Powered by TypePad

« The Trayvon Martin Shooting - Powder-Puff Coverage From The Times | Main | Drunk And Stupid Is No Way To Go Through Regional Summits »

April 16, 2012

Comments

cboldt

-- Surely in the presidential debates Gwen Ifill or some such partisan "moderator" will raise it in a way to make Romney look bad no matter what he says or does. --


All he has to do is start his answer with "IF what you say is true, and I emphasize the 'if' in that remark, then ..."

Danube of Thought

"To pre-empt the public and prosecutor in their making an argument that SYG is bad law and therefore should not be used (if it can be used) in defense of his client?"

The prosecutor can't make that argument at the trial.

Thomas Collins

See LUN for a discussion of Florida statutory and case law on the rule that one who provokes the fight cannot claim self-defense. At the end of the article, the author speculates on how the prosecutor may attempt to apply this rule in the Zimmerman/Martin matter.

I think the notion that Zimmerman provoked Martin's attack is hokum, but I think this is Corey's pretext.

By the way, I haven't shephardized the cases or checked the official Florida statutes for recent legislative developments. Perhaps a young lurking law student out there with access to free Lexis or Westlaw will be curious enough to perform this updating.

Enlightened

Argh I truly detest Obama. Pandering to the Latinos per Narc's link - truly disgusting.

It is really sickening how "Hispanics" have followed suit and decided Zimmerman is WHITE/WHITE - even though he clearly is hispanic.

Please please please vote them out of office in November.

cboldt

-- I think the notion that Zimmerman provoked Martin's attack is hokum, but I think this is Corey's pretext. --


It is, and the cases cited don't support the proposition that following is provocation. The prosecution may go for "Martin thought Zimmerman was reaching for a gun in his pocket," but that still sidesteps the issue of how the two managed to get face to face.


And even THEN, the one who started it (not conceding the point, BTW) may regain the right to use deadly force.


I do agree that the prosecution's theory aims to start the clock at the time Zimmerman got out of his truck, and turn that into a wrongful act. OTOH, the defense will aim for a small time window, the 5-10 seconds before the gun went off.

Thomas Collins

See LUN for more analysis on the provoke rule. The provoker reclaims the use of self-defense if the provoked force puts the provoker in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm and the provoker has exhausted his means of escape. I believe this is the point DOT made earlier in the day, namely, that even if Zimmerman provoked, he regained the legal right of using self-defense when Martin was attempting to turn Zimmerman's brains into beetlejuice.

Thomas Collins

Cboldt, I agree that folowing doesn't do it. I hazard they guess that Dee Dee's "well coached" testimony will serve as the basis for the prosecution's claim that there was more than following.

Extraneus

TC, 776.041 seems to say that no matter who started it,

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Dosn't that just say that the provoker cannot kill in self-defense while standing his ground?
cboldt

-- I hazard they guess that Dee Dee's "well coached" testimony will serve as the basis for the prosecution's claim that there was more than following. --


What "more"?


The fact that Martin is innocent and lawfully there is admitted. The fact that Zimmerman has a right to be there is admitted. Zimmerman has a right to follow, and a right to confront (not that he did, but if he did, so what?). To the best of my knowledge, even "fightin' words" does not constitute provocation, under this section of the law.

Extraneus

Ooops, I see you already covered that.

Thomas Collins

Now, there is still an question re the provoke rule that I think would be lunacy to try to apply to this matter, but intrigues me anyway. The question is this: if Z puts M in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, does Z lose the ability to regain the self-defense right if Z, as a result of M's actions, is himself put in reaonable fear of death or great bodily harm. I would think Z loses the ability to reclaim because, under my hypo, M's lethal response would be privileged. But I can't find anything directly addressing this issue.

cboldt

Jeralyn Merrit conveniently has a post on the subject of provoking the use of force (being the aggressor)
Zimmerman's Neighbors Speak Up - TalkLeft - April 17


She doesn't flesh out what constitutes "provoking the use of force" with FL case law. I'll see what I find in a quick search.

Thomas Collins

Cboldt, what if Dee Dee testifies Z calls M a "fxxking low life" while approaching m with the gun showing. That's not "more" under the statute? Or at least not enough for the prosecution to argue that it should get a jury instruction that if the jury concludes M was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, Z loses the ability to reclaim.

cboldt

-- if Z puts M in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, does Z lose the ability to regain the self-defense right if Z, as a result of M's actions, is himself put in reaonable fear of death or great bodily harm --


In the universe of possibilities, no. The window for the right to use deadly force is fleeting. If it works, the threat is gone, and if it doesn't work (you miss), you can still break off. You might be guilty of aggravated assault, but you are not guilty of murder.


You decide to break off. Your opponent decides to re-engage. Now we look again.

Thomas Collins

By the way, I realize my thoughts on what the prosecution's theory of the case will be may be derided as being fanciful. My response would be a simple one, namely, it's no more fanciful than the prosecution's affidavit, which I think provides the clues to the fanciful approach the prosecution will be taking if this goes to trial.

BlahBlahBlah

"OTOH, the defense will aim for a small time window, the 5-10 seconds before the gun went off."

I dont know - I think they might spend a lot of effort on the time in the rain between Martin seeing, staring down, then "running" from Zimmerman and the confrontation a full five minutes later.

If Martin was really worried about his safety he would have gotten home and been sitting on the couch when the cops arrived. Hard to argue you're on the defense when you're running around in the rain mere feet from your house playing peekaboo with the so-called assailant.

Then you go back to those 5-10 seconds of Martin on top of Zimmerman punching and slamming his head against the ground and ask "how does Martin's running home 5 minutes prior result in my client being beaten only steps away from his car if Martin didn't instigate the confrontation?"

cboldt

-- what if Dee Dee testifies Z calls M a "fxxking low life" while approaching m with the gun showing. That's not "more" under the statute? --


Yes, that's "more." I don't know how it fits into the application of the statute, and particularly, if that constitutes being the aggressor, under the law.


My question about the "more" was just that I didn't know what hypothetical you had in mind. If he points his gun and says "I'm going to kill you," that is provocation that justifies use of deadly force, I'm sure.


"Gun showing" is a bit indefinite. If it's in his hand and pointed at Martin, it is threatening, but I'm not positive that it's provocation that justifies punching the guy with the gun. If it's in his hand and pointing at the ground, it might be considered a form of brandishing under FL law. If it's in a holster, no hand on the weapon, but worn openly, its presence is different still. I think it is a violation of CCW to allow your weapon to show. I don;t think inadvertent display would trigger a finding of being the aggressor.

cboldt

-- the prosecution's affidavit, which I think provides the clues to the fanciful approach the prosecution will be taking if this goes to trial. --


I sense the same thing you do, that the prosecution will try to use leaving the truck and following, confronting, as evidence of depraved mind, and acts that constitute provocation.


Addressing BBB's point, this is why the general bias of the defense is to look backwards from the moment the gun went off. If Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of death or serious injury, then his action is justified. All that happened before that is irrelevant.

cboldt

-- if the jury concludes M was in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, Z loses the ability to reclaim. --


I think the scene you are painting has Zimmerman approach Martin and do something that constitutes aggression, and the way you describe it, it is aggression that a reasonable person would interpret as threatening death (I'm just going to shorten "death or serious injury" to "death" from now on, pardon my shorthand). Your example, "fscking low life" while pointing the pistol at him.


And then Martin decks Zimmerman and gets the superior position, pounding his head on the pavement (we'll set aside that he's not grabbing the gun wrist, not shouting "GUN!!" or "DON'T SHOOT!!", etc.), which just enrages Zimmerman further, making him MORE determined to kill Martin.


In that scenario, Zimmerman is a murderer.

Sara

If I was on the jury, the only time I would care about is the couple of seconds just prior to the shooting. What was happening right then and what was GZ's state of mind right at that moment. The rest is irrelevant, IMHO.

Thomas Collins

Cboldt, I think the second paragraph of your 7:38 PM post is a tough one for me to gainsay. That is, I would have to argue that M's knocking Z down and trying to make beetlejuice out of Z's head would serve a the basis for a jury instruction that would lead the jury to conclude that Z lost the privilege. The only reason I cling to it is I don't see any other way the prosecution can go if Z doesn't plea and Corey's case survives the hearing. Then again, your aggravated assault comment might point to where the prosecution is going. Z cops a plea for aggravated assault.

