Trayvon Martin

[Soxbadger]

No one should get fired and the facts arent on the fence.

 

Simply put, for whatever reason, the first prosecutor did not want to risk taking the case. I have my own personal theories on this, none of them really involve substantive evidence, most of it involves preconceptions about juries, defendants and how easy a case will be to win.

 

The first prosecutor just wasnt brave, they took the easy road.

[iamshack]

No one should get fired and the facts arent on the fence.

 

Simply put, for whatever reason, the first prosecutor did not want to risk taking the case. I have my own personal theories on this, none of them really involve substantive evidence, most of it involves preconceptions about juries, defendants and how easy a case will be to win.

 

The first prosecutor just wasnt brave, they took the easy road.

Those that they can prove are. Stop pretending as if you know what can and cannot be proven; you don't.

 

f***ing arrogant lawyers..

[Balta1701]

Or maybe the facts and evidence are on the fence...

If that's the case, then the special prosecutor brought charges in defiance of Florida law.

[Soxbadger]

What can be proven at trial is different than the standard for charging.

 

If there werent facts to charge, the Defense attorney would have requested a hearing on the evidence under the SYG rule, instead of having Zimmerman plea not guilty.

 

Why did the Defense attorney not do this?

 

Is he stupid? Does he not know what hes doing?

 

Or do you think maybe its pretty apparent that there is enough evidence for probable cause, but that is quite different than "beyond reasonable doubt".

 

But go ahead and keep making the argument that in order to charge, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

That's what the SYG statute says. You know that, you quoted it yesterday. The prosecution needs to be able to affirmatively prove the self defense claim is false before bringig charges.

[iamshack]

What can be proven at trial is different than the standard for charging.

 

If there werent facts to charge, the Defense attorney would have requested a hearing on the evidence under the SYG rule, instead of having Zimmerman plea not guilty.

 

Why did the Defense attorney not do this?

 

Is he stupid? Does he not know what hes doing?

 

Or do you think maybe its pretty apparent that there is enough evidence for probable cause, but that is quite different than "beyond reasonable doubt".

 

But go ahead and keep making the argument that in order to charge, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Im not making that argument.

 

They certainly don't want to charge him and lose...for a multitude of reasons...

 

I'm merely arguing that maybe its not particularly clear whether they can win the case...I've been arguing that for days now...

 

[Soxbadger]

And no one is saying that they will win the case.

 

But just because you may lose the case, doesnt mean you didnt have enough facts to charge. They are apples and oranges. So when I said the facts arent on the fence, I meant in terms of bringing charges.

 

And I was wrong, the hearing comes later.

 

 

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/...ervers-say?lite

 

 

Evidentiary hearing: Under the Stand Your Ground law, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court, a judge can grant Zimmerman immunity from prosecution in this type of hearing. Here is where Zimmerman is expected to tell why he feared for his life when he scuffled with Martin. Those hearings are like a “mini trials,” King said, in which experts on Zimmerman’s emotional state will also likely be called to testify, as well as any other witnesses in the case. If a judge decides there is enough evidence to show Zimmerman did act in self-defense based on the preponderance of the evidence, the judge can rule that Zimmerman can’t be prosecuted, essentially dismissing the criminal case.

[iamshack]

And no one is saying that they will win the case.

 

But just because you may lose the case, doesnt mean you didnt have enough facts to charge. They are apples and oranges. So when I said the facts arent on the fence, I meant in terms of bringing charges.

 

And I was wrong, the hearing comes later.

 

 

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/...ervers-say?lite

 

 

Evidentiary hearing: Under the Stand Your Ground law, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court, a judge can grant Zimmerman immunity from prosecution in this type of hearing. Here is where Zimmerman is expected to tell why he feared for his life when he scuffled with Martin. Those hearings are like a “mini trials,” King said, in which experts on Zimmerman’s emotional state will also likely be called to testify, as well as any other witnesses in the case. If a judge decides there is enough evidence to show Zimmerman did act in self-defense based on the preponderance of the evidence, the judge can rule that Zimmerman can’t be prosecuted, essentially dismissing the criminal case.

When did I ever state they didn't have enough facts to charge?

 

All I'm saying is that this is all more complicated than we'd like to think; the answer is not always "this person needs to lose their job," or "heads are going to roll because of this."

 

I'd prefer to believe most of these people are competent professionals and that this is all pretty complex with a lot of moving variables.

[Balta1701]

Then why bring charges now, if things are that complex and there are still so many moving parts?

 

A competent professional doing her job would not inflame the situation further if she did not have a particularly solid case.

[iamshack]

Then why bring charges now, if things are that complex and there are still so many moving parts?

 

A competent professional doing her job would not inflame the situation further if she did not have a particularly solid case.

Because its a grey area...it could go either way...the pressure from the media was enough to sway them to charge them?

[Soxbadger]

I said that the person shouldnt be fired.

 

You then called me an arrogant lawyer for saying "No one should get fired and the facts arent on the fence" as it relates to charging Zimmerman.

 

How could I ever comment on the facts on guilt? There hasnt been 1 second of testimony or discovery. All I can comment on is bringing the charges, and you called me an arrogant lawyer for merely stating that when you see a fact pattern like this charges are expected.

 

Lets look at the facts:

 

2 people 1 dead, no witnesses besides the shooter. The shooter admits to the shooting, so there is no question as to who caused it. The shooter says it was self defense. The victim is unarmed. The police do not believe the shooter. The police recommend charges.

 

If you take out race, if you take out all of the other nonsense and just look at the facts. Those that neither party can dispute, I just dont think the facts are on the fence in terms of bringing charges. Now ultimately, a jury may find Zimmerman credible and that he did act in self defense. But how can the Prosecutor, who likely never even spoke to Zimmerman, make the determination of his credibility, especially when the police, who were there and spoke with him, dont believe him.

 

If you disagree with that, it is your choice.

[Balta1701]

Because its a grey area...it could go either way...the pressure from the media was enough to sway them to charge them?

And media pressure is an awful, awful reason to bring charges

[iamshack]

And media pressure is an awful, awful reason to bring charges

It's not THE reason. It's A reason. Whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you.

 

Again, not everything is so black and white.

[Soxbadger]

Media pressure is the reason charges were brought. Had the media not gotten involved the original prosecutor had already decided to pass and Im not sure the state of Florida is going to appoint a special prosecutor for something no one cares about.

Edited April 13, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

No media pressure is the reason charges were brought. Had the media not gotten involved the original prosecutor had already decided to pass and Im not sure the state of Florida is going to appoint a special prosecutor for something no one cares about.

Media pressure is why the investigation was resumed.

 

Putting him on trial with a weak case tht is thrown out in the self-defense hearing would inflame the public reaction more than spelling out that she has no case.

[iamshack]

I said that the person shouldnt be fired.

 

You then called me an arrogant lawyer for saying "No one should get fired and the facts arent on the fence" as it relates to charging Zimmerman.

 

How could I ever comment on the facts on guilt? There hasnt been 1 second of testimony or discovery. All I can comment on is bringing the charges, and you called me an arrogant lawyer for merely stating that when you see a fact pattern like this charges are expected.

 

Lets look at the facts:

 

2 people 1 dead, no witnesses besides the shooter. The shooter admits to the shooting, so there is no question as to who caused it. The shooter says it was self defense. The victim is unarmed. The police do not believe the shooter. The police recommend charges.

 

If you take out race, if you take out all of the other nonsense and just look at the facts. Those that neither party can dispute, I just dont think the facts are on the fence in terms of bringing charges. Now ultimately, a jury may find Zimmerman credible and that he did act in self defense. But how can the Prosecutor, who likely never even spoke to Zimmerman, make the determination of his credibility, especially when the police, who were there and spoke with him, dont believe him.

 

If you disagree with that, it is your choice.

Ok, you proclaimed for the last few days that the prosecutor wouldn't charge unless it was a slam dunk case because of their conviction rates. If that is your reasoning, their isn't much difference between facts for the sake of bringing charges and convicting. If the Prosecutor will only charge those defendnts with fact patterns that are slam dunks towards convictions, then it stands to reason that the facts he has to charge are similarly one-sided.

 

It's one way or the other, according to you, anyways...which is it?

[Soxbadger]

Im not saying that charges shouldnt have been brought in the first place.

 

I am saying that once the original prosecutor did not press charges the only way that charges were ever going to be brought was due to national spotlight.

[Soxbadger]

Iamshack,

 

Special prosecutor is different. She is not from Sanford, she is from Jacksonville (4th circuit) and she is elected. A high profile case like this is great if your an elected DA.

 

http://www.sao4th.com/

 

The original county was Seminole County, and Jacksonville demographics are quite different than Seminole County. Not to mention I doubt it was the actual DA of Seminole County who reviewed the file, it was more likely someone who was hired, not elected. Its an important difference.

[kapkomet]

So is there not a "grand jury" type of system that would review the evidence before charging a guy for murder?

 

Or am I completely thinking something else?

 

[Balta1701]

So is there not a "grand jury" type of system that would review the evidence before charging a guy for murder?

 

Or am I completely thinking something else?

The special prosecutor could have taken the case to a grand jury but chose not to.

[StrangeSox]

Affidavit of probable cause? But I thought that the SYG statute didn't even allow prosecutors/the police to investigate these cases if the guy claims self defense?

 

Edit: And that affidavit was pretty freakin' bare bones, and added nothing knew that Zimmerman basically didn't already admit, except maybe the mother somehow knowing for certain what Martin's screams sound like.

 

Otherwise it seems like people's unfounded fears were pretty much that...unfounded.

What unfounded fears?

[lostfan]

So is there not a "grand jury" type of system that would review the evidence before charging a guy for murder?

 

Or am I completely thinking something else?

To charge with murder 1 you need a grand jury, but they declined it and instead charged him with murder 2

[Texsox]

And media pressure is an awful, awful reason to bring charges

 

 

Welcome to America. There are a number of people in this thread who have made hundreds of posts, many stating that Zimmerman was wrong and should have been charged. That public outraged, as captured, reported on, and magnified by the media, resulted in the government taking action. Listening to citizens is not necessarily a bad thing. The media is how we as citizens can most effectively let the government know what we want done.

[southsider2k5]

Welcome to America. There are a number of people in this thread who have made hundreds of posts, many stating that Zimmerman was wrong and should have been charged. That public outraged, as captured, reported on, and magnified by the media, resulted in the government taking action. Listening to citizens is not necessarily a bad thing. The media is how we as citizens can most effectively let the government know what we want done.

 

And what is more likely to get you not-releected again... Not bringing a case, or losing the case?

[Balta1701]

And what is more likely to get you not-releected again... Not bringing a case, or losing the case?

Depends on if you can give a convincing explanation about why you didn't bring the case. If you can stand up for 2 hours and take questions about why you can't bring charges and answer every one of them in an honest way, and also sitting down with the family and detailing why you can't prove the case for however long it takes to outline every single thing that was investigated...then that'd be enough to keep my vote.

 

Bringing charges and then having the accused get off would be incredibly inflammatory.