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.
Tiluha, in the court file, the Order to Unseal, includes a paragraph saying that the names and addresses of the witnesses agreed to by the state and the defense will be redacted until further order. That order was dated April 23rd.
The next order in the case (dated April 30th) about opening the court files, talks about specific exceptions to the open file, but it does not address the issue of redacted names of witnesses, so that still goes as far as I can tell.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 05-01-2012 at 02:39 PM..
Reason: left out a word
You know I just remembered, recently a statute was added to exclude SS#'s, credit card numbers, bank information from court documents, can you believe this information was available to public at all! Shocking!
(a) Until January 1, 2012, if a social security number or a bank account, debit, charge, or credit card number is included in a court file, such number may be included as part of the court record available for public inspection and copying unless redaction is requested by the holder of such number or by the holder’s attorney or legal guardian.
(e)1. On January 1, 2012, and thereafter, the clerk of the court must keep social security numbers confidential and exempt as provided for in s. 119.071(5)(a), and bank account, debit, charge, and credit card numbers exempt as provided for in s. 119.071(5)(b), without any person having to request redaction.
Actually, no, I didn't realize that private information was not covered under teh 119 laws!
Tiluha, in the court file, the Order to Unseal, includes a paragraph saying that the names and addresses of the witnesses agreed by the state and the defense will be redacted until further order. That order was dated April 23rd.
The next order in the case (dated April 30th) about opening the court files, talks about specific exceptions to the open file, but it does not address the issue of redacted names of witnesses, so that still goes as far as I can tell.
Yes, the defense attorney actually stated that he will not accept discovery unless the names, phone numbers and addresses of witnesses are redacted...that order stands, I don't think the media will fight that, I would hope not...
The specific exceptions threw me because I couldn't think of what that might cover, but as you stated it probably references what's covered by privacy laws...
Task force on self-defense will go to Sanford (http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/task-force-self-defense-will-go-sanford/nNNzw/ - broken link) That was a quick first meeting...
He was guilty of beating someone and making them fear for their life.
There are credible witnesses that say Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him
There were no marks on Martin which shows that Zimmerman didn't attack him, He attacked Zimmerman who did have marks and injuries from the attack.
There are witnesses that say the opposite. Also, how do you know there are no marks on Martin. He is dead and the autopsy report has not been released.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Why would you rely on those past cases, which are of uncertain significance anyway? People get slapped with bogus charges, then plead down to 'diversion' all the time. You face a 1 in 1000 chance of getting a felony, or a sure thing of shelling out some bucks and getting a diversion, 9 of 10 people are going to take the latter option.
The guy could have been a child molester in the past, yet his actions in shooting Martin could still be self defense. There's going to be lots of evidence coming out in the trial? Wouldn't it be a whole lot more logical to wait for it and then 'rely' upon that?
I agree we should wait and see. You were responding to someone who quoted me as saying I don't believe him because he has lied since this whole killing incident occurred. I do not take into account his past acts, though I must say that his past acts are much worse than Martin's and yet Martin was called a delinquent and is referred to as a thug by many of you even though he does not have a history of violence or pushing people or beating up women, things that Zimmerman has been charged with.
Personally I think Zimmerman is lying. Like I said, I don't think this was a racist out to kill a black boy and I do feel they more than likely got into a fight, but I don't believe Zimmerman at all. He has too many different versions of what happened and he has lied since killing Martin. He is trying to save his butt from prison. Most people will lie to do that. I also am not one to believe someone is innocent because they say they are. Especially when they are charged with killing someone. Even though I honestly don't believe that Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black, I do feel that many of you defend Zimmerman because Martin was black. Many of you defenders are the same ones that rail on and on about black thugs and such so in your mind you probably think Martin deserved it. He was a teenager who had been suspended so that makes him a thug in training or something in your eyes. It is pretty sick. I was suspended in high school too but was an Honors/AP student and never got into trouble with the law. I guess if I got an attitude with someone following me and I was shot then I deserved it since I was black and a thug in the making.
Nothing interesting or groundbreaking in any of that. According to you, the police can just pick up a cell phone and know automatically the first and last name and address of the victim. It doesn't work like that. The phone has to first be logged in as evidence, then LATER they can use it to find next of kin or a friend to ID him. Dead victims are ALWAYS tested for drugs and alcohol, it's called a toxicology report. I've never seen or heard of the other party being tested.
What do you mean, "according to me?" I didn't write the article, I simply
posted a link to it. Apparently Trayvon had personal information on him, as the police were able to fill out a form that evening that included his name, height, weight and date of birth.
Actually, if you read the rules of neighborhood watch, they say "you are never on patrol." That's a term people on City-Data are using. He is not a police officer. A police officer is "on patrol." A neighborhood watch volunteers watches. I guess by repeating the words "on patrol" people here feel it will convince others he had more authority than the rest of us.
If you are implying that I believed GZ had more authority than the rest of us because I used the term "on patrol" for lack of a better term, I have to ask, how on earth did you come to that conclusion?
The consequences for acting stupidly shouldn't include facing arrest, trial, and life in prison.
It never mattered to me whether he was 'on patrol' or going to Target. He violated no law. He wasn't stalking, didn't disobey an officer's legal order. Whether he unlawfully killed tm is yet to be determined.
Taking the alcohol cop's report as truth, gz shrugged away, pushed the cop's arms, and was handcuffed after an undescribed 'brief struggle.' Something you or I would do, even at age 21, drinking ? Probably not. But violence, assault, as the charges portray. Hardly. As judge Lester said, 'run-of-the-mill type run-in with the alcohol and beverage agents at the library, I believe it was. They're fairly common.' My guess is the prosecutor who handled the case and ok'd the plea deal knew the scenario very well.
The two statements in bold contradict each other. Yeah, yeah, yeah, innocent until proven guilty, but really? Are you ready to go out on that limb that he "violated no law"?
If you kill someone acting stupidly, you should face arrest and trial, at a minimum. It's not like running up a lot of credit card debt, or some other stupid activity that does not hurt anyone else.
zimmerman knew at the time of the bail hearing that he had $200,000 in an account. He allowed his lawyer to tell the judge he was indigent.
That's called LYING.
For his attorney to say zimmerman had no money, well, zimmerman must have told him he had no money.
Either that or the lawyer lied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper
Exactly which law did he violate? Be specific.
He is going to be tried for violating the law against manslaughter. Before you an tallulah jump all over me, I did say "innocent until proven guilty". But you can't say, he violated no law. We don't know yet.
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.
