Zimmerman stuns court waives stand yo...
Wait what

Columbus, OH

#62 Mar 7, 2013
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be silly, Bob.
Reader already knows what evidence will be ruled admissible, what facts will be determined by the jury, and what verdict that jury will return.
Doesn't everybody argue legal procedure with a lawyer after becoming educated from a blog?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#63 Mar 7, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't everybody argue legal procedure with a lawyer after becoming educated from a blog?
Frankly, I enjoy having discussion on this topic with Bob because he IS a lawyer. I brought in the opinion of the other lawyer because I consider Bob as having some qualifications worthy of critiquing him.

Far more interesting that some of the usual "yeah, he was a thug--deserved to die" level from the bottom-feeders.
Enzyte Bob

Denver, CO

#64 Mar 7, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankly, I enjoy having discussion on this topic with Bob because he IS a lawyer. I brought in the opinion of the other lawyer because I consider Bob as having some qualifications worthy of critiquing him.
Far more interesting that some of the usual "yeah, he was a thug--deserved to die" level from the bottom-feeders.
I'm not in the courtroom much nor do I do criminal law, but I would like to think I have picked up a few things about this business over the years.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#65 Mar 7, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not in the courtroom much nor do I do criminal law, but I would like to think I have picked up a few things about this business over the years.
So--what is your thinking with regard to what I posted about the court's ruling in the other attempt to roll the immunity hearing into the trial?

I can understand the attraction--particularly since I think that the evidence in support of Z's account is pretty weak, and not likely to succeed in establishing self defense (and would really require putting him on the stand--how else can they establish that he was in fear for his life?). They don't want to completely give up on the off-possibility of the judge ruling in favor of immunity--but they also cannot reasonably risk putting Z. on the stand.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#66 Mar 7, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Ummm, how was the case determined by law, RS?
What law would that be?
self defense

get it through your cement head........case dismissed.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#67 Mar 7, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
self defense
get it through your cement head........case dismissed.
Well, RS. Zimmerman's attorney just cancelled the immunity hearing, which is where self-defense could be presented and the case dismissed.

Now--he hinted at wanting to roll that into the trial (immunity is heard by a judge, where the murder charge at trial would be heard by a jury) and the judge has pretty much refused to consider the question without a formal request. And there has been no formal request yet.

But there is some precendent for a similar request in Florida--and it was turned down.

So, maybe you wanna explain what you are talking about.
Wait what

Columbus, OH

#68 Mar 7, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Frankly, I enjoy having discussion on this topic with Bob because he IS a lawyer. I brought in the opinion of the other lawyer because I consider Bob as having some qualifications worthy of critiquing him.
Far more interesting that some of the usual "yeah, he was a thug--deserved to die" level from the bottom-feeders.
Well, in post 42 Bob said Zimmerman was going to walk. I guess I don't understand the need to discuss and discuss and discuss ad nauseum when Bob already made his prediction.
Shania Twain

United States

#69 Mar 8, 2013
Zimmerman should fry for what he did to a poor black child. Justice for Trayvon!
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#70 Mar 8, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, RS. Zimmerman's attorney just cancelled the immunity hearing, which is where self-defense could be presented and the case dismissed.
Now--he hinted at wanting to roll that into the trial (immunity is heard by a judge, where the murder charge at trial would be heard by a jury) and the judge has pretty much refused to consider the question without a formal request. And there has been no formal request yet.
But there is some precendent for a similar request in Florida--and it was turned down.
So, maybe you wanna explain what you are talking about.
hey cement head..........

there does not need to be a trial in the first place.

all the grandstanding and racial war fanning is going to turn out bad for the Government and society. Not to mention wasting millions of taxpayer dollars for nothing.

Trayvon is dead. Had he acted like a normal teenager and just waited across the street for the police to arrive, he would be alive today.

