Open Thread on Zimmerman Trial

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St_Francis said:
I was speechless because the ME failed to notify either the prosecution or the defense about his change of opinion. This in addition to being unsure of having notifed the prosecutor about his change of opinion wrt to the amount of time Martin might have lived after having been shot. …
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification.
 
Dawnia said:
If I recall correctly, the drug use was deemed inadmissible as was TM’s prior bad acts.
Click to expand...
That is correct. Judge Nelson ruled that the presence of THC and all other of Martin’s prior acts were not relevant going into the trial and prohibited the defense bringing them up. However, she did leave open the possibility of re-visiting the issue during the trial if it appeared they would be relevant.

Note, the THC ruling was partially based on the coroner having stated it would not have affected Martin’s behavior at his deposition.

Note also that the ME was only allowed to express his changed opinion on the THC levels without the jury present and the defense team was again directed that this would continue to be inadmissible. The defense can not bring up Martin’s drug use.
 
kelvinf said:
I understand what you are saying.

I just think different jobs are managed differently. Let’s consider a doctor and a nurse. The doctor doesn’t really supervise the nurse. He delegates tasks and that’s it. The nurse basically works independently. I don’t think the doctor knows all the details of how the nurse handles a patient.

So I think the ME doesn’t really concern himself with how the technicians carry out their jobs. They are not interns.
Click to expand...
Exactly, different professions handle things differently. If a ship runs aground, or hits another ship while the captain is asleep- he’s normally relieved of command and held responsible. It is on the basis he was responsible for setting the command climate, overseeing the training, maintaining an awareness of how his personnel were fulfilling their duties. The entire team is delegated tasks and the captain can’t be physically present yet he will still be held accountable. Ergo, in that line of work the Captain does in fact intimately know all the standing orders, polices, procedures, and routinely observes folks carrying them out when he can.
 
kelvinf said:
So the 1 to 10 minutes should actually favour the defense. But the defense was the one pressing the doctor on this change of opinion. The prosecution seemed not informed about it (as you also noticed) but was kind of cool with it. So it seems like there is more to this revelation. 🤷
Click to expand...
Well, there’s been a history of the prosecution failing to turn over evidence they had in discovery. Like not telling the defense that they’d known for months that one of their witnesses had perjured themselves. (…because BDLR ‘forgot’…) Or was an adult vs minor which would had implications for defense having access to depose her. Or the cell phone images/texts which they failed to turn over for months, and then initially in only a raw digital binary file without software to decode into actual usable images and text.

So, I think the defense was startled by the change, and when Bao mentioned he’d had meetings with the prosecution about his testimony as recently as the day before- the issue shifted to when/what the prosecution knew. Especially given Bao’s conflicting statements and uncertainty about what he’d told BDLR. Which is why Nelson held the impromptu Richardson hearing and put BDLR under oath. I honestly think the prosecution was as surprised by it as the defense.

If he’d given defense/prosecution a head’s up a week ago about his changed opinion I think it would have been a very boring uncontroversial testimony. It also would have given the defense some time to approach Nelson to reconsider the THC issue when Nelson could have taken a couple of days to consider it vice the on the spot decision she was forced into at the time.
 
maryjk said:
It is interesting that people are accusing Zimmerman of being a cop wannabe. Yet, having him yell “Stop or I’ll shoot,” is what people think a cop would yell.

When you carrying concealed, you do not announce that you CAN shoot. You keep your weapon concealed until you need it. 🤷

In addition, since he didn’t know if Martin was armed, announcing that he was, could have put him at a disadvantage. Something else you don’t want to do.

Also, he would of had to be close enough for Martin to hear him. Since he wasn’t following Martin, how would he have done that??
Click to expand...
I don’t know the specifics of Florida law, but in general, for self-defense one has to be in fear of imminent serious bodily harm to themselves or other. (That is serious bodily harm as defined by the local statute, which may not include things like rape).

Most states who issue CCWs, only permit the use of the weapon for self-defense. That is, the weapon can not come out of the holster unless there is an imminent fear of serious bodily harm. Martin had every legal right to be where he was. Zimmerman had no right to stop, detain or threaten him. Pulling a weapon out when there is no imminent fear of serious bodily harm is illegal- brandishing a weapon, intimidation, unlawful detention, kidnapping, in some places simple assault. Some states even go so far as making the unintentional display of a weapon by a CCW holder a violation of the law and their permit. That is, it must be carried in such a way that it is always completely concealed. If it is under a jacket which rides up as the CCW holder moves unintentionally displaying part of the holster/weapon, that’s a violation. Or revealing verbally to someone you are armed can be an illegal threat, if done with the intention to intimidate someone.

Note, Zimmerman displaying a weapon at any point prior to him being in fear of **imminent ** serious bodily harm could, quite rightly, put Martin in fear for his life. Giving him justification for use of lethal force in self-defense.