Thomas Collins

Yes, cboldt, your 7:54 PM post indicates the stretch I am thinking the prosecution would try to make. I readily acknowledge that this stretch is one the most flexible Olympic gymnast couldn't make.

cboldt

-- I think the second paragraph of your 7:38 PM post is a tough one for me to gainsay. --


At least the part about you might be guilty of aggravated assault is screwed up. If he's justified in using deadly force in self defense, he's justified even if he misses.


And it a person commits an aggravated assault against you, you have the right to use deadly force against them.


-- M's knocking Z down and trying to make beetlejuice out of Z's head would serve a the basis for a jury instruction that would lead the jury to conclude that Z lost the privilege. --


Ummm, M's actions there justify Z's use of deadly force. They give Z the privilege of deadly force in self defense.


What gives M the right to use deadly force against Z? Or, if you don't want to admit head pounding is deadly force, what give M the right to use that level of force against Z?

cboldt

Florida Standard Jury Instruction for Use of Non-deadly Force, or "self defense" instruction.


This is the hurdle that Trayvon would have to cross, to justify throwing the first punch.

Thomas Collins

Oh, I think head pounding is deadly force. What gives M the right to knock Z down and pound Z's head? The "more" I discussed above puts M in fear of death (I'll use your convention) and the knockdown and pounding is one transaction justified under stand your ground. In other words, if stand your ground enters the case, I think it will be used by the prosecution to justify M's actions.

Keep in mind that I am not putting forth my theory of the case. I am putting forth how I think the prosecution will present its case, if Z doesn't plea, in light of Corey's affidavit.

Chubby

((...decided Zimmerman is WHITE/WHITE - even though he clearly is hispanic.))

Being WHITE/WHITE and Hispanic are not mutually exclusive. 57% of Hispanics in America are "WHITE/WHITE".

The other 43% of the Hispanic population consists of mestizos, mixed races, asians, American Indians, blacks and Pacific Islanders.

Should Hispanics flock more by race, or by culture? Should a black Hispanic side with Zimmerman or Martin? Those are bogus questions imo.

the divisions of race and ethnicity will always lead to trouble. the only divisions admissiable should be right or wrong. and anyone who is honest when they say they want a fair trial for Zimmerman has to be open to accepting whatever verdict the trial delivers, be it pro or con their racial and ethnc prejudices.

cboldt

So, I think "provocation" has these elements, notice that they involve a credible threat of using unlawful force ....

1. Martin must have reasonably believed that such conduct was necessary to defend himself against the Zimmerman's imminent use of unlawful force against Martin. 2. The use of unlawful force by Zimmerman must have appeared to Martin to be ready to take place.
Sara

TC: That would not fly with me. Trayvon has an obligation to retreat if he can and is in fear. He was very close to home so why did he not go home and lock the door and then call the police if he was feeling the threat continue. There is only one reason for him not to go to the safety of the home and that is he wanted a confrontation.

cboldt

-- The "more" I discussed above puts M in fear of death (I'll use your convention) and the knockdown and pounding is one transaction justified under stand your ground. --


In order to justify the use of deadly force, Martin has to meet additional hurdles in the law, again reflected in jury instructions (shortened for reading):


Martin reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent imminent death while resisting Z's attempt to murder him or Z's attempt to commit aggravated battery upon him.

cboldt

-- Trayvon has an obligation to retreat if he can and is in fear. --


No. He has the same rights Zimmerman does. He can stand his ground too. The line is drawn at credibly threatening the use of unlawful force; or using unlawful force. The one who first does either of those is the aggressor - they started it.


If, during the course of what follows, one or the other is reasonably in fear of death, or has a felony battery being committed on them, then that person is perfectly justified in deploying deadly force.

jimmyk

TC, that would be pretty ironic, if SYG ends up serving the prosecution. I can see them trying it, but it smacks of desperation. The Florida statute is pretty explicit in requiring (outside of one's home) an actual attack in order to invoke SYG:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force....
[my emphasis]

They'd have to prove that Zimmerman "attacked" Martin to provoke the punch. That could be interpreted as showing a gun, but again, there doesn't seem to be any evidence whatsoever to support that.

Thomas Collins

I agree, Sara. I think you have accurately described M's state of mind. But I don't think that's what Dee Dee will be saying.

Sara

When did Hispanic become a race? It is an ethnicity.