Bottom line.....this occurrence in near future is going to be daily occurrence in the USA under the leadership of Obama. Expect up to 100 a day, when chit hits fan.

invest in lime....all these corpses need limed to keep stench down.

gunning down thugs and criminals now the man child POTUS has released criminals into society, is just a warm up for when an element of society thinks they can just steal or mug at will.

a 9MM under your jacket ends the fantasy of thugs. Ask Trayvon.
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#71 Mar 8, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
hey cement head..........
there does not need to be a trial in the first place.
all the grandstanding and racial war fanning is going to turn out bad for the Government and society. Not to mention wasting millions of taxpayer dollars for nothing.
Trayvon is dead. Had he acted like a normal teenager and just waited across the street for the police to arrive, he would be alive today.
Bottom line.....this occurrence in near future is going to be daily occurrence in the USA under the leadership of Obama. Expect up to 100 a day, when chit hits fan.
invest in lime....all these corpses need limed to keep stench down.
gunning down thugs and criminals now the man child POTUS has released criminals into society, is just a warm up for when an element of society thinks they can just steal or mug at will.
a 9MM under your jacket ends the fantasy of thugs. Ask Trayvon.
WOO HOO! The Great Carnac predicts within the next 4 years there will be 100 shootings a day as a result of stranger encounters on the street.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#72 Mar 8, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, in post 42 Bob said Zimmerman was going to walk. I guess I don't understand the need to discuss and discuss and discuss ad nauseum when Bob already made his prediction.
I can summarize my points for all, some based in knowledge of the nuts and bolts of the law, others just opinion:

1. Between the bloody head, his neighbors backing Zimmerman up and Trayvon's history (real or trumped up), I think it's pretty clear that Zimmerman gets acquitted. Remember, the PROSECUTION has to prove its case BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. I think there is enough doubt.

2. Getting all jurors to convict with the evidence presented is going to be an uphill battle.

3. This is a media case. I believe Zimmerman was charged to placate the masses. A jury is going to exonerate him and it will have a little more believability and transparency than public officials making these decisions behind closed doors.

4. Zimmerman is an idiot, no question. Had he not wanted to play policeman this kid would still be alive. I know people like this, with their Napoleon/authority complexes and I typically don't like them.

5. Trayvon was an idiot, no question. Had simply followed instructions and had left private property (condo complex is private property) just as he was instructed and as any normal kid would do, this kid would still be alive.

6. The death of any teenager is a tragedy, even an unruly one. That doesn't make Zimmerman guilty, however.

7. NBC is going to pay out some big money.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#73 Mar 8, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's some commentary on another case that made a similar attempt in Florida:
"But it's unclear whether Zimmerman's defense team will be allowed to ask the judge to dismiss the case based on Stand Your Ground once the trial has started. The strategy has been attempted before, unsuccessfully, in Miami-Dade.
Here's the way I see it and Che can correct me because he probably has better insight on criminal law than I have (I do business work), but I look at "Stand Your Ground" as just another "Count" that the judge/jury would consider after the trial. Of course, neither of us know Florida law and procedure, but under the concept of "judicial economy" there is at least an argument that a single hearing would be more expedient than multiple hearings since most of the same evidence will be presented. Likewise, common sense dictates this all being presented at the same time because of the factors we spoke of.

Just looking at things from the standpoint of logic and the mechanics of conducting a trial, I would think that the parties put on a trial for the criminal counts just as they would normally do. After the evidence has been presented, the judge can then decide whether it meets the criteria for "Stand your ground". If it does, then maybe there is no need for it to go to the jury? If it doesn't, then the jury decides on the evidence?
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#74 Mar 8, 2013
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's the way I see it and Che can correct me because he probably has better insight on criminal law than I have (I do business work), but I look at "Stand Your Ground" as just another "Count" that the judge/jury would consider after the trial. Of course, neither of us know Florida law and procedure, but under the concept of "judicial economy" there is at least an argument that a single hearing would be more expedient than multiple hearings since most of the same evidence will be presented. Likewise, common sense dictates this all being presented at the same time because of the factors we spoke of.
Just looking at things from the standpoint of logic and the mechanics of conducting a trial, I would think that the parties put on a trial for the criminal counts just as they would normally do. After the evidence has been presented, the judge can then decide whether it meets the criteria for "Stand your ground". If it does, then maybe there is no need for it to go to the jury? If it doesn't, then the jury decides on the evidence?
From what I can tell, Florida's procedure is radically different than Ohio's. In Ohio, there is no such thing as an immunity hearing. Everything is presented to a jury (of course the court has an opportunity to direct a verdict after the State presents its case). I simply haven't taken the time to research Florida's procedural rules in order to intelligently comment. But you are probably pretty close on all of that.