So, any CCW holder claiming self-defense yet pulls their weapon out with sufficient time to shout warnings, or fire warning shots (despite the US VPs advice, this is reckless discharge of a firearm at a minimum), is providing evidence directly contradicting an imminent fear of serious bodily harm. As well as putting the other person in fear of imminent serious bodily harm themselves.

Now, one can claim self-defense as a justification for the use of lethal force up until the time that threat ceases. If you are attacked and gain the upper hand to the point your opponent has clearly withdrawn from the conflict, it is no longer self-defense but aggression. Roles do change in fights. This shooting was interesting from the aspect of only one shot being fired. It is unusual currently, even for police, to fire only one round when in fear for their lives- to realize that quickly the threat has ceased. It used to be that police were taught to shoot/assess, then shoot again based on assessment. Now they are taught to shoot until the threat stops, which is normally not apparent in sufficient time to fire only one round. I am surprised the prosecution did not pursue this with either the LEOs or the professors who taught Z.
 
Dawnia said:
The reason the Defense was hitting on this particular issue is because it could be basis for a mistrial. It also gives an opening for appeal if Zimmerman is convicted.
Click to expand...
Everything about this case is a mistrial especially the mainstream media edit of the 911 call and Obama coming out against Zimmerman before knowing any of the facts. This early race-baiting by the MSM and Obama has already resulted in cases where blacks have randomly attacked whites to avenge the death of Martin. And it’s set up to where if Zimmerman isn’t prosecuted there will be riots. The MSM and Obama are partly to blame if any deaths come from riots. And they are to blame if Zimmerman gets an unfair guilty verdict based on trying to avoid a riot.
 
livingwordunity said:
Everything about this case is a mistrial especially the mainstream media edit of the 911 call and Obama coming out against Zimmerman before knowing any of the facts. This early race-baiting by the MSM and Obama has already resulted in cases where blacks have randomly attacked whites to avenge the death of Martin. And it’s set up to where if Zimmerman isn’t prosecuted there will be riots. The MSM and Obama are partly to blame if any deaths come from riots. And they are to blame if Zimmerman gets an unfair guilty verdict based on trying to avoid a riot.
Click to expand...
Bingo!👍
 
This is strange… It seems you are saying one cannot pull out one’s gun until one feels oneself to be in great danger? How imminent does the danger have to be? Suppose someone with their hand in their pocket says, I have a gun in my pocket–give me all your cash; is that sufficient? Altho if the person does have a gun in their pocket, it seems like it would be dangerous to pull out the gun?
styrgwillidar said:
I don’t know the specifics of Florida law, but in general, for self-defense one has to be in fear of imminent serious bodily harm to themselves or other. (That is serious bodily harm as defined by the local statute, which may not include things like rape).
Click to expand...
What?!?!?! Where are these places which do not consider rape seriously bodily harm! On second thought, no, let’s not publicize where they are.

Sheesh…
Most states who issue CCWs, only permit the use of the weapon for self-defense. That is, the weapon can not come out of the holster unless there is an imminent fear of serious bodily harm. Martin had every legal right to be where he was. Zimmerman had no right to stop, detain or threaten him. Pulling a weapon out when there is no imminent fear of serious bodily harm is illegal- brandishing a weapon, intimidation, unlawful detention, kidnapping, in some places simple assault. Some states even go so far as making the unintentional display of a weapon by a CCW holder a violation of the law and their permit. That is, it must be carried in such a way that it is always completely concealed. If it is under a jacket which rides up as the CCW holder moves unintentionally displaying part of the holster/weapon, that’s a violation. Or revealing verbally to someone you are armed can be an illegal threat, if done with the intention to intimidate someone.
Click to expand...
Note, Zimmerman displaying a weapon at any point prior to him being in fear of **imminent ** serious bodily harm could, quite rightly, put Martin in fear for his life. Giving him justification for use of lethal force in self-defense.
Click to expand...
So, any CCW holder claiming self-defense yet pulls their weapon out with sufficient time to shout warnings, or fire warning shots (despite the US VPs advice, this is reckless discharge of a firearm at a minimum), is providing evidence directly contradicting an imminent fear of serious bodily harm. As well as putting the other person in fear of imminent serious bodily harm themselves.
Click to expand...
Now, one can claim self-defense as a justification for the use of lethal force up until the time that threat ceases. If you are attacked and gain the upper hand to the point your opponent has clearly withdrawn from the conflict, it is no longer self-defense but aggression. Roles do change in fights. This shooting was interesting from the aspect of only one shot being fired. It is unusual currently, even for police, to fire only one round when in fear for their lives- to realize that quickly the threat has ceased. It used to be that police were taught to shoot/assess, then shoot again based on assessment. Now they are taught to shoot until the threat stops, which is normally not apparent in sufficient time to fire only one round. I am surprised the prosecution did not pursue this with either the LEOs or the professors who taught Z.
Click to expand...
 
St_Francis said:
This is strange… It seems you are saying one cannot pull out one’s gun until one feels oneself to be in great danger? How imminent does the danger have to be? Suppose someone with their hand in their pocket says, I have a gun in my pocket–give me all your cash; is that sufficient? Altho if the person does have a gun in their pocket, it seems like it would be dangerous to pull out the gun?

Well, it comes down to what a reasonable person would believe under those circumstances, that’s what the jury will decide. Would a reasonable person under that set of circumstance believe that they were in immediate danger of serious bodily injury.

What?!?!?! Where are these places which do not consider rape seriously bodily harm! On second thought, no, let’s not publicize where they are.

Don’t know the rationale behind the laws in various places. Fear that any woman could lure a man into a situation and then kill them claiming it was rape? In reality, if a woman is attacked how would they know that their assailant will stop at rape vice beating, killing. In those jurisdictions a person cognizant of the law would cite their fear of death or other physical injury vice rape.

Sheesh…
Click to expand...
ETA: If you pull out the gun prior to being in serious danger you are the aggressor. Picture Martin walking along, doing nothing illegal, guy is following than he loses sight of him. Then there he is again, Martin goes up to the guy and asks, 'Why are you following me?" If the guy pulls out a gun-- IMHO, Martin would certainly be justified in fearing for his life regardless of what the stranger says.
 
Carlan said:
Nothing new with this opinion, Just blame it and everything else on the President of our Country. /Fair enought!:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:
Click to expand...
A man, who I believe is innocent of murder based on the actual facts rather than the race-baiting and emotional appeals, could go to prison for life over this. Yet you trivialize it. How was it fair for the President of the United States to give his opinion about this in public before knowing any of the facts? You honestly believe that the President of the United States giving his opinion in public has no affect on this case? How was it fair for the media to edit the 911 tape to make Zimmerman look like he said something that he didn’t say? What about the concept of “innocent until proven guilty by a court of law”? How would you like it if, before any facts came out and before you had a trial, the President of the United States and the mainstream media publicly portrayed you as guilty, even altering the evidence to do so? Based on the actual facts of the case that have come out, I’m of the opinion that Zimmerman may be guilty of poor judgment but not guilty of murder. But a fair trial is not even possible because Obama and the MSM poisoned the well from the very get-go.
 
Carlan said:
Nothing new with this opinion, Just blame it and everything else on the President of our Country. /Fair enought!:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm:
Click to expand...
Obama has inserted himself into this sad situation by coming out and making it a racial issue.He did this previously re the professor and black cop a few years ago.as the president he has a responsibility to remain above the fray,especially re racially charged issues.He picks and chooses what issues he want to manipulate.Funny,when Kermit Gosnell was murdering all those black babies,Obama was mum on that subject. So,yes,he has tainted this trail through his petty comments.:mad:
 
Jeanne_S said:
Obama has inserted himself into this sad situation by coming out and making it a racial issue.He did this previously re the professor and black cop a few years ago.as the president he has a responsibility to remain above the fray,especially re racially charged issues.He picks and chooses what issues he want to manipulate.Funny,when Kermit Gosnell was murdering all those black babies,Obama was mum on that subject. So,yes,he has tainted this trail through his petty comments.:mad:
Click to expand...
👍 I never heard of President Bush trying to use his presidential influence to manipulate the outcome of a trial. A president doing this is the ultimate way to obstruct the justice system. And as you’ve pointed out, Obama has a habit of inserting his opinion when he should be silent.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Obama has inserted himself into this sad situation by coming out and making it a racial issue.He did this previously re the professor and black cop a few years ago.as the president he has a responsibility to remain above the fray,especially re racially charged issues.He picks and chooses what issues he want to manipulate.Funny,when Kermit Gosnell was murdering all those black babies,Obama was mum on that subject. So,yes,he has tainted this trail through his petty comments.:mad:
Click to expand...
:h:hmmm:mmm:.Peace, Carlan
 
livingwordunity said:
👍 I never heard of President Bush trying to use his presidential influence to manipulate the outcome of a trial. A president doing this is the ultimate way to obstruct the justice system. And as you’ve pointed out, Obama has a habit of inserting his opinion when he should be silent.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you aren’t too fond of our elected President this time around, best solution to the difficult people we find in our lives is to pray for them , while at the same time praying for our selves for enlightenment and understanding. As far as the justice system goes lets us simply trust and accept the jury’s verdict,
Peace, Carlan
 
styrgwillidar said:
ETA: If you pull out the gun prior to being in serious danger you are the aggressor. Picture Martin walking along, doing nothing illegal, guy is following than he loses sight of him. Then there he is again, Martin goes up to the guy and asks, 'Why are you following me?" If the guy pulls out a gun-- IMHO, Martin would certainly be justified in fearing for his life regardless of what the stranger says.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your explanations 🙂 Your first post explaining CC was also very informative. Obviously I have had no training in this area! These were issues I hadn’t thought about, but on reflection, they make a lot of sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top