Posted on 04/12/2012 6:26:26 PM PDT by dewawi
People need to realize two things, though, in addressing the second point. Zimmerman talked with the police for several hours after the shooting. There are stories that he also called Angela Corey directly before he was ever charged, which is one of the reasons his first attorneys quit.
We have no idea what additional little details Zimmerman told the police, or Corey and investigators, that aren't in the 911 calls. That's hours of interviews versus minutes on the 911 calls.
So while there's no way for the State Attorney's office to swear that Martin was not going to commit a crime - they may have been told by Zimmerman that he thought Martin was going to commit a crime.
Given how sloppy and how clearly the charging affidavit was written to tell only one, factually challenged side of the rest of the story, note that I'm only offering up something for people to note about the length of Zimmerman's other, unknown conversations.
"But a video does exist. The public relations director of 7-Eleven told me that, according to the company's manager of security, a store camera captured an African-American male (she wouldn't commit to "young") purchasing a bag of Skittles and a can of tea (she wouldn't say that it was "Arizona" tea). The hard disk with the video was removed after the story broke, and it has been subpoenaed by investigators for the state and/or county. The company has not made it available to the media. The public relations director could not specify the exact time of the purchase but said it was between 6:00 and 6:30.Source:The American ThinkerThe 7-Eleven, according to maps.google, is 0.8 miles from the entrance to The Retreat at Twin Lakes, a 16-minute walk. There is not much to see or do on Rinehart Road on a Sunday night, and it was raining hard. Even if he was not bringing the tea and Skittles to his stepbrother but was eating and sipping en route, Martin should have arrived back at his dad's fiancée's place before 6:50, and much earlier if he left the store closer to 6:00 than 6:30. According to logs (now deleted from the department's website), Zimmerman called the Sanford police at 7:09:34.
Just as Martin did not go straight home after he first spotted the neighborhood watch captain, so, too, he apparently did not go directly to Brandy Green's apartment from the 7-Eleven. What exactly he was doing between the time he entered the gated community and the moment Zimmerman noticed him will probably never be known. Though there may be some plausible explanation for his behavior, the idea that he was simply returning from a selfless errand when he caught Zimmerman's eye seems less and less likely."
Is the report that Martin was found in the possession of women's jewelry that did not belong to him going to be admissible?
We'll see if "critical race theory" impacts this case--will testimony from black people count for more than testimony from non-black people? It could be considered "turnabout is fair play" because in the antebellum South testimony from a slave couldn't be used against a white person.
[[Personally, I think the prosecutors “exaggerate for effect” when making such charges]]
Yes, but at what expense, the life of someone? Because Zimmerman’s life is now over as he rots in jail awaiting trial for false charges agaisnt him
[[Having seen it before in other cases, they shoot for the moon to get their point across and hope something will stick.]]
Yes I know, BUT, the thing is, we’re suppsoed to be protected against having false charges levelled agaisnt us- false imrpisonment- Let’s say I were to rob a store- if the prosecutor doesn’t have any evidence I did it, but wants to arrest me anyways, they can’t just make up a charge of say kidnapping and murder in hopes that somethign will eventually stick- I will have been just arrested for crimes I did NOT commit. George Zimmerman has been arrested for crimes he did NOT commit,and htere is absolutely no evidencve in anythign given to date that indicate he should have been arrested for those crimes- IF they wanted to go for wrongful death, or negligent homicide, or soem such thing, then they would be ontrack for havign him arrested and tried- however, there is nothign in any of hte evidence that suggests he had a depraved mind and that he had a callous indifference to the well being of others- and in my mind the prosecutor had NO right bringing such falsde charges against Zimmerman- The prosecutor woudl have to have REASONABLE suspicion that the person they are arresting is guilty of the crime for which they are beign accused- The fact is, as I said, there is nothign in the evidence to even begin to suggest that Zim was depraved of mind and callously indifferent to the well being of another- infact we see just the oposite, that zim never even took his gun out until AFTER trayvon attempted to get hte gun from george.
The facts of the case show thaqt there was NOTHINGH with which to hold George Zimmerman- He acted within his rights in self defence, and was rightfully allowed to go after being questioned and after the case was investigated and after witnesses corroborated Zims story. Now all of a sudden, BECAUSE OF PRESSURE fro mthe blakc community, the state has stepped in and arrested George for no other reason than the pressure- they are IGNORING the evidnece and investigation that has already been done, and levelling false charges agaiosnt Zimmerman- The charges agaisnt him were invented- made up, simoply in order to have him arrested- you can’t just throw somethign oput there for charges and later hope they stick IF there is absolutely NO evidence that the man or woman committed the acts i nthe charges
I recall reading your link [fixed] when it first came out. I hadn't assumed she was telling her story for the first time. I had earlier heard that Crump had taken her affidavit much earlier, presumably before the story went national. Earlier accounts are more credible than later accounts, especially in this case.
Namely, the call to 911 on 03/02/12 at 12:45 pm. Did Martin have the phone passworded, so that only 911 would work? Is that the Sanford PD calling themselves to find out the phone's number? Is that how long it took the Sanford PD to begin investigating what intelligence they could glean from the phone?
“The special Prosecutor is a Republican”
What does that mean? She is better than a Democrat? Or is she just as scared as a Democrat?
What it means is that she has declared herself as a Republican, and was, for whatever reason, brought in by a Republican governor. What kind of Republican she is remains to be seen; this is a pretty good test case, and it doesn’t reflect favorably either on her OR the governor. But we’ll see what happens, I suppose.
It looks to me as if she may simply be a publicity hound, hoping to get ahead politically by prosecuting in front of the cameras, and cheered by the liberal press, in which case it probably doesn’t matter what she party she belongs to. That transcript certainly doesn’t reflect well on her.
I very highly doubt it, unless the prosecuting attorney asks a question that opens the door for it. The only part of Martin's character that appears relevant to me as a legal matter may be whether he had a tendency to violence of the type in Zimmerman's account of the night. Whether or not Martin was really acting suspiciously doesn't aid Zimmerman when the charge is that he was 'depraved' with respect to strangers in the neighborhood who looked suspicious, obsessively concerned that they may be committing crimes and that they always got away, following Martin, allegedly confronting Martin, and so on.
People can yell "it's relevant." Yes, to them, but not to a court. In my opinion, in a courtroom it's not just that it would be considered more prejudicial than probative. It just wouldn't be considered relevant. The relevant character trait of Martin would be whether he's prone to violence, not whether he's prone to theft.
No. There's no way it's coming in. As I understand it, Martin wasn't accused of stealing jewelry and he wasn't charged with stealing jewelry (I don't even know that it was established that the jewelry was stolen). It would be irrelevant if it existed, but there's no stolen jewelery charge against Martin to be admissible.
Hell, they should try to identify the owner of the missing jewelry and see if the theft can be tied to Martin or his FB friends.
Your analogy is fine but where there is a slight amount of evidence or, the prosecutor feels he can make a case agains’t someone having only minimal evidence, they WILL use exageration to get the idea across (plant the seed so to speak). I’ve seen it done and it DOES WORK, no matter what you or I believe to be fair. Zimmerman MUST HAVE a good lawyer if he expects to get off and from what I read, I agree with you. Hope it works in his favor.
it may ‘work’ however, it is still an injustice- where htere is no evidence, someone shouldn’t ethically be allowed to just say that there is ‘minimal evidence’- Again, We’re suppsoed to be protected against such things- because if we’re not, then anyoen at any time can level any charges they klike against us and claim there is ‘minimal evidence’ to support the charges.
I realize lawyers do infact do this all the time- however, we are suppsoed to be protected agasinst such miscarriages of justice, but over hte years, leberal judges have allowed prosecutors to get away with such travestiesw of justice tiem and tiem again until now it has becoem standard practice to thwart constitutional and civil rights
Yep! You have it right but, the prosecutors still do it and if you cannot afford an expensive lawyer, you’re screwed. Happens all the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.