In Ohio, using the Castle Doctrine as an example, a jury would be the ultimate fact finder. The State would have to prove the purposeful killing beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden would then shift to the defendant to prove the elements of the affirmative defense of self defense (which is really all the Castle Doctrine is; an expansion of self defense) by a preponderance of the evidence. Obviously, it's much different than how they do things in Fla.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

#75 Mar 8, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
WOO HOO! The Great Carnac predicts within the next 4 years there will be 100 shootings a day as a result of stranger encounters on the street.
4 years....dude we are not far from the number of that now with daily murders.

what is going to happen when the gravy train leaves the station.

crime is going to escalate due to the environment the White House landscape painted.

When that crime escalates to a point, then 1000's of Charles Bronson's will be born.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#76 Mar 8, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
In Ohio, using the Castle Doctrine as an example, a jury would be the ultimate fact finder. The State would have to prove the purposeful killing beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden would then shift to the defendant to prove the elements of the affirmative defense of self defense (which is really all the Castle Doctrine is; an expansion of self defense) by a preponderance of the evidence. Obviously, it's much different than how they do things in Fla.
That's kind of what I was getting at. All the evidence could be presented at once, and if it meets the criteria for "Stand your ground", the judge could issue something along the lines of a directed verdict and there would be no need for the jury to consider the case any further. Alternatively, the jury could make the "stand your ground" decision and that would render criminal counts moot.

I also don't know Florida criminal procedure, I'm just putting together a framework for how this could be considered at the same time from the standpoint of the mechanics of a jury trial.

In a media case like this, I think there is a huge argument for doing things all at once from the standpoint of fairness to the defendant. Since we bend over backwards in this country to preserve individual rights, I would think the judge would want to make special considerations given the special circumstances of this case.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#77 Mar 8, 2013
I think the other issue in this case is whether or not the prosecution is overcharging the defendant. That is what was said to be the problem in the Casey Anthony case. If I remember correctly, the jurors said they probably would have convicted on the lesser charge such of second-degree (?) manslaughter.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#78 Mar 8, 2013
Wait what wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, in post 42 Bob said Zimmerman was going to walk. I guess I don't understand the need to discuss and discuss and discuss ad nauseum when Bob already made his prediction.
Well, you are welcome to do it your way.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#79 Mar 8, 2013
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
hey cement head..........
there does not need to be a trial in the first place.
all the grandstanding and racial war fanning is going to turn out bad for the Government and society. Not to mention wasting millions of taxpayer dollars for nothing.
Trayvon is dead. Had he acted like a normal teenager and just waited across the street for the police to arrive, he would be alive today.
Bottom line.....this occurrence in near future is going to be daily occurrence in the USA under the leadership of Obama. Expect up to 100 a day, when chit hits fan.
invest in lime....all these corpses need limed to keep stench down.
gunning down thugs and criminals now the man child POTUS has released criminals into society, is just a warm up for when an element of society thinks they can just steal or mug at will.
a 9MM under your jacket ends the fantasy of thugs. Ask Trayvon.
It sounds like you are advocating lawlessness.
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#80 Mar 8, 2013
This summarizes in a nutshell what is going on here.

Not saying that Zimmerman shouldn't have been charged, but the trial has more to do with placating the people protesting in hoodies than it does with Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

It is a media trial. They happen quite frequently, just like the show trials we used to make fun of in the old USSR. Sometimes, even the outcome is preordained just like it was there.

========

... You wouldn’t know that from listening to (State Attorney) Corey, who announced that her jobs was “to do justice for Trayvon Martin”— not for George Zimmerman.

As many see it, her additional job is to prevent riots of the sort that followed the acquittal of the policemen who beat Rodney King.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-georg...
Enzyte Bob

Blacklick, OH

#81 Mar 8, 2013
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
It sounds like you are advocating lawlessness.
I don't know.

They had problems with security in that complex, and the condo complex took it upon themselves to self-patrol. No good answer unless they want to hire an off-duty policeman.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Dems in disarray- Well, yeah! 50 min Male 1,248
News 2 Columbus council members endorse Nan Whaley f... 6 hr Duke for Mayor 1
Party In Crisis–Anti Trump Approach/Identity Po... 10 hr Duke for Mayor 6
Democratic voter base declines 10 hr Duke for Mayor 2
Why Ask about Obama? America has Only One Presi... 13 hr ImPeach 156
Finally, Donald Trump Ousted from KKKloset 14 hr ImPeach 87
Trump Will Win Again in 2020 16 hr Mojo Risen 86

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages