was performed on scene.

That I had not noticed.

EMTs would have been trained to get the cellphone out of the area just under general principle then

 

[Londo_Jowo]

How is offering nothing, generous ?

The prosecution asks the judge for Zimmerman's medical records. All of them. They do not know what is in the records.

The defense proposes giving the prosecution limited access to the records. They DO know what is in the records.

I didn't say it limits the judge. The issue is the notion presented here that making a limited offer in the face of a request for unlimited access is somehow, "generous".

Mom controls the cookies. Billy say Mom can I have the cookies ? Sally says, Mom, let Billy have two cookies and that's all.

Is Sally being generous ? Generous with what ? Cookies that she has no say about ?

What if the judge decides that medical records the prosecution currently has is all that's relevant to this case?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Let's say the defense finds some record of violent tendencies in Martin's school records, that will conceivably help Zimmerman's case.

What if they don't ? If there isn't any history of violent behavior, that is now going to be part of the prosecution's case.

Always a gamble.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Let's say the defense finds some record of violent tendencies in Martin's school records, that will conceivably help Zimmerman's case.

What if they don't ? If there isn't any history of violent behavior, that is now going to be part of the prosecution's case.

Of course, all discovery both for and against either side's case must be shared with the other side.

 

[EagleKeeper]

How is offering nothing, generous ?

The prosecution asks the judge for Zimmerman's medical records. All of them. They do not know what is in the records.

The defense proposes giving the prosecution limited access to the records. They DO know what is in the records.

I didn't say it limits the judge. The issue is the notion presented here that making a limited offer in the face of a request for unlimited access is somehow, "generous".

Mom controls the cookies. Billy say Mom can I have the cookies ? Sally says, Mom, let Billy have two cookies and that's all.

Is Sally being generous ? Generous with what ? Cookies that she has no say about ?

There has already been one witch hunt into GZ background by the prosecution. In that one; the prosecution was slapped down.

MOM does want any more witch hunts to sidetrack issues.

 

[TerryMathews]

How is offering nothing, generous ?

The prosecution asks the judge for Zimmerman's medical records. All of them. They do not know what is in the records.

The defense proposes giving the prosecution limited access to the records. They DO know what is in the records.

I didn't say it limits the judge. The issue is the notion presented here that making a limited offer in the face of a request for unlimited access is somehow, "generous".

Mom controls the cookies. Billy say Mom can I have the cookies ? Sally says, Mom, let Billy have two cookies and that's all.

Is Sally being generous ? Generous with what ? Cookies that she has no say about ?

Incorrect analogy. To fix it, you need to make them Sallie's cookies.

Billy wants all the cookies. Sallie offers 2 generously. Mom can decide to give Billy all the cookiea, but that doesnt negate the fact that Sallie offered 2, when mom didnt insist on any yet.

Edit: to make my point crystal clear: your analogy falls apart when you say " Is Sally being generous ? Generous with what ? Cookies that she has no say about ?" According to HIPPA, you're dead wrong. Only a court order can pierce it, and only in tightly constrained circumstances. And AFAIK Floridas sunshine law cannot pierce HIPPA so it wouldn't be made available to the public.

 

[Geosurface]

MOM was still being generous because he was offering to provide them what should be more than enough to provide a RELEVANT picture of GZ's medical situation before and after the event in question, without them having to wait for the judge to rule on it, and then wait for the defense to provide it.

Or to take the chance that the judge wouldn't permit them ANY records.

So yes it was still generous.

It was an offer of immediate access to what should be more than enough, without any hurdles or red tape.

There appears to be legal precedent for establishing violent tendencies in a deceased individual whom the killer claims to have shot in self-defense, but can anyone show legal precedent for digging years back into a shooter's medical records and then being allowed by the judge to make the argument that because the shooter for instance, saw a therapist 2 years before the shooting, that he loses his right to defend his life?

We know GZ shot TM. We know it can be legal, if he feared for his life... and TM's records could help show if he was the type of person to behave the way GZ describes him behaving. But what can be gleaned from GZ's medical records prior to the night? Medical records AFTER the night? Now those are more relevant, to demonstrate his injuries.

But of course, no injuries were required to justify self-defense.

 

[Tom]

What if the judge decides that medical records the prosecution currently has is all that's relevant to this case?

I don't think Zimmerman's medical records matter, other than one's that pertain to his injuries.

My discussion the last few posts isn't about the medical records, its about what lawyers do and why.

 

[Tom]

MOM was still being generous because he was offering to provide them what should be more than enough to provide a RELEVANT picture of GZ's medical situation before and after the event in question, without them having to wait for the judge to rule on it, and then wait for the defense to provide it.

Or to take the chance that the judge wouldn't permit them ANY records.

So yes it was still generous.

