Since I already told you the context of my hypothetical comment, why should I respond further?
I only brought that up for Angela to consider when trying to evaluate the charactor of both people in her own mind. Nothing legal!. Do you get it now?
Angela will make charging decisions based on the law.
The law does not allow her to consider the characteristics or past of the victim in making charging decisions as it does not factor into probable cause nor reasonable suspicion.
Sorry that is so difficult for you to understand.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Since I already told you the context of my hypothetical comment, why should I respond further?
I only brought that up for Angela to consider when trying to evaluate the charactor of both people in her own mind. Nothing legal!. Do you get it now?
Angela will make charging decisions based on the law.
The law does not allow her to consider the characteristics or past of the victim in making charging decisions as it does not factor into probable cause nor reasonable suspicion.
Angela will make charging decisions based on the law.
The law does not allow her to consider the characteristics or past of the victim in making charging decisions as it does not factor into probable cause nor reasonable suspicion.
Sorry that is so difficult for you to understand.
If you think Angela would not peek into each charactor you are naieve.
Do you not think Casey Anthoney's prosecutor looked into her charactor?
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Angela will make charging decisions based on the law.
The law does not allow her to consider the characteristics or past of the victim in making charging decisions as it does not factor into probable cause nor reasonable suspicion.
Sorry that is so difficult for you to understand.
If you think Angela would not peek into each charactor you are naieve.
Do you not think Casey Anthoney's prosecutor looked into her charactor?
If you think Angela would not peek into each charactor you are naieve.
Do you not think Casey Anthoney's prosecutor looked into her charactor?
Your comparison would only make sense if the prosecutor looked into the character of the young Caylee to determine if she was the 'brat' as portrayed by the mother for making proper charging decisions.
And no, I am certain she did not do that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
If you think Angela would not peek into each charactor you are naieve.
Do you not think Casey Anthoney's prosecutor looked into her charactor?
Your comparison would only make sense if the prosecutor looked into the character of the young Caylee to determine if she was the 'brat' as portrayed by the mother for making proper charging decisions.
Your comparison would only make sense if the prosecutor looked into the character of the young Caylee to determine if she was the 'brat' as portrayed by the mother for making proper charging decisions.
And no, I am certain she did not do that.
I have no way to prove that Angela looked into each charactor and you have no way to prove the opposite, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Your comparison would only make sense if the prosecutor looked into the character of the young Caylee to determine if she was the 'brat' as portrayed by the mother for making proper charging decisions.
And no, I am certain she did not do that.
I have no way to prove that Angela looked into each charactor and you have no way to prove the opposite, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
If I understand DJ correctly, this makes sense, and I agree with them.
I maybe off base and if I am, DJ, please correct me.
The prosecutor can only look at evidence that would that be admissible in court.
With Martin dead and unavailable to defend any accusations, his "record" should not have any evidentiary weight
Legally there is no reason for looking into the past of either. I would think that a good detective or prosecutor should look into the past of both in cases like this where only one person can give an account of what happened.
0
Quote Originally Posted by J_Galt:
If I understand DJ correctly, this makes sense, and I agree with them.
I maybe off base and if I am, DJ, please correct me.
The prosecutor can only look at evidence that would that be admissible in court.
With Martin dead and unavailable to defend any accusations, his "record" should not have any evidentiary weight
Legally there is no reason for looking into the past of either. I would think that a good detective or prosecutor should look into the past of both in cases like this where only one person can give an account of what happened.
If I understand DJ correctly, this makes sense, and I agree with them.
I maybe off base and if I am, DJ, please correct me.
The prosecutor can only look at evidence that would that be admissible in court.
With Martin dead and unavailable to defend any accusations, his "record" should not have any evidentiary weight
the prosecutor can look at whatever she wants to make a decision. however, what she looks at isn't necessarily relevant in court to prove the case, i.e. trayvon's background.
for instance, let's say she gets two files on two people who allegedly committed the same crime in the exact same way. the evidence is equally questionable in both cases and it's a close call as to whether or not to charge them. if person #1 has a terrible record or maybe has been arrested but not charged for something similar in the past and person #2 has no prior record, a prosecutor very well may charge person #1 but not person #2. however, their respective backgrounds are likely irrelevant when it comes to proving the case.
