[redbaron007]

Originally Posted by bear62

The affidavit certainly doesn't match up with Zimmerman's story ........ but then I guess we knew it wouldn't.....

Your exactly right, the affidavit is based upon the state attorney's office investigators; they are generally one sided.

It'll be interesting what ALL the evidence is.



red

[DocCasualty]

Originally Posted by redbaron007

Your exactly right, the affidavit is based upon the state attorney's office investigators; they are generally one sided.

It'll be interesting what ALL the evidence is.



red

Yeah, I didn't find anything surprising there. It is a side of the story (which ultimately could prove to be correct) which allows the State to go forward with probable cause in the matter. We can only assume they feel they have a strong enough case to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. It's what happens from here that will be very interesting indeed.

[kensteele]

Originally Posted by DocCasualty

Yeah, I didn't find anything surprising there. It is a side of the story (which ultimately could prove to be correct) which allows the State to go forward with probable cause in the matter. We can only assume they feel they have a strong enough case to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. It's what happens from here that will be very interesting indeed.

I agree with you; however, I would say the state's evidence as spelled out in a probable cause affidavit (plus all the other evidence they have from their investigators) is a little bit more than the other "side of the story." It is enough to file charges with, it's enough to keep you in jail with no bond, it's enough to basically ruin lives. And it just might be enough to send this to trial. No it's a little bit more than he said she said.

After reading the affidavit, I am all but convinced I know what happened that night and only evidence presented at a criminal trial can change my mind (which is typical). You can take the state's word for it or you can listen to a jury's word. But what is no longer available for consideration is Zman's word, notwithstanding this next possible hearing.

ETA, not to minimise the state's need to proceed as you mentioned.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Warp

I've followed the volume I thread and this thread. That's all I have time for.

Nowhere in any of those quotes do I see the phrase "automatic pass". If those quotes are referring to an automatic pass hearing/situation/whatever, I had no idea.

I had never heard of [an automatic pass] before and wondered what it was.

Edit: If it's something that's been in the MSM recently I also wouldn't know that. I don't watch the MSM anymore, at all. The discussion about it/them in these threads indicates, to me, that I made a wise decision in avoiding them. I will sometimes click links that get posted but I don't sit and watch the news or go to their websites and browse.

I'd rather read a summation of the article from a few different people, usually on various forums, so I don't support the MSM website with a click and advertiser viewing money

Perhaps it was because I had read several write-ups on law firm sites and other venues that made the easy association with the "automatic pass." Sorry, Warp. You use to be the google-fu guru. Didn't realize you'd scaled back.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by RussP

Perhaps it was because I had read several write-ups on law firm sites and other venues that made the easy association with the "automatic pass." Sorry, Warp. You use to be the google-fu guru. Didn't realize you'd scaled back.

I'm a bit busy recently. Full time student with 6 courses + work 3-5 days a week. I didn't try Googling this one because it seemed like a fairly common phrase and I wasn't sure how long it would take to get the proper context in my search/the website hits.

No harm no foul.

Back to the regularly scheduled thread.

[DocCasualty]

Originally Posted by kensteele

But what is no longer available for consideration is Zman's word, notwithstanding this next possible hearing.

I was with you, up until this point. And by stating " notwithstanding this next possible hearing", perhaps we are still on the same page.

I think it is a foregone conclusion that the defense will present a self-defense case. After all, isn't that what Zimmerman maintained within minutes of the shooting? Doesn't that put the onus on the prosecution to prove it wasn't? Doesn't that put Zimmerman's word(s) at the front and center of what the prosecution will have to prove is not true "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

I don't see where Zman's words are no longer available for consideration. Seems to me that the prosecution will be intensely focusing on them as that will be the focus of what they will need to disprove.

[kensteele]

Originally Posted by DocCasualty

I was with you, up until this point. And by stating " notwithstanding this next possible hearing", perhaps we are still on the same page.

I think it is a foregone conclusion that the defense will present a self-defense case. After all, isn't that what Zimmerman maintained within minutes of the shooting? Doesn't that put the onus on the prosecution to prove it wasn't? Doesn't that put Zimmerman's word(s) at the front and center of what the prosecution will have to prove is not true "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

I don't see where Zman's words are no longer available for consideration. Seems to me that the prosecution will be intensely focusing on them as that will be the focus of what they will need to disprove.

Correct, that's what I meant. But I think you also get the context of my statement which is my opinion this is a long shot. I'll just leave it there because I'm probably jumping the gun.