It was an offer of immediate access to what should be more than enough, without any hurdles or red tape.

There appears to be legal precedent for establishing violent tendencies in a deceased individual whom the killer claims to have shot in self-defense, but can anyone show legal precedent for digging years back into a shooter's medical records and then being allowed by the judge to make the argument that because the shooter for instance, saw a therapist 2 years before the shooting, that he loses his right to defend his life?

We know GZ shot TM. We know it can be legal, if he feared for his life... and TM's records could help show if he was the type of person to behave the way GZ describes him behaving. But what can be gleaned from GZ's medical records prior to the night? Medical records AFTER the night? Now those are more relevant, to demonstrate his injuries.

But of course, no injuries were required to justify self-defense.

If Zimmerman wants to give some of his medical records to the prosecution he can do so. No need to discuss it before the judge.

That isn't what happened. The prosecution asked for unlimited access, the defense countered with limited access.

I was listening to it live but not paying a lot of attention so I'm not sure if the next thing hsappened..I think the prosecution said something like, ok, then how about 60 days of Martin's school records ?

Whether it happened or not, who hear would say that the prosecution was being "generous" by proposing that ?

 

[Tom]

Incorrect analogy. To fix it, you need to make them Sallie's cookies.

Billy wants all the cookies. Sallie offers 2 generously. Mom can decide to give Billy all the cookiea, but that doesnt negate the fact that Sallie offered 2, when mom didnt insist on any yet.

Edit: to make my point crystal clear: your analogy falls apart when you say " Is Sally being generous ? Generous with what ? Cookies that she has no say about ?" According to HIPPA, you're dead wrong. Only a court order can pierce it, and only in tightly constrained circumstances. And AFAIK Floridas sunshine law cannot pierce HIPPA so it wouldn't be made available to the public.

I'm dead wrong ? If you didn't notice, this took place in a court before a judge. Permission to view the records belongs to the judge,Mom. not Sally.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Don't worry Tom, Judge Nelson said that the prosecution can have GZ's medical record after she removed anything she deems to be irrelevant to the case.

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm dead wrong ? If you didn't notice, this took place in a court before a judge. Permission to view the records belongs to the judge,Mom. not Sally.

Incorrect. It belongs to both.

 

[Tom]

Incorrect. It belongs to both.

In the forum where the "generosity" occurred it belongs to the judge.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Interesting read.

http://www.minnpost.com/christian-s...udge-oks-question-who-was-real-trayvon-martin

Yet there’s a sound legal reason for the judge allowing the defense to go on the offense, says George Dekle, a law professor at the University of Florida. True, he says, the prosecution has stated that the basic facts of the case — a grown man profiles a boy as a criminal, instigates a confrontation, then shoots him dead when the boy defends himself — substantiate a second degree murder conviction.

But under Florida law, the nuances of the confrontation, and the actions of the victim, are all admissible in a self-defense claim.

The “stand your ground” law, which was cited by police when they originally let Zimmerman off without an arrest, doesn’t allow someone to instigate a fight and then immediately use deadly force. But if the tables are turned and the person is backed into a corner — or ends up with his back on the ground, as Zimmerman claims — a defendant can still claim that they acted in self-defense, Mr. Dekle says.

“You could analyze a lot of cases that are stand-your-ground cases as not having anything to do with stand your ground, because the person wasn’t in a position to run away anyhow,” says Dekle.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Incorrect analogy. To fix it, you need to make them Sallie's cookies.

Billy wants all the cookies. Sallie offers 2 generously. Mom can decide to give Billy all the cookiea, but that doesnt negate the fact that Sallie offered 2, when mom didnt insist on any yet.

Edit: to make my point crystal clear: your analogy falls apart when you say " Is Sally being generous ? Generous with what ? Cookies that she has no say about ?" According to HIPPA, you're dead wrong. Only a court order can pierce it, and only in tightly constrained circumstances. And AFAIK Floridas sunshine law cannot pierce HIPPA so it wouldn't be made available to the public.

You still have the anology wrong.
Billy wants to see what is in the cookie jar and pick his own cookies. Sallie generously offers to pick Billy's cookies for him 'cause she knows what is in there. Mom being smart sees through Sallie's ploy, lets Billy see in the jar and Billy avoids Sallie's obvious pick of Aunt Lida's stale concrete clunkers.

 

[Geosurface]

In effect the prosecution is calling GZ a liar when he says TM attacked him without provocation, right? Getting access to TM's juvenile record, school disciplinary history, and social media could show that the behaviors GZ describes TM doing are well within his believable, known character.

Whereas, currently, most of the country has been fed an angelic picture of TM as "majoring in cheerfulness" being 12 or looking 12... a perfect young man who, according to Deedee "wouldn't fight" he would never fight she said, that was his problem :| he was a "baby" according to her, a mamma's boy. Ah it's too bad for Deedee she isn't as subtle in her efforts to white wash who Trayvon was, as some of the more sophisticated and older people who've been doing it are.

So there are a lot of people who want to take GZ's freedom and future away who are arguing that TM just wasn't the kind of person who would do what GZ describes him doing. If my future depended on me correcting the record on that point, you can bet your ass I'd want to dig into his school records, facebook, twitter, juvenile criminal record (if there is one), and anything else I could to demonstrate that he wasn't a baby who would never fight anyone, but rather that he was a little delinquent thug.

Now, compare that to the medical records... this once again is all about someone accusing GZ of lying I guess. The prosecutors want to imply he didn't really have a broken nose? Okay... we already know the doctor thought he did, but yes perhaps there was no x-ray done to absolutely prove it... alright, whatever. But, if the prosecution wants to see the doctor's report immediately after the injuries, if I were O'Mara I certainly would be like here, have at it. In fact he offered these at the first bail hearing. In fact, that doctor's report, among other things, should've prevented charges even being filed. So yea, that's relevant and appropriate for them to see. Personally I would've thought the police photographs of his injuries that night would've sufficed to demonstrate it was self-defense... especially when taken with witness testimony, etc, but whatever.

Now, to my mind showing that TM attacked someone 6 months ago, or 2 years ago, still demonstrates that he was the sort of person who would do what GZ describes.

But what relevance is there to what GZ's medical situation was 2 years ago? Or even 1 hour prior to TM's assault?

Where is the law that says you cannot defend yourself with deadly force if you're on a certain prescription or you recently had surgery?

"Don't eat solids for 48 hours, or exercise your 2nd amendment rights for 6 weeks"

 

[Geosurface]

Interesting read.

http://www.minnpost.com/christian-s...udge-oks-question-who-was-real-trayvon-martin

"a grown man profiles a boy as a criminal, instigates a confrontation, then shoots him dead when the boy defends himself — substantiate a second degree murder conviction."

Lol

Let's try that again, professor.

A 5'9" man in his late 20's spots a 6'3" 17 year old serial delinquent on his third suspension, who was a drug user, drug seller, burglar, and violent thug walking through his neighborhood and suspects he may have been involved in a recent string of burglaries (which he probably was) and informs police. The thug tries to mean-mug and intimidate the man by walking up to his car and acting like he's got a weapon, and acting all hard. Once the man is both out of his car and off the phone with police, the thug sees his chance and strikes. The thug then mercilessly beats the man, breaking his nose and smashing his head on pavement, for a prolonged period of time, after which the man is forced to defend himself with a single shot from his legally owned and carried firearm. A shot which he did not intend nor desire should kill the thug, merely to stop him. (Un?)fortunately, it did kill said thug.

 

[Tom]

If Martin's school or arrest record shows violent behavior it could help Zimmerman's case.

But if it doesn't it could hurt his case.

And the Facebook/Twitter stuff won't matter at all if it isn't backed up by some more substantial evidence such as an arrest or school incident.

And incidents that aren't violent, like smoking weed, aren't going to help Zimmerman.

 

[Tom]

"a grown man profiles a boy as a criminal, instigates a confrontation, then shoots him dead when the boy defends himself — substantiate a second degree murder conviction."

Lol

Let's try that again, professor.

A 5'9" man in his late 20's spots a 6'3" 17 year old serial delinquent on his third suspension, who was a drug user, drug seller, burglar, and violent thug walking through his neighborhood and suspects he may have been involved in a recent string of burglaries (which he probably was) and informs police. The thug tries to mean-mug and intimidate the man by walking up to his car and acting like he's got a weapon, and acting all hard. Once the man is both out of his car and off the phone with police, the thug sees his chance and strikes. The thug then mercilessly beats the man, breaking his nose and smashing his head on pavement, for a prolonged period of time, after which the man is forced to defend himself with a single shot from his legally owned and carried firearm. A shot which he did not intend nor desire should kill the thug, merely to stop him. (Un?)fortunately, it did kill said thug.

how does a "violent thug" walk through a neighborhood ?

How do you spot them ? Do they limp or something ?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

"a grown man profiles a boy as a criminal, instigates a confrontation, then shoots him dead when the boy defends himself — substantiate a second degree murder conviction."

Lol

Let's try that again, professor.

You need to go back and reread the article. The professor stated this is what the prosecution is portraying, not what he believes.

 

[GoPackGo]

If the guy was 6' 3" how would anyone think "he is just a boy"?

 

[Geosurface]

You need to go back and reread the article. The professor stated this is what the prosecution is portraying, not what he believes.

Oh I didn't read it at all

Nor do I really care, regardless of who's presenting that version I find it an amusing opportunity to poke fun at it again.