0
Quote Originally Posted by J_Galt:
If I understand DJ correctly, this makes sense, and I agree with them.
I maybe off base and if I am, DJ, please correct me.
The prosecutor can only look at evidence that would that be admissible in court.
With Martin dead and unavailable to defend any accusations, his "record" should not have any evidentiary weight
the prosecutor can look at whatever she wants to make a decision. however, what she looks at isn't necessarily relevant in court to prove the case, i.e. trayvon's background.
for instance, let's say she gets two files on two people who allegedly committed the same crime in the exact same way. the evidence is equally questionable in both cases and it's a close call as to whether or not to charge them. if person #1 has a terrible record or maybe has been arrested but not charged for something similar in the past and person #2 has no prior record, a prosecutor very well may charge person #1 but not person #2. however, their respective backgrounds are likely irrelevant when it comes to proving the case.
If I understand DJ correctly, this makes sense, and I agree with them.
I maybe off base and if I am, DJ, please correct me.
The prosecutor can only look at evidence that would that be admissible in court.
With Martin dead and unavailable to defend any accusations, his "record" should not have any evidentiary weight
Somewhat right.
There is no question that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. He admitted as such.
The claim is that he was acting in self-defense.
The next step is to determine whether the Stand Your Ground law applies. If so, Zimmerman was not required to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril. Rather, the prima facie evidence would have been the actions of Martin.
The prosecutor, however, would always have to determine rather Zimmerman acted reasonably.
If however, Stand Your Ground does not apply, the (very summarily) self-defense standard is whether ZImmerman, was in reasonable fear of imminent harm and acted reasonably in his defense. The standard is judged based on the subjective person in Zimmerman's shoes as measured against a reaosnableness standard. A prosecutor would examine Zimmerman's background for the subjective standard (a person in Zimmerman's shoes i.e. was he a quick trigger, hothead, unlikey to do anything unless provoked, etc). In terms of acting reasonably, the prosector would look at what Zimmerman knew about the victim (see my post earlier in this thread).
Could a prosecutor look at factors in Martin's background? Sure, but that would be akin to a jury looking at impermissible evidence to make a determination of guilt or a judge looking at suppressed evidence. Our system would be in great peril the more subjective these decisions become.
0
Quote Originally Posted by J_Galt:
If I understand DJ correctly, this makes sense, and I agree with them.
I maybe off base and if I am, DJ, please correct me.
The prosecutor can only look at evidence that would that be admissible in court.
With Martin dead and unavailable to defend any accusations, his "record" should not have any evidentiary weight
Somewhat right.
There is no question that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. He admitted as such.
The claim is that he was acting in self-defense.
The next step is to determine whether the Stand Your Ground law applies. If so, Zimmerman was not required to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril. Rather, the prima facie evidence would have been the actions of Martin.
The prosecutor, however, would always have to determine rather Zimmerman acted reasonably.
If however, Stand Your Ground does not apply, the (very summarily) self-defense standard is whether ZImmerman, was in reasonable fear of imminent harm and acted reasonably in his defense. The standard is judged based on the subjective person in Zimmerman's shoes as measured against a reaosnableness standard. A prosecutor would examine Zimmerman's background for the subjective standard (a person in Zimmerman's shoes i.e. was he a quick trigger, hothead, unlikey to do anything unless provoked, etc). In terms of acting reasonably, the prosector would look at what Zimmerman knew about the victim (see my post earlier in this thread).
Could a prosecutor look at factors in Martin's background? Sure, but that would be akin to a jury looking at impermissible evidence to make a determination of guilt or a judge looking at suppressed evidence. Our system would be in great peril the more subjective these decisions become.
the prosecutor can look at whatever she wants to make a decision. however, what she looks at isn't necessarily relevant in court to prove the case, i.e. trayvon's background.
for instance, let's say she gets two files on two people who allegedly committed the same crime in the exact same way. the evidence is equally questionable in both cases and it's a close call as to whether or not to charge them. if person #1 has a terrible record or maybe has been arrested but not charged for something similar in the past and person #2 has no prior record, a prosecutor very well may charge person #1 but not person #2. however, their respective backgrounds are likely irrelevant when it comes to proving the case.
