Unarmed Florida Teen Shot

[ballen0351]

First, I've worked in the law field for over 20 years, so you need not try explain discovery to me. It occurs on it's own timelines and according to its own procedure (criminal and civil). You may be experienced in dealing with criminal activity, but if you gonna try to explain litigating--criminal or civil--then know your stuff.

Well I do know my stuff. I actually work in the Criminal Justice system which it what we are talking about. Ive worked Homicide cases as a detective and I actually have written Prob Cause statements for Murder and Id be fired if I turned in a page and a half of that crap. Ive investigated, testified, and convicted people for Murder. Im daily at the States Attys office doing case prep and preparing my reports and documention for Discovery to "educate" the other side. Someone with 20 years in the "law field" whatever that means should know better then to jump to conclusions about a case when the only "facts" they have were from CNN and NBC.

A jury in the 50s had no problem with nullification. That's what I'm talking about. If a modern jury, reflective of the state of Florida says thumbs up to Mr. Zimmerman, so be it.

So if a modern jury today finds Zimmerman not guilty your ok with it?

 

[Wo Fat]

First, how can anybody know what your background is.
Second, for somebody with that background you do sound like nothing but a guilty verdict will do.

And that is a dangerous, preconceived notion.

I am of the opinion that aside form the DA's office and the police department all 'facts' are conjecture and hearsay.

I am guessing that as soon as the deliberation is underway the police will get on high alert, for the case Mr Zimmerman should be acquitted....

I think this case will leave the system with a black eye.

Fair enough. I have worked for 22 years as a litigation specialist and paralegal on several high profile civil cases, as well as three cases involving police shootings/killings of unarmed citizens where service of no-knock warrants were erroneously attempted. Not to patronize, but when you work in litigation, you become proficient with several areas of industry--including the criminal justice system.

So while some guy might be a good cop, his or her "cop knowledge" has limitations, just like my litigation knowledge has limitations when it comes to law enforcement.

Yes, I am quite aware of how I'm perceived. And right now the perception is that nothing short of Zimmerman's head on a plate will be a miscarriage. Not my desire, but then I'm not too concerned if someone doesn't believe that.

As to the system getting a black eye ... it's had one for centuries. Most people--myself included--are simply fortunate enough not to be on the business end of it.

 

[Wo Fat]

Well I do know my stuff. I actually work in the Criminal Justice system which it what we are talking about. Ive worked Homicide cases as a detective and I actually have written Prob Cause statements for Murder and Id be fired if I turned in a page and a half of that crap. Ive investigated, testified, and convicted people for Murder. Im daily at the States Attys office doing case prep and preparing my reports and documention for Discovery to "educate" the other side. Someone with 20 years in the "law field" whatever that means should know better then to jump to conclusions about a case when the only "facts" they have were from CNN and NBC.




So if a modern jury today finds Zimmerman not guilty your ok with it?

As I mentioned above, I've worked on civil matters where a police officers shot and/or killed unarmed citizens while executing no-knock warrants. One case in particular, Gallardo et al. v. Reinnecius, et al. , happened in Dinuba, CA. I worked for Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco (Arturo Gonzalez was the primary attorney of record), on behalf of the widow and children of a 60+ year old man who was shot and killed. We saw how certain people closed ranks. We saw how the system unofficially worked. Not content to simply accept the "facts" as were presented, we won at trial and the jury awarded $12 million in damages. So again, I feel about some, the same way that you feel about some. I trust some, the way you trust some.

As I said, if a jury reflective of Florida finds Zimmerman not guilty, I will accept that. But that could never have been a possibility unless Zimmerman was properly arrested and charged.

 

[ballen0351]

As I mentioned above, I've worked on civil matters where a police officers shot and/or killed unarmed citizens while executing no-knock warrants. One case in particular, Gallardo et al. v. Reinnecius, et al. , happened in Dinuba, CA. I worked for Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco (Arturo Gonzalez was the primary attorney of record), on behalf of the widow and children of a 60+ year old man who was shot and killed. We saw how certain people closed ranks. We saw how the system unofficially worked. Not content to simply accept the "facts" as were presented, we won at trial and the jury awarded $12 million in damages. So again, I feel about some, the same way that you feel about some. I trust some, the way you trust some.

So your Bias against law enforcement so no matter what unless the "facts" fit your version on this case the cops were wrong

 

[Wo Fat]

So your Bias against law enforcement so no matter what unless the "facts" fit your version on this case the cops were wrong

Not biased; experienced.

 

[jks9199]

First, I don't know if I'll be any more accepting of a not-guilty verdict, than you will be accepting of a guilty verdict. As much as you suspect (or think you know of) motivations, I suspect the same of yours. That said, this particular prosecutor appears to be worthy of all people's trust. So is Zimmerman's lawyer. If a seated jury is of the same competence and integrity as the prosecution and the defense, I for one, will accept whatever verdict comes.

Second, a criminal complaint or probable cause document is written in very much the same style as a civil complaint. Neither one is going to load up the document with "facts" that will educate the other side. It's the way things are done in the practice of law.

I can't speak for ballen -- but I don't know what happened that night. I don't know what the "right" verdict should be; that's the purpose of the trial. In a way, I'm glad that Zimmerman was charged, because if he's acquitted, it won't come back to get him down the road. I am not saying that he shouldn't be convicted; again, I don't know. But at least they won't turn up and charge him some time down the road. Also -- he starts with the presumption of innocence. The prosecution must overcome that in their case in chief -- and I think that the prosecutor here set up a tough case to prove by going for 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter would have been much easier.

While the affidavit isn't required to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt -- this one has plenty of questionable statements without support.

 

[jks9199]

When OJ was found not guilty, you know what I thought? I thought that a jury had found that the state had been unable to prove OJ guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's how our justice system works. In fact, it has often been said that it is better for 100 guilty men to go free than that one innocent man be sent to prison.

FYI... there are 2 easy ways to decide that there was and is reasonable doubt from the criminal trial of OJ Simpson. If you don't believe that he could have traveled from the murder scene to his residence in the time allotted. I can't say for certain -- but I have heard from people with more local knowledge that it could be tight. Also... I have been told that his son could have matched the same DNA profile, as tested. Either line of reasoning could establish reasonable doubt.

 

[ballen0351]

Not biased; experienced.

yes thats prob a better term and more to what I was trying to say. You have made your living off the mistakes other officers have made but to judge all officers off the mistakes and poor judgement of a few is no better then what you accuse Zimmerman of doing. However I can see why you would view officers in that light but there are FAR more good officers then there are not. Ive been sued 3 times in my job so far so I know how Lawyers that specalize in police cases talk to and act towards and think of law enforcement. Ive had them make snarky comments to me in the halls of the court house. I understand it they are wrong but I get it but the actions of a few tarnish us all.

 

[jks9199]

Fair enough. I have worked for 22 years as a litigation specialist and paralegal on several high profile civil cases, as well as three cases involving police shootings/killings of unarmed citizens where service of no-knock warrants were erroneously attempted. Not to patronize, but when you work in litigation, you become proficient with several areas of industry--including the criminal justice system.

So while some guy might be a good cop, his or her "cop knowledge" has limitations, just like my litigation knowledge has limitations when it comes to law enforcement.

Yes, I am quite aware of how I'm perceived. And right now the perception is that nothing short of Zimmerman's head on a plate will be a miscarriage. Not my desire, but then I'm not too concerned if someone doesn't believe that.

As to the system getting a black eye ... it's had one for centuries. Most people--myself included--are simply fortunate enough not to be on the business end of it.

Is there perhaps the slightest possibility that, based on your own experience, you are not quite looking at this case objectively?

That's really all I think we're asking for here. Look at things objectively, and let the process work itself out. You've already decided, apparently based on the media coverage (which we already KNOW was biased due the simple, documented editing and manipulation of the 911 calls and of Zimmerman's history), that the Sanford PD wasn't going to do a fair and complete investigation without the public pressure, and that the initial prosecutor, in possession of the results of their investigation, couldn't have made a fair and proper decision since you disagree with it.

I realize that some of my responses here have probably seemed to be defending Zimmerman and saying that he's right -- but I'm not. I'm defending his right to a fair trail and impartial assessment of the facts at each level of review.

 

[jks9199]

One more thing... I do think that there is a serious case to be made for manslaughter. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know Florida law. As I've read the Stand Your Ground law, it prevented an immediate arrest for any thing with a credible case for self defense. I may easily be wrong... but that's how it reads to me. I think Zimmerman did play a major role in creating the circumstances that led to his confrontation with Trayvon Martin, and that, since he was carrying a gun legally, there was the foreseeable potential for him using that gun. He moved beyond the normal expectations of a citizen when he began to follow Martin. But to make that case may easily have required investigation beyond the initial night's work.

 

[Wo Fat]

I can't speak for ballen -- but I don't know what happened that night. I don't know what the "right" verdict should be; that's the purpose of the trial. In a way, I'm glad that Zimmerman was charged, because if he's acquitted, it won't come back to get him down the road. I am not saying that he shouldn't be convicted; again, I don't know. But at least they won't turn up and charge him some time down the road. Also -- he starts with the presumption of innocence. The prosecution must overcome that in their case in chief -- and I think that the prosecutor here set up a tough case to prove by going for 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter would have been much easier.

While the affidavit isn't required to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt -- this one has plenty of questionable statements without support.

Whether one thinks that GZ probably should be acquitted, or whether one believes that he probably should be convicted is usually a matter of preference. As you said we don't*know* for sure, so what better way to bring it to a public disposition than through the court.

Is a 2nd degree murder charge too high when we admittedly "don't know" what happened? I'm not sure we can have it both ways. But in any event, there is a lesser inclusive charge of manslaughter that will be available to a jury. If the facts support that charge--or none at all--the jury will say so.

As to the affidavit, we can certainly look to the prevailing standard for reasonable cause. Not just for George Zimmerman. But reasonable cause for the garden variety criminal defendants arrested and charged every day.

 

[ballen0351]

. As you said we don't*know* for sure, so what better way to bring it to a public disposition than through the court.

Thats the part that bothers me its not the courts job to take cases just to settle the public down.

As to the affidavit, we can certainly look to the prevailing standard for reasonable cause. Not just for George Zimmerman. But reasonable cause for the garden variety criminal defendants arrested and charged every day.

thats my other issue that PC statment didnt have any prob cause other then zimmerman said he shot martin, martin died and they recovered the gun a shell casing. All the rest of that was just not facts. As a civil atty or somone that works for one if you had a client come to your office charged with murder with that PC statement you would be chomping at the bit to take that case.

 

[granfire]

Fair enough. I have worked for 22 years as a litigation specialist and paralegal on several high profile civil cases, as well as three cases involving police shootings/killings of unarmed citizens where service of no-knock warrants were erroneously attempted. Not to patronize, but when you work in litigation, you become proficient with several areas of industry--including the criminal justice system.

cuts both ways.

So while some guy might be a good cop, his or her "cop knowledge" has limitations, just like my litigation knowledge has limitations when it comes to law enforcement.

well, assuming other wise would be presumptious...

Yes, I am quite aware of how I'm perceived. And right now the perception is that nothing short of Zimmerman's head on a plate will be a miscarriage. Not my desire, but then I'm not too concerned if someone doesn't believe that.

that would (and rightfully should) exclude you and other who think like you from the jury pool.
You get the point?

As to the system getting a black eye ... it's had one for centuries. Most people--myself included--are simply fortunate enough not to be on the business end of it.

true enough, but it does work more often than not. so what's your point?


Aside from the man who pulled the trigger and a handful of people who might have heard something, nobody knows the facts.

if Mr Zimmerman is found guilty, so be it. If not, I am sure a jury will know why.
Until then, everything else is conjecture.

( and while we are on the matter of black eyes, what's your take on the OJ Simpson verdict?)

 

[jks9199]

As to the affidavit, we can certainly look to the prevailing standard for reasonable cause. Not just for George Zimmerman. But reasonable cause for the garden variety criminal defendants arrested and charged every day.

I don't know Florida law. But it was problematically short on information by the standards that I'm a familiar with. As ballen has noted, all it really establishes is that Zimmerman shot Martin, and that Martin died as a result of being shot. The rest is unsupported statements and conjecture. For example, when did Zimmerman make those statements? During the 911 call? At a subsequent interview? How do the Affiants know what motivated Zimmerman? If, for example, he stated in an interview "I believed he was a criminal." -- why not say exactly that?

 

[Wo Fat]

( and while we are on the matter of black eyes, what's your take on the OJ Simpson verdict?)

The criminal verdict? Prosecution did a poor job. There was too much evidence against Simpson for them to lose. Some might say that it was jury nullification. And that would be a fair argument.

The civil verdict? A proper one.

Few would argue that it's poetic justice that he's in prison now.

 

[Wo Fat]

I don't know Florida law. But it was problematically short on information by the standards that I'm a familiar with. As ballen has noted, all it really establishes is that Zimmerman shot Martin, and that Martin died as a result of being shot. The rest is unsupported statements and conjecture. For example, when did Zimmerman make those statements? During the 911 call? At a subsequent interview? How do the Affiants know what motivated Zimmerman? If, for example, he stated in an interview "I believed he was a criminal." -- why not say exactly that?

I don't know Florida law either, but the Affidavit--to me--establishes more than just A shot B dead. It establishes that:

>Martin was lawfully in a place where he had business to be (he was living in the neighborhood);
>that Zimmerman also lived in the neighborhood;
>that Zimmerman observed Martin and deemed him to be suspicious;
>that Zimmerman was asked by a dispatcher not to follow Martin;
>that Zimmerman was advised that an officer was en route;
>that Zimmerman made disparaging references to people other than Martin (i.e., "these azzholes, they always get away")
>that Martin was on the phone while walking (again, in his own neighborhood)
>that Martin's mother did listen to the 911 recording and identified her son's voice as yelling for help;
>that a struggle between Zimmerman and Martin ensued; and
>that Zimmerman shot Martin and Martin died.

Strong and very reasonable inferences can be drawn from each of the points I just listed, without documents or testimony needed to support each point. Not big kangaroo leaps of inference, but the kind of inference that supports the notion that Martin was in a place where he had a right to be and that he was likely heading home.

 

[Cryozombie]

I have a question. When Zimmerman says "Those people" whom is he referring to? Everyone assumes he means Blacks... I'm curious why. Could he mean "those people" as in "the trespassers in the neighborhood the cops never find when we call them?"

I think we are quick to lable anyone saying "you people" "people like you" "those kinds of people" etc... as automatically racist statements... when they very well could mean anything. If I said to Derrick Rose "You people need to get your act together" would I be rascist, or talking about the Chicago Bulls in general?

You really can't know, can you?

 

[Wo Fat]

Anyway ...

Hey friend from yesterday, I tried to reply to your PM but your Inbox isn't accepting any more messages.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I have a question. When Zimmerman says "Those people" whom is he referring to? Everyone assumes he means Blacks... I'm curious why.

I never assumed for a moment it was meant as racist.

I think people bring their own agendas and backgrounds to such determinations. Sometimes innocently, other times not so much.

When I was in the Marine Corps, a fellow Marine took offense once when I said "Boy oh boy" as a general exclamation. I grew up saying it. He thought I was calling him a 'boy'. I apologized and immediately struck it from my lexicon; but I honestly didn't mean it that way. And I'm sure my fellow Marine was not trying to make any words I used into offensive racist terms; he was just raised hearing that word in a very different context. I get it.

As to 'those people,' my assumption was that he meant the criminals that burglarize houses and get away before the police arrive, over and over.

We've had a series of burglaries in Detroit recently (not unusual, Detroit is crime-riddled) but they are notable in that they people who live in them had security systems; in one case, the security company didn't bother to show up, so the police also refused to respond (Detroit PD policy, the security company has to be on scene or they won't respond to residential alarms) and in the other case, the security company responded, found a broken window and then waited for the police while the burglars emptied the house in front of them; right in front of their faces. The commend 'these people' was used in reference to those that just keep getting away and seem to get more and more brazen. I never took it as racist, since the burglars, homeowners, security officers, and police were all black in those cases. 'These people' simply meant the criminals. Duh.

 

[Wo Fat]

I have a question. When Zimmerman says "Those people" whom is he referring to? Everyone assumes he means Blacks... I'm curious why. Could he mean "those people" as in "the trespassers in the neighborhood the cops never find when we call them?"

I think we are quick to lable anyone saying "you people" "people like you" "those kinds of people" etc... as automatically racist statements... when they very well could mean anything. If I said to Derrick Rose "You people need to get your act together" would I be rascist, or talking about the Chicago Bulls in general?

You really can't know, can you?

Except he didn't say "those people". He said "these a$$holes...". He used a pejorative; a derogatory term, not an objective or innocuous term.

Now, if you hear someone say " these infidels, they always get away with this ...", are they just talking about people who get away with being unfaithful?