[JuneyBooney]

Originally Posted by IndyGunFreak

Was just listening to a talking head. They *think* the charge will be Manslaughter, but the issue may be Florida's Stand Your Ground law, and it may not get to trial. A judge could possibly rule it self defense and dismiss the case before it gets to a jury (not that I think that will happen)

IGF

That is what should be done but with all the liberal boneheads on the media Zimmerman may be found guilty just to prevent riots.

I fully believe that Zimmerman is innocent because he was being beaten by Martin. I guess we will see what happens in the coming months.

[rg1]

Zimmerman's lawyer is making a big mistake if he doesn't file an "unlawful arrest" lawsuit against the city, state, and specifically against the lady state prosecuter Angela Corey. Big mistake if they don't file wrongful arrest lawsuit!

[DocCasualty]

Originally Posted by rg1

Zimmerman's lawyer is making a big mistake if he doesn't file an "unlawful arrest" lawsuit against the city, state, and specifically against the lady state prosecuter Angela Corey. Big mistake if they don't file wrongful arrest lawsuit!

I have an idea or two about what you might be saying but please, share with us the basis you see for this wrongful arrest.

[ZombieKing]

Originally Posted by ATW525

I suspect part of the reason for going for Murder 2, is the hopes that a split jury will "compromise" on Manslaughter.

Maybe.

Only if the State Attorney asks for it and the judge allows it.

This was one of the problems in the Casey Anthony trial. The jury wasn't allowed to find her guilty on lesser charges. It was all or nothing and as we know the jury voted not guilty.

Originally Posted by c6601a

Those that want to defend Zimmerman are looking only at his statements and accepting them as the undisputed truth. They are then selectively looking at other evidence to bolster their chosen position.

It is interesting that the affidavit completely contradicts one "fact" that many here had used to bolster the case for Zimmerman: The shell casing was found on the ground and not still in the chamber due to a failure to cycle as many here had believed.

I am absolutely certain that by the time everything comes out in court, a lot of other things accepted as facts by people on both sides of the issue will be shown to be pure fabrication.

The affidavit says no such thing. You have to read it carefully and realize that the State Attorney is playing weasel word games.

Here is what the affidavit says: "A fired casing that was recovered at the scene was determined to have been fired from the firearm." http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

What it doesn't tell you is where the casing was recovered from. Was it recovered from the ground indicating that the gun did cycle normally? Or was it recovered from inside the chamber of the gun indicating a malfunction of either the gun or someone holding the slide and preventing the casing from being ejected?

There is a huge difference between the two scenarios. Casing found on the ground or casing found inside of the gun. The affidavit however gives no information on where the casing was found; just that it was recovered from the scene.

[ZombieKing]

Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit "Irresponsible And Unethical"

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2...unethical.html

“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.”

Video at the link. Four minutes. Well worth it. IMHO of course.

[ModGlock17]

Originally Posted by ZombieKing

Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit "Irresponsible And Unethical"

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2...unethical.html

“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.”

Video at the link. Four minutes. Well worth it. IMHO of course.

Angela Corey had no choice but to let the jury decides this hot-potato case. I believe in her heart, she knows Z is good to go free but she is screwed if she was to decide that herself. After all, it's Z who started this whole thing so let HIM to through the process to bail out the controversy that was his to own.

What she can do, is to craft a charge that is unlikely to succeed, similar to Casey Anthony's first degree,and let it go to the jury. Whoever the Defense Atty is, would enjoy the easy case and free publicity. O'Mara wants publicity which is going to be payment for his services to Z.

That is why experts are chuckling at the charge.

[kensteele]

If you are ok with a judge deciding the case on the spot and simply dismissing the charges and setting Zman free then you have to be ok with the opposite: a judge deciding the case and ruling the charges are valid and finding Zman guilty, go to prison for 25 years minimum.

Corey is still free to file other charges against Zman.

[kensteele]

Originally Posted by ZombieKing

Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit "Irresponsible And Unethical"

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2...unethical.html

“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.”

Video at the link. Four minutes. Well worth it. IMHO of course.

Dershowitz defended OJ as well.

[OctoberRust]

Originally Posted by kensteele

good to hear she came thru it ok. some people get really torn up in car accidents, others walk away with no scratches, many in between. seems to me if you are fighting murder charges claiming self-defense, you want to fall in the former category. can you agree with me that we should let the medical experts testify in an open courtroom to establish the facts rather than a small police department and a couple of paramedics in the field contributing to the final call? car accident victims don't have to atone for their injuries, that's why my comments were not serious; on the surface, looking at Zman, i'm not personally inclined to believe he just came out of a fight for his life but I understand the fears. not just that pic, but the earlier video as well....but this is all just personal perception.