Thanks club. Thats what I have been trying to say inefectively.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
the prosecutor can look at whatever she wants to make a decision. however, what she looks at isn't necessarily relevant in court to prove the case, i.e. trayvon's background.
for instance, let's say she gets two files on two people who allegedly committed the same crime in the exact same way. the evidence is equally questionable in both cases and it's a close call as to whether or not to charge them. if person #1 has a terrible record or maybe has been arrested but not charged for something similar in the past and person #2 has no prior record, a prosecutor very well may charge person #1 but not person #2. however, their respective backgrounds are likely irrelevant when it comes to proving the case.
Thanks club. Thats what I have been trying to say inefectively.
bowlslit, i'm not saying that's the way an honest prosecutor shoudl do it. they have discretion but a prosecutor should only charge someone if she believes there is sufficient evidence to prove the person is guilty. the relevant evidence should control the decision. however, practically, there may be other factors that come into play when these decisions are made every day. of course, it's rare for a prosecutor to get a case with this much media attention and i would expect the media coverage and the fact that she's an elected official would be factors as well. but at the end of the day, she or someone in her office, is going to have to proev the case with relevant evidence if she does charge him and she does not want to lose a case like this.
0
bowlslit, i'm not saying that's the way an honest prosecutor shoudl do it. they have discretion but a prosecutor should only charge someone if she believes there is sufficient evidence to prove the person is guilty. the relevant evidence should control the decision. however, practically, there may be other factors that come into play when these decisions are made every day. of course, it's rare for a prosecutor to get a case with this much media attention and i would expect the media coverage and the fact that she's an elected official would be factors as well. but at the end of the day, she or someone in her office, is going to have to proev the case with relevant evidence if she does charge him and she does not want to lose a case like this.
The day prosecutors start to do look into inadmissible evidence, the day jurors look at the internet to find information about the accused, the day judges ignore inadmissible evidence when making rulings is the day we cease to operate within the rule by laws of evidence framework.
0
That is exactly right.
The day prosecutors start to do look into inadmissible evidence, the day jurors look at the internet to find information about the accused, the day judges ignore inadmissible evidence when making rulings is the day we cease to operate within the rule by laws of evidence framework.
bowlslit, i'm not saying that's the way an honest prosecutor shoudl do it. they have discretion but a prosecutor should only charge someone if she believes there is sufficient evidence to prove the person is guilty. the relevant evidence should control the decision. however, practically, there may be other factors that come into play when these decisions are made every day. of course, it's rare for a prosecutor to get a case with this much media attention and i would expect the media coverage and the fact that she's an elected official would be factors as well. but at the end of the day, she or someone in her office, is going to have to proev the case with relevant evidence if she does charge him and she does not want to lose a case like this.
hes just grasping for anything or anyone that might make him not look so misguided
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
bowlslit, i'm not saying that's the way an honest prosecutor shoudl do it. they have discretion but a prosecutor should only charge someone if she believes there is sufficient evidence to prove the person is guilty. the relevant evidence should control the decision. however, practically, there may be other factors that come into play when these decisions are made every day. of course, it's rare for a prosecutor to get a case with this much media attention and i would expect the media coverage and the fact that she's an elected official would be factors as well. but at the end of the day, she or someone in her office, is going to have to proev the case with relevant evidence if she does charge him and she does not want to lose a case like this.
hes just grasping for anything or anyone that might make him not look so misguided
At this point in time ...it doesn't matter If Zimmerman was following Trayvon or not ..or if Travon sent odd E-mails and was suppened fron school for whatever ..or that Zimmerman had prior altercations ....or who threw the 1st punch ,..or that Zimmerman did or didn't follow the dispatchers suggestion ...
The state of Florida's "stand your ground" law allows people to use deadly force anywhere they have a right to be,,,[and you are carring a firearm in a legal manner] ....if you feel a reasonable threat of death or serious injury you can use deadly force..
Before Zimmerman can be charged there has to be grounds to disprove his account given to the Stanford police,that he acted to protect himself........... no facts that we know of ..so far disprove his account..
Now one unknown,that could shed light one way or the other..the autopsy report..showing the path of the bullet and distance at inpact,, etc..
If the autopsy report can not disprove Zimmermans account ..he should not be charged with a crime ..and will go free to live the rest of his live in an undisclosed location...
