Has Zimmerman Waived His Right to a Pre-Trial "Stand-Your-Ground" Hearing?

[DaveTN]

So, what evidence do you have that Zimmerman committed murder 2?  Anything?  Much less, beyond a reasonable doubt?

You are a little late. All the arguments have been made in the 68 page thread Mike linked. I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV, but I could argue this case with you. Bottom line… it does not matter. The only thing that matters is what comes out of that courtroom in Florida. I have participated in enough trials to not be so naive as to think justice will be done, but we will see. Its time to get on with it.

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

You say there is no evidence of any of this.  I asked you a question a few posts back.  Has the prosecution released all evidence to the public?  If not, you have no idea what evidence they have any more than I do. 

 

I don't believe that evidence exists based on mere speculation, or because some people would like it if it did.  

 

The prosecution has shown no hesitancy to release information they believed strengthened their narrative that Zimmerman is a guilty man being justly prosecuted.  There's no rationale for them to hold back evidence of guilt now--indeed, THEY ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO RELEASE SUCH EVIDENCE IN PRE-TRIAL DISCOVERY.  

 

Unfortunately, it keeps turning out that the evidence they do release is doctored (e.g., the B&W photo purportedly showing Zimmerman with few injuries, shown to be false by the later-released color photo, or the doctored 911 tapes) or an outright lie (see their star witness #8 claiming to have been hospitalized due to the stress of Martin's death--oops, total lie).

 

I don't believe the state should prosecute someone for murder 2 without being able to first show at least SOME evidence supporting that prosecution.  If they can, who among us is safe from a capricious prosecution, from the time, cost, damage to reputation that follows being a defendant in a murder trial?  Based on what?  Mere speculation that the prosecution MIGHT have some evidence hidden in their back pocket, waiting to ambush the defense at trial?  

 

Is it any wonder that the grand jury that was ALREADY scheduled to hear the Zimmerman case was cancelled by the prosecutor?  Even in a forum where ONLY the prosecution gets to prevent evidence, and the defense gets to present no evidence or counterargument of their own, the prosecutors weren't confident that they could get the grand jury's rubber-stamp approval to indict Zimmerman.

 

The whole thing is shameful, and not any form of justice I would subject anyone to.

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

You are a little late. All the arguments have been made in the 68 page thread Mike linked. I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV, but I could argue this case with you. Bottom line… it does not matter. The only thing that matters is what comes out of that courtroom in Florida. I have participated in enough trials to not be so naive as to think justice will be done, but we will see. Its time to get on with it.

 

So, that would mean you have no evidence.  Got it.  

 

Good effort.

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

You say there is no evidence of any of this.  I asked you a question a few posts back.  Has the prosecution released all evidence to the public?  If not, you have no idea what evidence they have any more than I do. 

 

So, nothing, then.  Good stuff.

[mikegideon]

You say there is no evidence of any of this.  I asked you a question a few posts back.  Has the prosecution released all evidence to the public?  If not, you have no idea what evidence they have any more than I do. 

 

I think they have released all of it to the defense in the discovery process. That should be complete by now. I'm not expecting any smoking gun stuff at this point. I was followng the Facebook updates from Z's team until they stopped.

[mikegideon]

So, that would mean you have no evidence.  Got it.  

 

Good effort.

 

Pretty much :)

[TMF]

I think they have released all of it to the defense in the discovery process. That should be complete by now. I'm not expecting any smoking gun stuff at this point. I was followng the Facebook updates from Z's team until they stopped.

 

Right, so how does that relate to those of us here that obviously know everything there is to know about the case?  I assume, yes assume, that the evidence released to the defense has not been released to the public.  I'm not familiar enough with cases such as this to know what the judge will or won't allow to be released to the public before a case goes to trial as not to taint the potential jury pool.  I also assume that if there is some sort of damning evidence against Z the defense isn't going to want that released until they can provide a context for it in a courtroom rather than the court of public opinion.  Just making assumptions again though.

[TMF]

So, nothing, then.  Good stuff.

 

Did I kick your dog or something?  I simply disagree with you and brought up some talking points.  Chill out tough guy, it's just the internet.

[Jonnin]

I have followed this case somewhat.  

