DOJ going after Zimmerman?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by QGator2414, Jul 14, 2013.

  1. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,796
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +573
    Based on your own words you know common sense says they are wasting time, resources and taxpayer money...

    But for some reason you support it?
  2. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26

    TM is a fellon? Another claim needing a link.

    Of course, even if he was, how is that relevant to this case? I thought you were a defense attorney?

    BTW, look up "Gideon's Army" on HBO for a riveting recent documentary on public defenders in Georgia. You might find it of interest.
  3. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    71,239
    Likes Received:
    4,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,735
    +1
  4. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    People who work in official capacities have to play by the rules and are less able to make seat of the pants "common sense" decisions. Every move is dissected, lobbied, and analyzed for error and inappropriate actions. They have to go through proper review.
  5. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,485
    Likes Received:
    552
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,958

    TM was a felon . . . for committing - in fact - an aggravated battery on the person of George Zimmerman.

    Basically, that's what the jury found, in order to acquit on a justifiable use of deadly force theory.

    Formally convicted ? Of course not. But with his attitude and penchant for MMA "throwing down," that was in his future. IMO.
  6. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    law, you don't know what happened. I really am at the point of seriously doubting you are even an attorney. let alone a defense attorney. The jury found no such thing and if you knew a nit about the law you'd know that.
  7. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,485
    Likes Received:
    552
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,958

    You do sound like Hamilton Burger . . . for the prosecution.

    He was the best thing that ever happened . . . for the defense. He just couldn't get it, and never did.

    :laugh:

    Hey, and take a chill pill. We're still the best of friends.
  8. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    How can an attorney say that a jury only held to a standard of reasonable doubt has therefore declared the defendants story as true. They only have to agree it is possible, not that it is true. There are several other "possible" stories different from GZ's but that doesn't make them true either.
  9. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,485
    Likes Received:
    552
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,958

    It is more true than any other scenario suggested by the State - or anybody else, and has found to be so by a jury.

    It is certainly more true than the State's claim of 2M or manslaughter, which it clearly could not prove beyond all reasonable doubt.

    If there were any other "possibilities," the State would have tried them as well. The "possibilities" they did choose, were rejected by the jury.
  10. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,169
    Likes Received:
    493
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,308
    Well, and again, I think there's an existential difference, philosophical, between a jury acquitting on reasonable doubt alone and a jury acquitting on the weight of an affirmative defense.
  11. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,485
    Likes Received:
    552
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,958

    I don't disagree, and after a short while, the analysis becomes a tautology in certain respects.

    Neither view of the respective burdens is a perfect mirror image of each other.

    But the jury rejected the State's attempts to disprove the only version of events. In other words, there was an underlying attachment of credibility to the facts as recounted by him, that was consistent with the physical evidence, and worthy of more belief than the State's claims.
  12. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15


    The highlighted items & the last sentence are complete fabrications.
  13. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,169
    Likes Received:
    493
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,308
    LD, I'll plead stupid -- are there any collateral estoppel implications to this verdict? In any other theoretical litigation in which the charges might be raised, I mean outside the scope of the SYG tort immunity.
  14. KelticGator
    Online

    KelticGator Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,129
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +170
    Nope, you need to give the impression that you give a chit. Whether this was Obama, Bush, Clinton . . . the other Bush . . . they would order an investigation. An investigation to nowhere.

    Then you can deflect any political chaff and blame the agencies doing the investigating or investigators.

    Standard Operating Procedure in DC. "CYA" and pretend you care.
  15. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,485
    Likes Received:
    552
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,958

    We disagree of course, but the last sentence was what the independent, reluctant State witness, John Good, testified to under oath at trial.

    Sorry if you don't like it, but if you have any reason to suspect Mr. Good committed perjury, please share.
  16. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,485
    Likes Received:
    552
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,958

    That would take some claim preclusion research, and of course, would depend on who is asserting what, the parties, the context, etc., There will be no bright lines, as I recall from my earlier forays into the subject.

    I will be doing some of that research in a current case I have, and will get back to you.
  17. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    None that fit the evidence. For example, you were the one that emphatically stated the Zimmerman was stalking.
  18. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15

    So because he said it...it's true? :laugh:

    Even if its only the author's & Good's opinion, it can be shown that its total fabrication and therefore based on nothing but personal speculation...

    It appears that speculation has become fact somehow... :no:


    If Trayvon Martin is dead...


    How can you tell me, as a fact, what he would have become? :geek:
  19. gator996
    Offline

    gator996 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,963
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +15

    None of them that fit the evidence? :laugh:


    Please show me where in the "evidence" it can be proven that Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman first?

    That he punched him in the nose unprovoked?


    That anything about the fight, as Zimmermen tells it, is proven by other evidence?


    Ya can't.

    Know why?


    Because Zimmerman destroyed all of the "other" evidence when he shot TM
  20. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    71,239
    Likes Received:
    4,624
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +9,735
    you can't 996- but the facts as they were presented by mostly the prosecutions witnesses attested to Zimmerman's story line and not the prosecutions- so by a preponderance of the evidence he was found not guilty- you can speculate about all kinds of intentions but the evidence proved his innocence-sadly a kid is also dead and nothing can change that either


    you also said:
    Because Zimmerman destroyed all of the "other" evidence when he shot TM

    and that is pure speculation and not grounded in any facts

Share This Page