0
At this point in time ...it doesn't matter If Zimmerman was following Trayvon or not ..or if Travon sent odd E-mails and was suppened fron school for whatever ..or that Zimmerman had prior altercations ....or who threw the 1st punch ,..or that Zimmerman did or didn't follow the dispatchers suggestion ...
The state of Florida's "stand your ground" law allows people to use deadly force anywhere they have a right to be,,,[and you are carring a firearm in a legal manner] ....if you feel a reasonable threat of death or serious injury you can use deadly force..
Before Zimmerman can be charged there has to be grounds to disprove his account given to the Stanford police,that he acted to protect himself........... no facts that we know of ..so far disprove his account..
Now one unknown,that could shed light one way or the other..the autopsy report..showing the path of the bullet and distance at inpact,, etc..
If the autopsy report can not disprove Zimmermans account ..he should not be charged with a crime ..and will go free to live the rest of his live in an undisclosed location...
At this point in time ...it doesn't matter If Zimmerman was following Trayvon or not ..or if Travon sent odd E-mails and was suppened fron school for whatever ..or that Zimmerman had prior altercations ....or who threw the 1st punch ,..or that Zimmerman did or didn't follow the dispatchers suggestion ...
The state of Florida's "stand your ground" law allows people to use deadly force anywhere they have a right to be,,,[and you are carring a firearm in a legal manner] ....if you feel a reasonable threat of death or serious injury you can use deadly force..
Before Zimmerman can be charged there has to be grounds to disprove his account given to the Stanford police,that he acted to protect himself........... no facts that we know of ..so far disprove his account..
Now one unknown,that could shed light one way or the other..the autopsy report..showing the path of the bullet and distance at inpact,, etc..
If the autopsy report can not disprove Zimmermans account ..he should not be charged with a crime ..and will go free to live the rest of his live in an undisclosed location...
There are other ways to disprove his account. ID of the voice on the 911 call when the shot went off could be one way. But certainly the autopsy could be important, especially if Martin had significant bruising on his hands.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
At this point in time ...it doesn't matter If Zimmerman was following Trayvon or not ..or if Travon sent odd E-mails and was suppened fron school for whatever ..or that Zimmerman had prior altercations ....or who threw the 1st punch ,..or that Zimmerman did or didn't follow the dispatchers suggestion ...
The state of Florida's "stand your ground" law allows people to use deadly force anywhere they have a right to be,,,[and you are carring a firearm in a legal manner] ....if you feel a reasonable threat of death or serious injury you can use deadly force..
Before Zimmerman can be charged there has to be grounds to disprove his account given to the Stanford police,that he acted to protect himself........... no facts that we know of ..so far disprove his account..
Now one unknown,that could shed light one way or the other..the autopsy report..showing the path of the bullet and distance at inpact,, etc..
If the autopsy report can not disprove Zimmermans account ..he should not be charged with a crime ..and will go free to live the rest of his live in an undisclosed location...
There are other ways to disprove his account. ID of the voice on the 911 call when the shot went off could be one way. But certainly the autopsy could be important, especially if Martin had significant bruising on his hands.
It doesn't matter if Trayvon had marks on his hands....Zimmerman claims Trayvon was using a deadly weapon to put him in a reasonable threat of deadly harm or serious injury .....
The sidewalk ..
0
It doesn't matter if Trayvon had marks on his hands....Zimmerman claims Trayvon was using a deadly weapon to put him in a reasonable threat of deadly harm or serious injury .....
It doesn't matter if Trayvon had marks on his hands....Zimmerman claims Trayvon was using a deadly weapon to put him in a reasonable threat of deadly harm or serious injury .....
The sidewalk ..
But didn't he claim that he decked him first?
Also, location of body seems to belie the sidewalk claims.
Read this fantastic timeline and pictorial.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
It doesn't matter if Trayvon had marks on his hands....Zimmerman claims Trayvon was using a deadly weapon to put him in a reasonable threat of deadly harm or serious injury .....
The sidewalk ..
But didn't he claim that he decked him first?
Also, location of body seems to belie the sidewalk claims.
The timeline, the 911 calls, the locations, the physical evidence, eyewtinesses, etc. There are a lot of different pieces to the puzzle.
But the #1 key is the 911 call that recorded the shot. That tells you a lot of about those last 30 seconds. It doesn't sound to me like anyone was getting their head bashed in the sidewalk. Someone was clearly in fear for their life. The question is who was it, TM or GZ?
0
The timeline, the 911 calls, the locations, the physical evidence, eyewtinesses, etc. There are a lot of different pieces to the puzzle.
But the #1 key is the 911 call that recorded the shot. That tells you a lot of about those last 30 seconds. It doesn't sound to me like anyone was getting their head bashed in the sidewalk. Someone was clearly in fear for their life. The question is who was it, TM or GZ?
I think this guarantees he will be charged. If the prosecutor wasn't sure if she could charge she'd go to grand jury to see if they agreed. This signals to me that she thinks a GJ is unnecessary because she has what she needs. But it won't be first-degree. It'll be a lesser charge. I say charges are filed by the end of the week.
Prosecutor to hold news conf within 72 hours.
0
Quote Originally Posted by depeche2:
I think this guarantees he will be charged. If the prosecutor wasn't sure if she could charge she'd go to grand jury to see if they agreed. This signals to me that she thinks a GJ is unnecessary because she has what she needs. But it won't be first-degree. It'll be a lesser charge. I say charges are filed by the end of the week.
At this point in time ...it doesn't matter If Zimmerman was following Trayvon or not ..or if Travon sent odd E-mails and was suppened fron school for whatever ..or that Zimmerman had prior altercations ....or who threw the 1st punch ,..or that Zimmerman did or didn't follow the dispatchers suggestion ...
The state of Florida's "stand your ground" law allows people to use deadly force anywhere they have a right to be,,,[and you are carring a firearm in a legal manner] ....if you feel a reasonable threat of death or serious injury you can use deadly force..
Before Zimmerman can be charged there has to be grounds to disprove his account given to the Stanford police,that he acted to protect himself........... no facts that we know of ..so far disprove his account..
Now one unknown,that could shed light one way or the other..the autopsy report..showing the path of the bullet and distance at inpact,, etc..
If the autopsy report can not disprove Zimmermans account ..he should not be charged with a crime ..and will go free to live the rest of his live in an undisclosed location...
I disagree - the police or state are not compelled to believe Z's account (obviously Serino didn't) & so far, there are no witnesses or evidence that shows how the fight started or that Z had a reasonable reason to fear for his life or serious bodily injury at the time he pulled his gun & killed Martin.
My guess is that this prosecutor will charge him & it will then be up to a jury on whether they believe his story or not after seeing hearing all the evidence & testimony, including the autopsy, Z's medical records & all witnesses including Serino & Martin's girlfriend after police had not even checked Martin's cell records along with other sloppy police work.
0
Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaSlim:
At this point in time ...it doesn't matter If Zimmerman was following Trayvon or not ..or if Travon sent odd E-mails and was suppened fron school for whatever ..or that Zimmerman had prior altercations ....or who threw the 1st punch ,..or that Zimmerman did or didn't follow the dispatchers suggestion ...
The state of Florida's "stand your ground" law allows people to use deadly force anywhere they have a right to be,,,[and you are carring a firearm in a legal manner] ....if you feel a reasonable threat of death or serious injury you can use deadly force..
Before Zimmerman can be charged there has to be grounds to disprove his account given to the Stanford police,that he acted to protect himself........... no facts that we know of ..so far disprove his account..
Now one unknown,that could shed light one way or the other..the autopsy report..showing the path of the bullet and distance at inpact,, etc..
If the autopsy report can not disprove Zimmermans account ..he should not be charged with a crime ..and will go free to live the rest of his live in an undisclosed location...
I disagree - the police or state are not compelled to believe Z's account (obviously Serino didn't) & so far, there are no witnesses or evidence that shows how the fight started or that Z had a reasonable reason to fear for his life or serious bodily injury at the time he pulled his gun & killed Martin.
My guess is that this prosecutor will charge him & it will then be up to a jury on whether they believe his story or not after seeing hearing all the evidence & testimony, including the autopsy, Z's medical records & all witnesses including Serino & Martin's girlfriend after police had not even checked Martin's cell records along with other sloppy police work.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Thanks club. Thats what I have been trying to say inefectively.
Hot Forum Topics