It would look bad if he were caught lying about his broken nose. But we cannot assume without x-rays either way if it was broken or not.

This case seems more of like a disparity of force issue. According to Zimmerman's story, he could not get away from Trayvon, and was in fear for his life. If this indeed is how the story went, he could have not even suffered a cut/bruise/broken nose, and still justifiably shot him due to such.

It's sort of like when I asked Massad Ayoob in the gate about if a group is telling me they're going to do harm to me, yet have not yet, and I have no reasonable way to escape the situation, the shoot would be defensible. Even if that shot was taken before the "beatdown" even began.

[ModGlock17]

Originally Posted by kensteele

Dershowitz defended OJ as well.

True. And OJ got off !

Miracle man, heh?

[Sam Spade]

Originally Posted by kensteele

If you are ok with a judge deciding the case on the spot and simply dismissing the charges and setting Zman free then you have to be ok with the opposite: a judge deciding the case and ruling the charges are valid and finding Zman guilty, go to prison for 25 years minimum.

Not how it works. Dismissal of charges on a motion isn't the same thing as adjudication (acquittal/conviction) on the charges at trial.

[kat1950]

And now it starts

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news...ights_group_w/



http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news..._martin_bloom/

[kat1950]

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz says that he's read the affadavit and that it will result in an acquital, if it ever makes it to trial. "It’s irresponsible and unethical. . . . This affidavit doesn’t even make it to probable cause. Everything in this affidavit is consistent with a defense of self-defense. . . .A good judge will throw this out.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/...hews/#47034974


Takes a 4 or 5 seconds for video to start, I do not watch this station and some might have already seen, just found it interesting.

[Warp]

Originally Posted by ModGlock17

Angela Corey had no choice but to let the jury decides this hot-potato case. I believe in her heart, she knows Z is good to go free but she is screwed if she was to decide that herself. After all, it's Z who started this whole thing so let HIM to through the process to bail out the controversy that was his to own.

What she can do, is to craft a charge that is unlikely to succeed, similar to Casey Anthony's first degree,and let it go to the jury. Whoever the Defense Atty is, would enjoy the easy case and free publicity. O'Mara wants publicity which is going to be payment for his services to Z.

That is why experts are chuckling at the charge.

...so use a grand jury?

As for the rest, I cannot deny that logic.

[SCmasterblaster]

The DA didn't want to be overruled by a Grand Jury, so she didn't call on them.

[JAFO1-12]

i really shouldnt even post this, since i find most of the politico-babble on GT to be borderline tinfoil hat stuff, but does it even matter to anyone that zimmerman stalked this kid, in a car, at night, some distance before getting out and attempting to engage (who knows what he was thinking, i would hope he meant to chat) this "person"? has anyone put themselves in that position? you are just walking near your house and someone is stalking you in a car? you have done nothing wrong and yet this person seems intent on engaging you? since most of us ARE CCW folks, is it possible to conceive of yourself in this situation and just not giving an EFF? seriously? you are all law abiding citizens and 2A advocates, at what point do you get pissed off by some fruitcake stalking you in a car in your own neighborhood? or better yet YOU engage HIM and say "can i help you sir? you seem lost!" which is probably what i would have done. then again, im a combat vet, and i really dont give a EFF...
since i am sure i will get harangued, i am a conservaliberal. which means i believe in the freedom to enjoy strip clubs AND carry a weapon. not at the same time necessarily, but i firmly believe in the death penalty, the right to own weapons, and protecting the innocent and the infirm from abuse by zealots of EITHER the right or left.

[Toetag]

Originally Posted by SCmasterblaster

The DA didn't want to be overruled by a Grand Jury, so she didn't call on them.

Heh....getting a "No Bill" would be bad for business.

[ZombieKing]

Originally Posted by kensteele

If you are ok with a judge deciding the case on the spot and simply dismissing the charges and setting Zman free then you have to be ok with the opposite: a judge deciding the case and ruling the charges are valid and finding Zman guilty, go to prison for 25 years minimum.

Corey is still free to file other charges against Zman.

You're mixing two things up.

They are going to have a hearing where Zimmerman is going to claim that he is immune to prosecution because he is legally justified to use self defense in the incident. If the judge agrees with him and drops the charges then that's it the case is over.

If the judge doesn't agree then Zimmerman goes to trial and he can be found not guilty or guilty. Either by a jury or if he declines a jury trial then by a judge.

A judge is not going to be able to just decide the case and that he's guilty and then sentence him. He's going to have a trial first unless he can convince the judge he was legally justified in the force he used and is immune to prosecution.