Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did not want to quote your last two post - but you did a great job summing up this case and looking at possible fallout.
What really bothers me the most is that the police are usually not present when a crime is taking place. Look at almost every school shooting. Government cannot protect all of us all of the time. If the ultimate outcome of this trial, is that prosecutors will go after more people that defend themselves, then we are in trouble.
PS It bothers me that I could not even rep post 1598! Great post!
I'm looking beyond this case here. What will be the next case where someone who has little or no evidence against him gets tried and maybe convicted because the public wants it? Will you or I perhaps be convicted with no evidence in the future? You know, if it's our misfortune to stumble into an encounter that happens to become big news, under circumstances which lead the public to view us as the villains. That's possible if we accept what has happened here as the new norm.
You don't want to send a bad message? What's happening here sends the message that a public outcry against a person involved in some kind of criminal incident takes precedence over Constitutional rights, and that pressure from the public counts for more than basing criminal charges and guilty verdicts only on real evidence. That's a bad, bad message.
I agree with you and hope the jurors will think alike and realize that it can be them or a loved one or friend who can be sitting on GZ chair and without proof but due to pressure from else where can be pu in prison!
Is this giving them satisfaction until it is one of the prosecutors family members...
BTW will Jesse Jackson come out this time like he did last time...this time his son is in prison and convicted which makes it a little different and thee was plenty of proof against his son!
Yes, and another thing that is inconsistent is that George carried his gun, not to his side, but towards his back, meaning if Trayvon were on top of him, George would have been able to raise his body and reach back to get the gun. All this while being pummeled. I don't buy this story.
Oh, now I hear that Zimmerman already had his gun out. Of course Martin felt threatened. He was fighting for his life, and lost.
I wondered about that to, how he managed to get his gun out of his holster while being straddled. But there is a reason the prosecution did not spend much time on it. Again, you have to be a gun carrier to understand the logistics. Zimmerman was wearing an inside the wasteband holster that clips on the the pants waistband and a firm/sturdy belt, to hold his kel-tec 9mm. I wear this type of holster occasionally. Now most people wear it behind their hip (depending on if you are right or left handed) for maximum concealability, not quite in back, not quite to the side. But, because it clips on, it has a range of motion, sliding easily either forward or back, at least to the next belt loop. You also have to consider the cant of the holster, usually they are designed so the it titls forward, with the barrel pointing slightly to the back, to make it easier to draw from the front. Anyways, if you are vertical, it doesn't move. If I am sitting in a car for instance I might shift my holster forward a bit to make it more comfortable. If you are tussling on the ground on your back, the natural tendency is for the holster to slide forward to the front, potentially even forward of his hip. The only trick then is having a hand free. But again this is consistent with Zimmerman's testimony as well, where both were reaching for the gun.
For your second paragraph you haven't "heard" that Zimmerman had his gun out at the time of confrontation except perhaps from some misinformed meandering, in fact that wouldn't make sense or be consistent with the witness testimony or the wounds, as then you would have basically two people fighting for a weapon instead of one pummeling the other.
Another point that I am not sure was discussed. Why did Zimmerman have one round in the chamber, ready to fire, meaning he didn't have to lock back the magazine to load a round. Most people balk at that but it's important to realize that most firearms instructers tell their students to ALWAYS keep a round loaded in the chamber while carrying (for a semi-automatic handgun). Otherwise you defeat the purpose of carrying a weapon for self defense as those seconds taken to rack it will mean your death.
I never saw a case handled so bdly as this by a shouting out of control prosecutor...if I was the juror I would be so shocked by this yelling and over the top bad acting job!
I agree. The way he was mocking Zimmerman and yelling, I think if I were a juror that would rub me the wrong way.
It's been years since I worked in law enforcement, but I never heard of such a practice back then. Maybe I just lucked into a job in a county relatively free of corruption, but we used to make a point of getting the charges right. Then occasionally the D.A. would recommend something a bit lower than what one of our officers had originally filed, not because our original charge was legally incorrect, but because the D.A. had a lot of court experience and knew that in some cases juries would be unsympathetic to convicting on the most serious charge that would be technically correct.
The D.A. did not "overcharge." Some of you seem to be absolutely immune to facts. Again, manslaughter is a lesser included charge in a murder case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
I'd be less than honest if I said there weren't some real pricks in law enforcement (and even most other cops don't like those guys), but most cops, say, if they find some kid involved in a bit of mischief that is technically against the law but where there's really no harm done, are more likely to give the kid a chewing out and send him on his way rather than saddle him with a criminal record.
Okay. Where did you work again? Certainly not Philadelphia, New York City, Boston, DC, Los Angeles or any other major city. Most of these cities have special "task forces" that are charged with drug interdiction, etc. That sounds good on paper, but the reality is that they need to make arrests to justify their existence. So you'll have these narcos cruising around Flatbush and jumping out on kids hanging out on the corner. They get searched (illegally) and sometimes booked for marijuana possession. Then they wind up with a juvenile record. This happens all the time, and if it didn't, the line at the King's County Courthouse would not be as long as it is every morning. I doubt there are too many cops jumping out on kids walking the streets of Greenwich, CT. And these kids are getting arrested at 13, 14 and 15.
And cops lie all the time. I would say the majority of them lie, but they don't view their lying as a bad thing because they think the end result is just. Under Terry, an officer must have a reasonable suspicion that a suspect is carrying a weapon before a frisk can be conducted, and most cops lie about this. Most police reports read like they were drafted from a template.
"Officer Friendly was driving south on Nostrand Avenue when he saw two black males on the corner. Officer Friendly pulled over, approached and then asked if the males were carrying contraband. The suspects responded in the affirmative. One of the suspects had his hands in his pockets, which made Officer Friendly fear for his safety. Officer friendly then searched the suspect and discovered two small bags of marijuana on his person."
Happens all the time. And prosecutors can be reluctant to pull back charges because their job is to get convictions. I mean, how many of us have jobs where we feel we're not really doing the best thing for a customer/client/patient, but you're required to do it or else ("Sorry sir, I understand your payment was only an hour late, but the $50 late fee still applies. It's company policy. Feel free to talk to my manager (who will say the same thing)). It's no different in a DA's office where the politics put a ton of pressure on attorneys to get convictions. And the easier cases (like possession) are easy because defendants usually enter into a plea agreement on those charges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
There is also the reality that there are only so many hours available for investigations, for testifying in court, etc., so the police will set priorities. That's the first check against lame charges.
Did you really work in law enforcement?
Have you ever wondered why so many cops show up for a simple D.U.I. arrest? You'll see one guy taking field sobriety tests with his girlfriend in the car with 3 police cruisers parked behind his car. It's because cops usually get paid for going to court. Cops often have a sweet, tacit deal worked out with prosecutors where lots of them show up on a "crime scene" so they can make a claim to some type of involvement in the case. Then they can appear in court and get paid even if they have no intention of testifying. And in some cities, cops actually get paid overtime for appearing in court. That's why you often see so many cops in the courthouse sleeping outside of the courtroom. They love going to court because it's an easy way to get paid. And it sure beats the hell out of driving around all day with the possibility of getting killed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
In the same way, an ethical D.A., as aggressively as he'll try to win a good case, won't bring charges if he thinks there is no case.
Again, that's not really true. DA's bring a ton of bad cases because of politics (and sometimes just poor legal acumen in general). This is especially true at the local level where the DA is often elected. The U.S. Attorney's Office, on the other hand, is completely different and FBI and DEA Agents are of a significantly higher caliber than local police.
And as I mentioned before, most cases result in plea agreements. There are a lot of cases that should technically be dismissed or result in diversion (which happened to George Zimmerman, btw), but prosecutors don't knock the charges down because their boss won't let them. Convictions look good and pleas are easy ways to get them. I mean, if you're not convicting people, then you're viewed as being soft on crime, and the voting public generally doesn't like politicians that are "soft on crime," and consequently the Mayor puts the DA on the chopping block. So it's in the DA's interest to keep a high conviction rate and pleas make it easy to do that.
The rules haven't changed at all. The judge is following the law. The prosecution always had that option and allowing a jury to convict on a lesser charge is a very common practice in Florida.
Even Nancy Grace, who is a former prosecutor and is pro-prosecution in this case, said that the fact that they wanted to bring in additional charges bothers her a LOT. She said they should have thought of that way back at the preliminary hearing, not decide on the day of closing arguments that they wanted to include other charges.
Even Nancy Grace, who is a former prosecutor and is pro-prosecution in this case, said that the fact that they wanted to bring in additional charges bothers her a LOT. She said they should have thought of that way back at the preliminary hearing, not decide on the day of closing arguments that they wanted to include other charges.
Nancy Grace is an idiot. Manslaughter is not an additional charge. It's just a lesser included offense. It's the same way a defendant can still be charged with second degree murder after being charged with first degree murder. The only difference between murder and manslaughter is the burden of proof. It's not an additional charge like kidnapping or weapon possession.
That lady is a TV personality who garners about as much respect in the legal community as Judge Judy. There are real lawyers like Eliot Spitzer, Rudy Giuliani, and Brendan Sullivan who are highly qualified with sterling academic and professional credentials and then there are substandard lawyers like Nancy Grace who attend Tier 3 and Tier 4 law schools and work in low profile DA offices. I mean, do you think any serious criminal practice in Washington or New York would take her seriously?
Nancy Grace is an idiot. Manslaughter is not an additional charge. It's just a lesser included offense. It's the same way a defendant can still be charged with second degree murder after being charged with first degree murder. The only difference between murder and manslaughter is the burden of proof. It's not an additional charge like kidnapping or weapon possession.
That lady is a TV personality who garners about as much respect in the legal community as Judge Judy. There are real lawyers like Eliot Spitzer, Rudy Giuliani, and Brendan Sullivan who are highly qualified with sterling academic and professional credentials and then there are substandard lawyers like Nancy Grace who attend Tier 3 and Tier 4 law schools and work in low profile DA offices. I mean, do you think any serious criminal practice in Washington or New York would take her seriously?
According to a Florida criminal professor on the radio this morning both charges have the same burden which is beyond a reasonable doubt...
Not one person wo has listened to the evidence presented can say this case was presented proven without reasonable doubt!
The prosecutors claim is GZ is a wannabee cop, he was out to get him...so why did GZ call the police and never in all other cases he had one issue close to this!
According to a Florida criminal professor on the radio this morning both charges have the same burden which is beyond a reasonable doubt...
Not one person wo has listened to the evidence presented can say this case was presented proven without reasonable doubt!
The prosecutors claim is GZ is a wannabee cop, he was out to get him...so why did GZ call the police and never in all other cases he had one issue close to this!
I should have written "quantum of evidence" instead (and actually considered writing that initially). It's a different evidentiary standard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), but most cops, say, if they find some kid involved in a bit of mischief that is technically against the law but where there's really no harm done, are more likely to give the kid a chewing out and send him on his way rather than saddle him with a criminal record.
Did you really work in law enforcement?