 

And my useless 2 cents:

I have about decided that this shooting is on par with a typical inner-city thug on thug shooting, the type we see day in and day out.  You have a thug (TM, the hood in training, been in minor trouble including drugs?)  and GZ (at best, a vigilante out actively looking for trouble, and certainly a bit .... confrontational ....).   They meet, exchange words, get excited, and one or the other becomes violent due to personalities involved.   Neither is man enough to stand down, to remain calm and defuse.   Its possible of course that one or the other could not be defused, and simply attacked the other irrationally, but I just do not see it.   This was not a mugging, or other crime.  It was the meeting of 2 hotheads, with predictable results.

 

Guilty?  Both of them.   Self defense?  Possible, even probable.   Does he deserve jail?  I dunno.  That is the 10 billion $ question, isnt it?   Right to be there?  You have the right to be anywhere in public, sure, but you don't have the right to follow people around and aggravate them.  

Edited March 12, 2013 by Jonnin

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Like was said, both had a right to be where they were. There is no publicly known proof to the contrary

that I'm aware of, so calling Zimmerman a thug is a bit much, Jonnin. Any key evidence, which is not

publicly known, to me, anyway, that shows who started what could or would help Zimmerman, due to his

injuries, that are documented. I don't see how Zimmerman could get convicted.

 

Just like the man in Wisconsin (or Michigan?) who was robbed, and followed the perp and ended up

defending himself, ending up with a dead perp. Was he a thug, also?

[E4 No More]

"Ad nauseum" comes to mind here.

[mikegideon]

Right, so how does that relate to those of us here that obviously know everything there is to know about the case?  I assume, yes assume, that the evidence released to the defense has not been released to the public.  I'm not familiar enough with cases such as this to know what the judge will or won't allow to be released to the public before a case goes to trial as not to taint the potential jury pool.  I also assume that if there is some sort of damning evidence against Z the defense isn't going to want that released until they can provide a context for it in a courtroom rather than the court of public opinion.  Just making assumptions again though.

 

We are the assumption committee. It's what we do :).

[Jonnin]

Like was said, both had a right to be where they were. There is no publicly known proof to the contrary

that I'm aware of, so calling Zimmerman a thug is a bit much, Jonnin. Any key evidence, which is not

publicly known, to me, anyway, that shows who started what could or would help Zimmerman, due to his

injuries, that are documented. I don't see how Zimmerman could get convicted.

 

Just like the man in Wisconsin (or Michigan?) who was robbed, and followed the perp and ended up

defending himself, ending up with a dead perp. Was he a thug, also?

 

Proof?  You can't prove nonsense: clearly they had a right to BE there.  The question is, was GZ stalking and harrassing TM or not? Again, thats the real issue.  We know he followed and we know they ended up in talking range.  We know it escalated into a fight.  WHY?   Being somewhere and bothering someone are very different things.  I can be on the same street as a hot woman, and look at her, and all is well.  If I follow her for 4 blocks watching her butt, even if I have a right to be in those places, one might begin to wonder just the same.    GZ acted like a vigilante (IMHO): which is a nice way of saying a delusional thug who thinks he is a good guy. 

 

I cannot say if GZ needs to be convicted or not: that is subject to the questions we cannot answer without data ---- what exactly he said or did to get TM to attack him, if anything.  Is TM a nut who just started punching a random person?  Or someone who was tired of being followed around by the wierdo?  Or did GZ say something to set him off?  That is the key, and unknown of course.

 

Following the guy who robbed you is 100% different  from following a random person that you have not interacted with. 

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

I can be on the same street as a hot woman, and look at her, and all is well.  If I follow her for 4 blocks watching her butt, even if I have a right to be in those places, one might begin to wonder just the same.

 

But you'd be cool for her attacking you with deadly force, right?  it would be OK for her to put you down, take your life from you, because you followed her for 4 blocks watching her butt?  

 

Because that's the only rationale that would justify Martin's use of deadly force upon Zimmerman under your scenario.

 

For Martin's use of deadly force upon Zimmerman to have been lawful, Zimmerman would have done something that would put a reasonable person in fear of death or grave bodily harm, or make a reasonable person believe that the use of deadly force was necessary to stop a forcible felony.  Merely observing/following someone in a place where both people have a place to be can never be justification for the use of deadly force.

 

It's very clear cut, really.  The prosecution's case is simply laughable.  But for some reason the f-e-e-l-i-n-g-s crowd has convinced themselves that Zimmerman should be found guilty, facts or no facts, proof or no proof.  

 

One can't help but wonder why.  Rather Gumpish.  

[Jonnin]

But you'd be cool for her attacking you with deadly force, right?  it would be OK for her to put you down, take your life from you, because you followed her for 4 blocks watching her butt?  

 

Because that's the only rationale that would justify Martin's use of deadly force upon Zimmerman under your scenario.

 

For Martin's use of deadly force upon Zimmerman to have been lawful, Zimmerman would have done something that would put a reasonable person in fear of death or grave bodily harm, or make a reasonable person believe that the use of deadly force was necessary to stop a forcible felony.  Merely observing/following someone in a place where both people have a place to be can never be justification for the use of deadly force.

 

It's very clear cut, really.  The prosecution's case is simply laughable.  But for some reason the f-e-e-l-i-n-g-s crowd has convinced themselves that Zimmerman should be found guilty, facts or no facts, proof or no proof.  

 

One can't help but wonder why.  Rather Gumpish.  

 

No, I never said any of that.  No attack was justified, of course.   All I said was the right to be is not the same as the right to follow/stalk/provoke others.   And that 2 hotheaded idiots got into a peeing contest and it got out of hand.  Both guilty. 

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

All I said was the right to be is not the same as the right to follow/stalk/provoke others. 

 

I'm afraid this is a patent lie.  There's not one shred of evidence to support that Zimmerman did anything other than reposition himself to keep Martin under observation, while on the phone with police, to talk the responding officers in to the correct location.  

 

This myth of Zimmerman "stalking" Marting is just another of the many fabrications disseminated by the Crump misinformation campaign, just like:

 

Zimmerman disobeyed police instructions?  Nope, never happened.  

Zimmerman had history of violence?  Nope.

Zimmerman was high on pills?  Not that, either.  

Zimmerman volunteered Martin's race to police? Another lie, they asked him Martin's race.  

Zimmerman called Martin a "c**n"?  No, not true either.

 

The list of lies and propaganda spewed by Crump and company and eagerly parroted by the mainstream media seems endless. 

 

No matter how many times they repeat these lies, however, it doesn't make them any more true.

 

In any case, our all-day, live coverage will be starting up again today right when Court goes into session, typically shortly after 9AM.  Go to the home page of www.legalinsurrection.com if your interested in following along.  And, of course, we'll have our daily summary post up this evening, as usual.

 

Yesterday had some pretty explosive revelations, what with jurors R69 and E7, it will be interesting to see what the Zimmerman trial brings us today.

 

Finally, it turns out the best line to come out of the Zimmerman trial yesterday might have been delivered after the Court had recessed for the day.  

 

Attorney Benjamin Crump, advisory to the Martin family, announced to the press that, ""The evidence shows there is no blood on Trayvon's hands."

 

I guess he hasn't seen this picture:

 

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

[mikegideon]

Great post. Here's the current thread...

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/65935-troubling-news-for-the-trayvon-martin-camp/

[QuietDan]

Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman, observed suspicious behavior and changed his position to continue to observe suspicious behavior. He called the police early in the observation and gave an accurate report. We forget that Zimmerman had a weapon, had a weapon for the entire time of the incident, and did not use the gun until it was an Absolute Last Resort.

 

By all reports, the gun did not come out of Zimmerman's waistband holster even while Martin was on top of him beating his brains out on the sidewalk and raining Mixed Martial Arts blows to his face. Only when Martin felt the weapon in Zimmerman's waistband, pulled up Zimmerman's shirt and attempted to control the weapon did the gun come into play. Zimmerman was able to retain control of the weapon and fired one contact shot into Martin's abdomen as an Absolute Last Resort.

 

This is self defense, self defense in the light of considerable restraint, self defense as an Absolute Last Resort.

[DaveTN]

Zimmerman, the neighborhood watchman, observed suspicious behavior and changed his position to continue to observe suspicious behavior. He called the police early in the observation and gave an accurate report. We forget that Zimmerman had a weapon, had a weapon for the entire time of the incident, and did not use the gun until it was an Absolute Last Resort.

 

By all reports, the gun did not come out of Zimmerman's waistband holster even while Martin was on top of him beating his brains out on the sidewalk and raining Mixed Martial Arts blows to his face. Only when Martin felt the weapon in Zimmerman's waistband, pulled up Zimmerman's shirt and attempted to control the weapon did the gun come into play. Zimmerman was able to retain control of the weapon and fired one contact shot into Martin's abdomen as an Absolute Last Resort.

 

This is self defense, self defense in the light of considerable restraint, self defense as an Absolute Last Resort.

You want me to believe that Zimmerman couldn’t push Martin off him, but was able to stop Martin from gaining control of his weapon that Martin was going after? I just can’t buy that. But we will see what the evidence shows.

[Guest Law of Self Defense]

Just FYI, Day 4 of jury selection has just kicked into gear.  Our live, all-day coverage can be found [URL="http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-live-jury-selection-day-4-all-day-coverage/"]at Legal Insurrection here[/URL], if you're interested in following along.

 

We'll also be doing our usual end-of-day summary of events.  I'll drop a brief note when that's up, for folks who are interested.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

[RobertNashville]

...And there's simply no evidence that Zimmerman committed a single act of legally adequate provocation that would justify Martin's attack upon him.

 

Sure there is. Zimmerman jumped out of his truck and started chasing a kid that was doing nothing wrong....

Many times in multiple threads you've eluded to evidence of Zimmerman "chasing" this (so-called) kid.

What exactly is that evidence because I've tried to keep up with this case and I haven't seen it.

[Guest nra37922]

Had to chase the kid down in order to provoke a fight in the hope of being able to shoot him don't you know.

Edited June 13, 2013 by nra37922

[DaveTN]

Many times in multiple threads you've eluded to evidence of Zimmerman "chasing" this (so-called) kid.

What exactly is that evidence because I've tried to keep up with this case and I haven't seen it.

Zimmerman told the dispatcher Martin was running at that he was following him. How much more evidence would you like? Do you think he was walking? Was he out of breath from walking fast? If so what was he doing playing security guard?


He’s running. [2:08]
911 dispatcher:
He’s running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman:
Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]
911 dispatcher:
OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?
Zimmerman:
The back entrance.
[It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, {edited} at 2:22]
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

[RobertNashville]

Zimmerman told the dispatcher Martin was running at that he was following him. How much more evidence would you like? Do you think he was walking? Was he out of breath from walking fast? If so what was he doing playing security guard?


He’s running. [2:08]
911 dispatcher:
He’s running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman:
Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]
911 dispatcher:
OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?
Zimmerman:
The back entrance.
[It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, {edited} at 2:22]
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]

I sure hope you don't arrest people on that kind of "evidence". ROTFLMAO

 

Do you think a person can't be out of breath from walking fast or even walking?  I'd bet at least have the people on any police force in the country would be out of breath from walking fast. How you got "chasing" out of that 911 exchange is curious to say the least. 

 

Playing security guard??? Interesting choice of words...seems to me you are going out of your way to denigrate Zimmerman; why would that be?  Could it be you look down on anyone who isn't on the job???  Since he wasn't a "highly trained" police officer he should be derided for "playing security guard"???

 

Maybe, instead of "playing security guard" he was a good neighbor who volunteered his time to do what the police there could not or would not do? It seems to me that's why we have and need neighborhood watch programs in the first place. 

 

And wasn't there more to the tape...the part that says he was returning to his truck (which means that "chasing" Martin or not he certaintly wasn't doing so once he was on his way back to his vehicle)?

Edited June 13, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

You want me to believe that Zimmerman couldn’t push Martin off him, but was able to stop Martin from gaining control of his weapon that Martin was going after? I just can’t buy that. But we will see what the evidence shows.

How is it you are so intimately familiar with Zimmerman's physical capabilities that you "can't buy" that Zimmerman couldn't push Martin off of him? 

 

I really don't see why that would be hard to believe or at least I don't see why anyone would assume Zimmerman could.

Edited June 13, 2013 by RobertNashville