Thomas Collins

Jimmyk, I suspect Corey thinks the prosecution can avoid the kind of desperation you are describing by squeezing some sort of plea out of Z prior to trial.

cboldt

-- I don't think that's what Dee Dee will be saying. --


DeeDee has significant credibility issues, compared with eyewitnesses. Weighing credibility of witness testimony is part of the calculus in the immunity hearing. DeeDee is not a third party, her testimony came late, her testimony came after the 911 calls were in the public.


If the same event is described by DeeDee, and an eyewitness on the scene, which is more likely than not the correct one? What if corroborating evidence supports the eyewitness, but not DeeDee? Whose version is more likely true?


I look forward to mocking the judge that takes that evidence, and gives equal credibility between DeeDee and an on-scene eyewitness.

jimmyk

TC, O'Mara must be telling GZ that there's no case, so copping a plea would be nuts. I'm not even sure it's good for Corey, since (or for GZ's personal safety) since anything less than a long jail sentence is going to be "No justice for Trayvon(tm)."

Thomas Collins

Cboldt, let's say the prosecution, before trial, takes the view that the notion that M was in reaonable fear of death won't fly. What about the Mom's testimony, sure to come, that it was her dear boy's scream. Won't that support a prosecution argument that M had in effect surrendered and Z was no longer in reasonable fear of death?

cboldt

-- What about the Mom's testimony, sure to come, that it was her dear boy's scream. Won't that support a prosecution argument that M had in effect surrendered and Z was no longer in reasonable fear of death? --


At that point, what the evidence would be saying is that M is being threatened with unlawful deadly force (pleading for his life), and that Z is under no threat whatsoever. If you believe that, then you find Z is a murderer.


Again you butt into the credibility issue of competing witnesses; including that Z's relatives will testify that it is Z screaming for help.

DebinNC

If Trayvon on top and GZ on bottom were in a death match for control of the gun, GZ could have been yelling "Help!!" and simultaneously Trayvon could have been screaming, especially as GZ was gradually getting the upper hand.

cboldt

Just to clarify the discussion a bit, I've been talking about more than one point in time in this 60-80 second long interaction. One point is "who the the first punch" or "who was the aggressor." I assign that to the start of the physical altercation - either Z shoving (M's version), or M punching (Z's version).


Then there is the ultimately important and overriding point in time when the gun discharged.


And so, when you say "the prosecution, before trial, takes the view that the notion that M was in reaonable fear of death won't fly," I take that as referring to starting the physical altercation, not to the 5 seconds before the gun is discharged.

Thomas Collins

I agree with you about DD's credibility, cboldt. I hope this ends at the hearing stage. But my recollection is that at the immunity hearing, the prosecution need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z was not in reasonable fear of death. Rather, the defense must prove immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. I could see a judge whose personal predilection is to "let Trayvon's side be heard out" find the evidence to be in equipoise and send the case to trial.

cboldt

-- If Trayvon on top and GZ on bottom were in a death match for control of the gun, GZ could have been yelling "Help!!" and simultaneously Trayvon could have been screaming, especially as GZ was gradually getting the upper hand. --


Yep. And the judge is going to consider Z's testimony that he was under a verbal death threat, with M attempting to disarm him.


It's trivially easy to conjecture scenario's. The prosecutor is limited in that power, to scenario's supported by the evidence.

Thomas Collins

Yes, cboldt, I am starting that at the time M runs into Z after doubling back instead of proceeding to where M was staying. So, to me, what M was in reasonable or wasn't in reasonable fear of, for purposes of determining whether Z provoked and did or didn't lose his self defense right, is the M/Z meeting where Z claims M attacked Z, knocked him to the ground and was pounding Z's head.

cboldt

-- I could see a judge whose personal predilection is to "let Trayvon's side be heard out" find the evidence to be in equipoise and send the case to trial. --


That means the judge would be saying that DeeDee, who is biased, not present, and had the benefit of investigatory material to facilitate construction of a narrative; is equally as credible as eyewitness testimony given within an hour of the event.


PLUS, DeeDee's testimony is not harmed by Zimmerman's broken nose coupled with Z's testimony that a hit to the nose knocked him down, etc.


PLUS, Zimmerman called the police and were expecting them to arrive (so he started a fist fight).


PLUS, Zimmerman's history in deferring face-to-face interaction with suspicious people to the police.


The judge is going to have to be that biased.

b

Ahem, yes, further to the T.M. affair, and coverage thereof here at T.M.'s place, mildly OT but ...

Could someone explain this niggling (No that word is not racist!) question in my head? Why hasn't audio expert (TM) (there's that ubiquitous TM again) Tom Owen used his super spanky new audio analysis software to compare "The Scream" with audio of Tray-von? He was quite eager to jump into the fray with his 48% figure vis-a-vis Master GZ. Yet the obvious sequitur is left begging on the street. Why wouldn't he compare The Scream versus both of them? Seems like a glaring oversight to me. Only reasonable explanation seems to be deliberate omission. But then again, "never ascribe to malice ...", &c.

Ne'ertheless, consider the gauntlet thrown.

Thomas Collins

I agree, cboldt. Under what we know of the case, the judge would have to be that biased. Then again, under what we know of the case, Corey's affidavit is a sick joke.

Thomas Collins

Oh, and a judge would have to ignore Z's calling the police, which, if one thinks Z was itching for a confrontation, would mean that Z called the police to a scene where he was trying to commit mayhem.

B, is there any indication that audio of M exists?

Danube of Thought

If this thing gets to a jury, as I believe it will in the absence of a plea, the very fine points of the law that we have been discussing here--and jury instructions based on that law--will count for far less than they should, unless GZ is convicted and takes an appeal. What will count are the instincts and inclinations of the jury.

I'd like to know a lot more at this point about the makeup of the jury pool, and depending on what it is I think O'Mara should be contemplating a motion for a change of venue.

cboldt

-- Why hasn't audio expert (TM) (there's that ubiquitous TM again) Tom Owen used his super spanky new audio analysis software to compare "The Scream" with audio of Tray-von? --


The entire "expert" thing was trumped up BS to condition the public to find Zimmerman guilty. It was part of lynching Zimmerman in public.


It is completely useless in court, due to the expert's own admission of unreliability. Not that the court is void of evidence on the point of which was screaming. I'd dispose of the question by concluding that the eyewitness controls my decision. Both sides have relatives who claim the voice is "theirs."

MarkO

And, I'd like to know the unknowable: what will DeeDee say on the stanGWUZ9Ud. Credible or not to us, it is the wildcard.

MarkO

I have no idea where this "GWUZ9U" came from. The word is "stand." That's not even a typo. I may need a guardian appointed.

Sara

Cbolt: a reasonable person goes home. If he wants to stand his ground he says something like "hey, I am staying with my Dad, my name is Trayvon. Standing ground does not include ambushing someone with a punch to the face.

narciso

'it's an anagram, no it isn't the opposite of Bolton is Notlob, . . .it's a pun,.spoonerism;

cboldt

-- Standing ground does not include ambushing someone with a punch to the face. --


I agree with that. But he has no legal duty to be respectful to Zimmerman. He can taunt him, if he feels like it. He can insult him. He can call him a pudgy little queer spic. He can stand there and do anything short of disturbing the peace or causing a reasonable person to apprehend the imminent use of unlawful force - unwelcome contact. That is what "standing ground" amounts to. He has no duty to leave, retreat, or otherwise make himself scarce.


The only way he obtains justification for use of force is described in those jury instructions I posted above. The state's version does not produce justification for Martin to use force, therefore Martin has committed at least a battery, and with the head pounding, the felony of aggravated battery.

MJW

His job is to win the court case, not to make an impression on the press and general public.

My negative view of O'Mara may have been due to a false impression. I thought I remembered him indicating he was hoping to come to an agreement with the prosecutor, while at the same time saying he hadn't yet seen the evidence. I looked around to see if I could find him saying something like that, and couldn't.

Sara

I wish I could find the Flopping Aces Timeline. As I recall, there was about 40 seconds between the time that TM hung up with DeeDee AND GZ hung up with police. It was during that time that TM circled back and confronted GZ. I forget what they used as the ending time, but it may have been John's 911. Just can't remember. But in any case, DeeDee didn't hear a damn thing that is relevant.

cboldt

-- I thought I remembered him indicating he was hoping to come to an agreement with the prosecutor, while at the same time saying he hadn't yet seen the evidence. I looked around to see if I could find him saying something like that, and couldn't. --


The agreement had to do with the state turning over (at least some of) its evidence, before it is legally obliged to.

Clarice

MarkO,I think what I have may be contagious. Sorry about that.

narciso

The scary thing is we all understand what you meant, MarkO,

Here you go Sara;

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2867535/posts

AliceH

"To pre-empt the public and prosecutor in their making an argument that SYG is bad law and therefore should not be used (if it can be used) in defense of his client?"

The prosecutor can't make that argument at the trial.

Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 17, 2012 at 06:47 PM

Yes, true. Thus far all arguments have been made by the media and by the SP to the media. I meant O'Mara was cleverly pushing some of that back and neutralizing a nascent reactionary attitude to SYG in general in the public eye. It doesn't make SYG more or less applicable or appropriate for him to use in a trial, or the SP to argue it applies or does not apply - it just makes it less suspect as a matter of law in the public eye. That is worth something, I think.

Sara

MJW: I heard the same and it is exactly what left a negative impression of O'Mara with me,

Sara

Thanks Narc. Now I am confused, Who is Brandy Green?

MJW

The agreement had to do with the state turning over (at least some of) its evidence, before it is legally obliged to.

No, by "agreement" I meant "plea agreement."

Danube of Thought

Where, oh where, is the buubmeister? Has he led with his chin one too many times? Does he feel like a man who's had his head bashed on the concrete?

He needs to recover soon, and return to lecture us on trial strategy.

narciso

Trayvon's father's girlfriend, like Sonny Crockett said 'you need a program to tell all
the players'

MarkO

I can't blame you, Clarice, at least I can make sense of it if you miss a key.

Clarice

Frankly, MarkO, I didn't even notice your typo.It read to me just as "stand".

MJW

MJW: I heard the same and it is exactly what left a negative impression of O'Mara with me.

Maybe I'll look around a little more. So far, all I found that was even similar are some remarks he made in a press conference about how most cases are resolved without a trial. Though it would be quite a stretch for me to interpret that as "indicating he was hoping to come to an agreement with the prosecutor, while at the same time saying he hadn't yet seen the evidence," I'm sure I've done sillier things.

cboldt

-- No, by "agreement" I meant "plea agreement." --


Well, if you find O'Mara suggesting a plea agreement, be sure to post a link. I remember differently, I guess is all I was saying.

AliceH

OT: Thanks, Clarice, for the links to those pizza dough recipes. Made it last week, and again this week. Easy and so good!

I loved the pizza sauce recipe especially - closest I've ever come to the sauce we used to make and can from our garden in years gone by. It was so simple, I can't believe I've been messing that up with useless complications for so long.

dublindave

"Zimmerman needed none of the follow-up treatments and this was the finding of the on-sight EMT unit."

"So what? He doesn't have to show serious injury, or any injury at all. The existence of the two injuries corroborates his description of the events. Do you understand that?"

I understand that Zimmerman claiming his nose had been broken and his head smashed in differs slightly from the official EMT report that states his injuries "weren't serious".

That paints Zimmerman as a liar,something that the defebndant in a murder case does not need to be painted as.

narciso

Well that's true, I thought Baez was a weasel, I guess it wasn't just me,

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/10/casey-anthony-mark-omara-saw-bias-against-jose-baez.html

bunkerbuster

Perhaps it will all come down to voice analysis of who was screaming for help. If it's Martin, Zimmerman's depravity in shooting him is beyond reasonable doubt. Given two independent voice experts and the mother all agree it was Martin, don't the people have more than enough probable cause for second-degree murder AND a very solid, virtually slam-dunk case?
Surely the defense will bring their own experts to the voice analysis table, but even if they claim the screams are Zimmerman, that only gets us to the idea that he was in trouble at some point before he killed Martin. The would significantly add to the evidence, but it wouldn't close the case the way it will if it goes the other way.

MarkO

I love you more every day, Clarice.

MJW

Well, if you find O'Mara suggesting a plea agreement, be sure to post a link. I remember differently, I guess is all I was saying.

Well, as I've already mentioned, I haven't found an example of O'Mara suggesting a plea agreement. It isn't a matter of remembering things differently, though; it's a matter of remembering two different things.

Clarice

You're welcome, Alice. If the dough was the neo neopolitan, it is easy and the best recipe for pizza dough I've found after years of trying.

Danube of Thought

"I understand that Zimmerman claiming his nose had been broken and his head smashed in ..."

Cite the evidence that he made that claim.

Danube of Thought

"That paints Zimmerman as a liar,something that the defebndant in a murder case does not need to be painted as."

Tell us the steps that will occur in order to bring the "lie" to the attention of the jurors.

AliceH

You linked two, but they were actually the same ingredients and measures. I used bread flour but followed the one with helpful shaping instructions:

http://www.thefreshloaf.com/recipes/pizza

narciso

Btw, we had a nice lunch at Red Lobster, for my mother's birthday, today.

dublindave

"Dublin Dave, how serious does one's injuries have to be to warrant having been afraid for one's life. Is admission into the ICU serious enough, but a trip to the emergency room is not? Being treated and released at the scene is not enough, but a trip to the hospital would have been? If one is the process of having one's head bashed into the pavement, how many blows and of what severity must one suffer before one is allowed to respond in self-defense?

The point we've been trying to show you with the examples we've provided of the equestrian, the skier and the drunk Mr. Kildall, is that with head injuries even trained EMTs couldn't s tell how severe and life-threatening those injury turned out to be. Yet you expect the person suffering the beat down, during the moment it is happening, to make some kind of value judgement as to whether he's being hurt bad enough at the time to warrant trying to stop said beating."

Actually I think the trained proffesionals who stated in their report that Zimmerman's injuries were not "that serious" hit the nail on the head.I'm curious as to why a man who wasn't seriously injured in a scuffle felt the need to pull a gun a blow a teenager away.

Danube of Thought

" If it's Martin, Zimmerman's depravity in shooting him is beyond reasonable doubt. Given two independent voice experts and the mother all agree it was Martin..."

Do you actually believe that either of those two "experts" will be permitted to testify at trial? The reasons they will not be so allowed have been set forth here at great length. Do you have new information that would rebut those reasons?

Do you think that the testimony of at least one eyewitness that he saw GZ on his back crying for help will create reasonable doubt as to who was crying out? If not, why not?

MJW

Given two independent voice experts and the mother all agree it was Martin, don't the people have more than enough probable cause for second-degree murder AND a very solid, virtually slam-dunk case?

The mother has every reason to say it was her some, and even more reason to say it wasn't Zimmerman. To acknowledge it was Zimmerman is to admit her sainted son was the attacker. Martin's father initially said it wasn't Martin. Martin's brother said he couldn't be certain. Zimmerman's father says it was his son.

The voice "experts" count for nothing unless they can prove the scientific validity of their methods. The first expert used a home-brew computer program, but has yet to explain what characteristics of the scream and of Zimmerman's voice it used to decide they weren't the same speaker. The second expert is a joke. His "method" was to listen to the scream, and decide the person sounded too young to be Zimmerman -- without ever hearing Martin's voice.

MJW

...it was her son...

Danube of Thought

"...that only gets us to the idea that he was in trouble at some point before he killed Martin"

QED.

Some guy

Actually I think the trained proffesionals who stated in their report that Zimmerman's injuries were not "that serious" hit the nail on the head.

Actually, you're just chatting out of your booty. You have no guarantee, or even an inclination, that the EMTs on scene will testify that Zimmerman didn’t sustain injuries consistent with his story.

Pls don’t clear your throat. Think of the children.

Danube of Thought

The bubumeister's back and he's got himself in trouble
Hey la, hey la
Bubumeister's back.

Wahoo!

Sara

MJW: I was during the announcement that he was taking over and Z had turned himself in, if that helps. On TV

bunkerbuster

Perhaps it will all come down to the voice analysis of who was screaming for help.
If it's Martin, Zimmerman's depravity in shooting him is beyond reasonable doubt. Given two independent voice experts and the mother all agree it was Martin, don't the people have more than enough probable cause for second-degree murder AND a very solid, virtually slam-dunk case?
Surely the defense will bring their own experts to the voice analysis table, but even if they prove the screams are Zimmerman, that only gets us to the idea that he was in trouble at some point before he killed Martin. That would significantly add to the evidence, but it wouldn't close the case the way it will if it the people can prove Martin was screaming/whimpering for help.

MarkO

"I'm curious as to why a man who wasn't seriously injured in a scuffle felt the need to pull a gun a blow a teenager away."

Are you really that stupid? Put down the keyboard and walk away.

MarkO

"Perhaps it will all come down to the voice analysis of who was screaming for help."

Not it won't. You clearly don't know enough about the rules of evidence to offer an opinion.

Danube of Thought

"I'm curious as to why a man who wasn't seriously injured in a scuffle felt the need to pull a gun a blow a teenager away."

Because he was on his back, the beating was ongoing, and he feared that if he did not shoot serious bodily harm was imminent. Do you understand that under the law, it is not necessary that any injury at all have occurred in order for the defendant to experience that fear? That's a simple question: just tell us yes or no.

Some guy

"Perhaps it will all come down to the voice analysis of who was screaming for help."

Perhaps monkeys will come flying out of my...

Sara

Tell me bunker how the prosecution proves it was Martin when there are eye witnesses to the contrary?

dublindave

"Actually I think the trained proffesionals who stated in their report that Zimmerman's injuries were not "that serious" hit the nail on the head."

"Actually, you're just chatting out of your booty. You have no guarantee, or even an inclination, that the EMTs on scene will testify that Zimmerman didn’t sustain injuries consistent with his story."

If through cross examination the EMT's simply re-state what they wrote in their report then that wont be consitent with his story.

His account of the events are that he received serious life threatening injuries,broken nose,smashed skull etc, that forced him to take a life.

EMT reports that his injuries "weren't serious".

So there's a pretty big disparity between what Zimmerman claimed happened and what the evidence from the scene,including a report from medical proffessionals indicates happened.

He's a liar.


Sara

You are the liar dub. You just make shit up.

Some guy

He's a liar.

Well someone is, but you haven't provided anything to prove it's GZ.

BlahBlahBlah

Sara,

"I wish I could find the Flopping Aces Timeline. As I recall, there was about 40 seconds between the time that TM hung up with DeeDee AND GZ hung up with police."

While the Flopping Aces timeline is great, there is also a grave error - the GZ call actually started about 2 mins earlier at 7:09:34; not 7:11:12. Their error seems to come in the fact that they followed merely the incident data entry - the first entry is 7:11:12 when the dispatcher typed in the all the information about the suspect that cops would need.

If you look at the top of the "event report" Flopping Aces uses though, you will see "Connected 19:09:34 (you can also search that online, its the well documented call time). One can also backtrack the length of the recorded call from the data entered "Compl" at 7:13:41 and show the same. Or, you can see the "Subj now running" at 19:11:59 and line it up with Zimmermans "he's running" and "he ran" comments which started at 2:09 into conversation (7:11:41 specifically)


Now, that puts the actual true timeline as follows:

7:09:34 GZ 9/11 call starts (per police records)
7:11:41 GZ: "He’s running" [2:07 of conversation]
7:13:41 GZ hangs up 9/11 call. (police record)

7:16:01 TM/DeeDee phone call ends (not sure where documented - was 4 min call though, ending right around this time.)

7:17:11 Police time stamp their arrival


And that's 2:20 between the two hanging up their respective calls. Its also at least a 5:20 time-frame between "He's running" and Martin hanging up the phone with DeeDee.

Related side-note: the 70 yard part has actually been confirmed; as seen in this Huffington Post article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/trayvon-martin-cops-botched-investigation_n_1409277.html

So thats 5:20 between "he's running" and confrontation, or 6:30 between "He's running" and Police arriving. Seems more then enough time to get 70 yards to me...

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

Why are people wasting time trying to engage Dumbassdave in conversation?

Let him just sit in the corner with his stocked-up Walmart lube and his "sweet, innocent, looks like a kid" George Zimmerman rape fantasies.

Ignatz

--Actually I think the trained proffesionals who stated in their report that Zimmerman's injuries were not "that serious" --

Hey wee Davey; if you're going to use quotation marks perhaps you could provide a citation for where you got it.
The only thing I've found from the EMS guys was this quote from a tape with a little context by the NY Daily News;

On Friday, the Daily News obtained EMS documents suggesting Zimmerman, who an ex-colleague said was fired from a security job for being too aggressive, did not sustain serious injuries in the fatal encounter.

Paperwork detailing the EMS response to the shooting scene shows that a call for a second ambulance was canceled.

An audiotape containing the EMS communications, also obtained by The News on Friday, records unidentified workers discussing the scene.

Zimmerman’s condition is mentioned briefly in the 30-minute recording.

“Do we have a second patient?” a man asks.

“That’s affirmative. We have a second patient,” a woman replies. “The second patient is not a gunshot.”

"Not serious" is the "suggestion" of the NYDN not the EMS guys. You got something beside that or are you just lying again?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame