Skip to comments.Martin Case Affidavit
Posted on 04/13/2012 2:57:34 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
I strongly disagree with David Frenchs analysis. Im inclined, instead, to agree with commentators ranging from former Reagan Justice Department official Mark Levin to Harvards Alan Dershowitz that the affidavit is stunningly weak unethical, as Prof. Dershowitz puts it. In fact, I go further (which, after nearly 20 years of writing and supervising the writing of complaint affidavits, I think Im qualified to do). This affidavit is not law, it is agitprop: invoking, for example, the explosive term profiled but carefully avoiding any discussion of what it means and failing to note that (a) there is no evidence of racial profiling, and (b) absent an invidious racial component there is nothing wrong with profiling (indeed, we want police to do it so that innocent people dont get hassled).
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Is this the same 'witness' who withheld information from the authorities for three weeks and only came forward after the police tapes and other evidence were released?
Is this the same 'witness' who didn't even bother to check and see what happened to her 'boyfriend' for five days after he told her he was being followed and then the phone went dead?
Yeah..I'd say she has a credibility issue.
If you want to talk about this you really should read the PD transcripts and reports. Until then you just sound, well, stupid.
I would be careful quoting the GF...if you want to take part of her story you have to take all of it...and it has zimmerman still following martin...not going back to his truck.
I'm not sure why that's a problem. It's perfectly legal to get out of your truck, and even to follow somebody - even to ask them what they are doing in the neighborhood. And it really doesn't contradict Zimmerman's account in any way.
The important point of DeeDee's account (as it has been conveyed in the press anyway) is that it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman.
And I have to tell you, I just keep coming back to the indisputable fact that Martin had ample time to return home, without even running, before Zimmerman ever hung up the phone with police. It is also indisputable that he did not do that. And I just can't square that with the version that has Zimmerman "chasing" him.
Well, the police certainly had the ability to go and question her. The reports that they didn’t do that are one part of the investigation that I find terribly irresponsible (if true.)
And I’m not sure why you think she didn’t bother to check on him for five days. I haven’t read that. But his parents were informed and his name was reported in the local news the next day, so it’s a little hard for me to believe she didn’t know what happened.
And again, her account tends to support Zimmerman’s - hard to figure why she would lie on Zimmerman’s behalf.
If you can't support the stupid crap you post and you can't answer the very basic questions I asked you up-thread..maybe its time to stifle your sanctimonious prattle.
Tragic misunderstanding, yeah good chance that’s it.
SOMEBODY initiated unwarranted combat.
Methinks the one who did already got capital punishment for doing so.
While I don't practice crim law, I don't see 2nd degree based on what is public knowledge. Manslaughter (or no charges at all) I can see depending on how things sort out. I don't know the non-public information.
Lol..where did you hear that?..at Huffington Post?
And Im not sure why you think she didnt bother to check on him for five days.
Because no one knew about her until they checked through Martin's phone records, something that did not occur immediately at the start of the investigation. After she became known she refused to cooperate with investigators. Eventually she talked to the DOJ civil rights unit, but only after many other pieces of evidence were known and only after having extensive contact with the Martin family and their attorneys.
And again, her account tends to support Zimmermans - hard to figure why she would lie on Zimmermans behalf.
I have no idea what you're talking about here, and considering the probable cause affidavit relies heavily on her statements neither does the state of Florida. Without her so-called witness testimony, George Zimmerman would not be sitting in jail.
What are you talking about? You say the police didn’t check Martin’s phone at the start of the investigation, then ask me where I came up with the exact same piece of information. I really don’t understand what it is you disagree with.
If she refused to cooperate, as you say, this is something I have not previously read. I am not denying it, but would appreciate a link to those reports.
And the charging affidavit may or may not rely on her statements. All I know is that it does not cite her statement in asserting that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
I also don’t know for sure what her statement is. I only know that Martin family attorney Crump informed the press some time ago that it was her account that Martin initiated the conversation/confrontation. Maybe Crump was wrong. Maybe she changed her story. I don’t know. All I know is that the only version of her story that has been publicly reported does not contradict Zimmerman’s account (as it is publicly known.)
If she has changed her statement, and did refuse to cooperate, then she will clearly not make a very credible witness for either side.
Sorry if I unintentionally offended you. It just seemed to me from your comment that your mind was already predisposed that letting Mr. Z. go scot-free would not likely serve justice, nor would a murder conviction. Saying:
"Im not sure what would be proper justice if that scenario happened."
would be a fair and impartial statement. But under questioning in voir dire about any leaning you already had, if you added to the above and answered with:
"Certainly not murder, but letting Zimmerman go scot-free may not be justice, either."
then I doubt that either the judge, prosecutor, or defense would seat you. The only mindset acceptable would give the message:
"I will only know when I have heard all the testimony to be given."
In truth, pretty much whatever you have heard on this website or other media outlet is hearsay; and not fit, no matter how compelling, for causing one to be swayed from neutrality in the matter as regarding jury service. N'est ce pas?"
It all depends on who first got physical.
I strongly doubt it was Zimmerman, who had just summoned an official audience to witness his conduct.
Granted, the call in question was to the "non-emergency" number, IOW, not 911.
Nonetheless, the gentleman in question, Sean *The Cannon* Noffke, lists his occupation as "911 Operator" for the "Seminole County Sherrifs Office".
I'll bet Sean wishes he could have reached through that communication line and reeled Zimmerman back into his truck!
OK. Not a sworn police officer either way. Doesn’t matter what he told Z, he wasn’t disobeying a lawful order.
My guess would be not. LOL.
That is the thing that nobody but Zimmerman knows. Without an eyewitness (reliable) to give details nobody can say what they "know" happened. And, absent that I don't see how he can be convicted.
Logic dictates that it was Trayvon Martin who initiated contact. He had already approached Zimmerman in an aggressive manner once while Zimmerman was in his car. He had also ditched Zimmerman once so all he had to do was either go inside or keep on going if he felt threatened. What other reason would Trayvon Martin have for returning up the path toward Zimmerman's truck other than to confront him?
I know that because it's been in the news. Tough skittles! That's no rationale for justice.
Actually, from everything I've ever heard about the justice system, is that its primary purpose is to prevent vigilanteism. Some people who are already predisposed to wanting to take matters into their own hands most certainly would use the Zimmerman case as justification if it looks like he got away with vigilanteism.
Let's put it this way. From Martin's point of view, this guy was watching him and making phone calls. For all Martin knew, this guy was calling his gang buddies to come jump him, and keeping him in sight so that they'd all know where to go when they arrived. What's to prevent a gang from breaking down the door or the windows of the house, if they really want to get him?
I'm not condemning anyone here. I'm saying that what I think happened is a tragic series of events, in which intentions were misread on both sides. I do not know for sure, though--just like no one else commenting knows either.