In a discussion of the affidavit in the Trayvon Martin case Macsmind says:
Where to begin. First, there is no mention of the three witnesses who said they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and one in fact who has stated that he not only saw Martin on top of Zimmerman but he heard Zimmerman call for help. From what my investigators who are now in Sanford have told me none of these witnesses were interviewed in depth by Corey’s office, and that much of what they said was dismissed.
he concludes with
I never saw a more flimsy clap trap mark up of case in all my years of law enforcement.
God to be the attorney preparing for the cross examination on this farce.
Read the whole thing if you want the details of what is coming next in this case. Not soon. But eventually.
And here is a site that asks Is Angela Corey Sabotaging the Trayvon Martin Murder Case?
More than a few eyebrows were raised Wednesday when Hispanic special prosecutor Angela Corey announced her decision to charge George Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder in the Trayvon Martin murder case.
In a spectacle of a press conference, that was beamed live into millions of homes, Corey announced she was charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter — a charge that has a better chance of winning a conviction.
Zimmerman gunned down 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in cold blood as he walked back to a friend’s house in a gated community in Sanford, Florida. Trayvon was unarmed, carrying only his cell phone, a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea in his pockets.
That was the wind-up.
Now the pitch:
But Corey has made it nearly impossible to win a conviction against Zimmerman.
“I predicted manslaughter, so I’m a little surprised,” said Michael Seigel, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches law at the University of Florida. “But she has more facts than I do.”
In fact, everyone predicted manslaughter in a case that screams for justice.
It doesn’t take a law degree to see how Corey has sabotaged this case.
In order to win a conviction, the prosecutor’s office must convince a Florida jury that Zimmerman acted with a ‘depraved mind’ when he shot and killed Trayvon.
A manslaughter charge – that he acted without premeditation — would be much easier to prove.
Our only hope now is that a judge with some common sense knocks the charge down to manslaughter. Otherwise, Zimmerman will walk — and Corey knows it.
“Our only hope” ? I do not want to touch that fever swamp even with the far end of Archimedes’ Lever. And the comments are mostly on a similar level. But not all of them.
A timeline of the action and some thoughts on the girlfriend’s phone call.
And you were probably hoping for a conclusion from me. I have none. This is a political case. Facts and evidence are irrelevant. But they are all I have got.
Comments
13 responses to “Based On A Phone Call”
From the link: a person may use a firearm if “such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.”
Great bodily harm in the past has meant more than cuts, scrapes, and bruises. The jury will decide.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/776.012
It’s an affadavit of probable cause, not one of even a preponderance of the evidence, so I don’t think it needs to include “witnesses saw M on top of Z”; Martin is not being charged (being dead), Zimmerman is.
Thus the probable cause is that of believing that he committed a crime – but, again, it’s probable cause, not any higher standard of evidence.
It’s not obviously unreasonable, though as presented it’s not remotely enough to get a conviction… but the standard for arrest is deliberately not the same as for a conviction.
(Contra S-Cargo, being head-slammed into the ground is “reasonably belie[ved to cause] … great bodily harm” – that it was stopped before it progressed beyond cuts and scrapes and into a cracked skull is irrelevant.
It is important to remember that the statute says you have to have a “reasonable belief” that GBH or death is imminent – not that it has to have happened, or be absolutely sure to happen.
Getting your head slammed into the ground over and over has killed a whole lot of people, let alone just grievously harmed them, so it seems like a very reasonable belief, if the witnesses and his own account are accurate and the recorded injuries aren’t misleading.)
As I said, the jury will decide.
“Great bodily harm in the past has meant more than cuts, scrapes, and bruises. ”
Does attempted sidewalk renovation with some one else’s head count?
====
Sig,
Dersh says it doesn’t even meet that standard. I do agree the case is very thin and if the defense goes all in on the “girlfriend” I believe Crump will be up on charges.
I see another Duke Lacrosse here.
*Does attempted sidewalk renovation with some one else’s head count?*
It might. Zimmerman will soon find out (at great financial and personal expense).
The carry of a firearm will be what is on trial and not so much the use of it. I bet there will not be a single owner of a firearm (much less a concealed carry license) seated on the jury.
How retarded do you have to be in order to imagine that the law in any state requires that someone be a victim of a violent crime without responding with deadly force if they’re able. It’s basically saying criminals have a right to succeed in their predation.
Sick.
So I guess I can pick fights with an unarmed person, take a few hits to get some nice cuts and bruises, and waste him with a pistol. Cool!
S-Cargo:
With that flippant lip of yours, you probably should worry about surviving past step two.
But let us know how that works out for you!
Another Anon:
The flippant ones are those who think they can pull the trigger on an unarmed man, and not have to explain it in front of a jury.
S-Cargo:
160cm woman, 50kg. 200cm man, 100kg. She’s in a dead-end alley. He’s approaching on her with just bare hands.
Should she have to spend months in jail waiting for a trial for shooting him, or just hold off, hoping he’s just going to pet her on the head and go “Good girl” before he goes whistling off in the night?
That’s what the police are for. The person pulling the trigger does have some explaining to do. And the police also have to get other bits of evidence, testimony from other witnesses, etc. If it was proven self-defense and there is no evidence of a crime while protecting herself, then pushing it to trial in front of the jury is criminal in and of itself.
If her testimony has holes in it, the evidence shows it wasn’t in self-defense, and there’s testimony contradicting her, then yeah, the trial is warranted. But remember, “more than a reasonable doubt” of being guilty.
How would you feel if every penny, every thing you owned was sucked from your life to try and defend you in a trial that could put you away for life? Particularly if you were trying to keep your life in the first place?
That’s the problem a lot of people have with it going to trial now. The police didn’t seek to charge him before the media flare-up. Now, after all the misinformation and deliberate racial hack-job (see the 911 edit) by media types, he’s being charged on an affadavit that seems to have several holes in it AND without going before a grand jury.
The shooting IS serious. Someone IS dead. Another man DID kill him. Was it Murder? Was it Manslaughter? Was it self-defense? Just like the old Law and Order; the police investigate, and if warranted, then there’s a prosecution. If there was new evidence that showed more guilt, then okay. But it seemed that all the ‘evidence’ put out there wasn’t fact, but narrative. And as time progressed, those facts peeled away to show a truth that wasn’t a black-and-white “innocent angel murdered by racist thug” story.
But you, flippant as you are, think of having your head slammed against concrete as ‘just a scratch’ and ‘just a cut’. Plenty of the other posters are against you for the smug-sounding attitude you had. Trayvon is a victim of the shooting. But George was likely the victim of an attack by Trayvon before that fatal moment, from more recent information. Minimizing his attack makes you an arse, Cargo.
Another Anon,
I have a new post up confirming your position in the Martin case:
http://classicalvalues.com/2012/04/a-little-misinformation/
S-Cargo, I just have no respect for the position of people who leave it at “he pulled the trigger on an unarmed man.” It’s snapshot arguing– presenting a bare fact and acting amazed if anyone doesn’t think it speaks for itself. It doesn’t. A person doesn’t have to be armed to be justifiably shot.