• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

'Compromise' In Zimmerman Case A Knife In Heart Of Justice

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
By MARK STEYN
07/12/2013

Just when I thought the George Zimmerman "trial" couldn't sink any lower, the prosecutorial limbo dancers of the state of Florida magnificently lowered their own bar in the final moments of their cable-news celebrity.

In real justice systems, the state decides what crime has been committed and charges somebody with it. In the Zimmerman trial, the state's "theory of the case" is that it has no theory of the case: might be murder, might be manslaughter, might be aggravated assault, might be a zillion other things, but it's something. If you're a juror, feel free to convict George Zimmerman of whatever floats your boat.

Nailing a guy on something, anything, is a time-honored American tradition: If you can't get Al Capone on the Valentine's Day massacre, get him on his taxes. Americans seem to have a sneaky admiration for this sort of thing, notwithstanding that, as we now know, the government is happy to get lots of other people on their taxes, too.
Ever since the president of the United States (a man so cautious and deferential to legal niceties that he can't tell you whether the Egyptian army removing the elected head of state counts as a military coup until his advisors have finished looking into the matter) breezily declared that if he had a son he'd look like Trayvon, ever since the U.S. Department of so-called Justice dispatched something called its "Community Relations Services" to Florida to help organize anti-Zimmerman rallies at taxpayer expense, ever since the politically savvy governor appointed a "special prosecutor" and the deplorably unsavvy Sanford police chief was eased out, the full panoply of state power has been deployed to nail Zimmerman on anything.


Read More:
'Compromise' In Zimmerman Case A Dagger At The Heart Of Justice - Investors.com

Are we truly to believe that Obama and Holder had nothing to do with the prosecution of George Zimmerman in a simple case of Self defense.
 
While questioning the "Compromises" in the Zimmerman trial, I question whether or not it was a Kangaroo court atmosphere because presiding Judge Debra Nelson ruled against the Defense using the past of Martin while allowing the past of Zimmerman to be used by the prosecution.

Her (Judge Debra Nelson) shameful rulings and behavior, therefore, are worth cataloging, and include:

• Suppressing exculpatory evidence recovered from the (double-password-protected) cell phone of Trayvon Martin that reveal deleted texts of the 17-year-old bragging about street-fighting with friends and relatives and photos showing him brandishing guns, gangsta-style. This evidence supports Zimmerman's claim he feared Martin and shot in self-defense.

• Disallowing Martin's criminal background, including arrests by Miami-Dade school district police for drugs, theft, graffiti and other delinquent behavior. (Martin, in fact, had been suspended from school the week he jumped Zimmerman inside his gated townhouse complex, after police found stolen jewelry and burglary tools inside his backpack.)

• Excluding any testimony from audio experts who could definitively ID Zimmerman's voice screaming for help on 911 calls as Martin bashed his head against a concrete sidewalk.

• Allowing, conversely, the last-minute request of plainly desperate prosecutors to have jurors consider an alternative lesser charge of manslaughter to try to secure some kind of conviction, any kind of punishment, in the complete absence of a sound murder case.

• Never sanctioning the prosecution despite Zimmerman's lawyers justifiably filing no fewer than six formal complaints against the state for withholding exculpatory and other evidence from them in violation of discovery rules.

• Yet repeatedly overruling — at times even reprimanding — Zimmerman's lawyers when they objected to the underhanded tactics of the prosecution.

• And even, in one of the most bizarre interventions by a judge many court watchers have ever observed in a criminal case, directly grilling defendant Zimmerman not once, but three times about his intentions to personally testify — while scolding his lawyers not to counsel him in what seemed to many to be an attempt by the court to bully him into taking the stand.​

Read More:
Judge Presiding Over Zimmerman Trial Repeatedly Put Thumb On Scales - Investors.com
 
Last edited:
While questioning the "Compromises" in the Zimmerman trial, I question whether or not it was a Kangaroo court atmosphere because presiding Judge Debra Nelson ruled against the Defense using the past of Martin while allowing the past of Zimmerman to be used by the prosecution.

Her (Judge Debra Nelson) shameful rulings and behavior, therefore, are worth cataloging, and include:

• Suppressing exculpatory evidence recovered from the (double-password-protected) cell phone of Trayvon Martin that reveal deleted texts of the 17-year-old bragging about street-fighting with friends and relatives and photos showing him brandishing guns, gangsta-style. This evidence supports Zimmerman's claim he feared Martin and shot in self-defense.

• Disallowing Martin's criminal background, including arrests by Miami-Dade school district police for drugs, theft, graffiti and other delinquent behavior. (Martin, in fact, had been suspended from school the week he jumped Zimmerman inside his gated townhouse complex, after police found stolen jewelry and burglary tools inside his backpack.)

• Excluding any testimony from audio experts who could definitively ID Zimmerman's voice screaming for help on 911 calls as Martin bashed his head against a concrete sidewalk.

• Allowing, conversely, the last-minute request of plainly desperate prosecutors to have jurors consider an alternative lesser charge of manslaughter to try to secure some kind of conviction, any kind of punishment, in the complete absence of a sound murder case.

• Never sanctioning the prosecution despite Zimmerman's lawyers justifiably filing no fewer than six formal complaints against the state for withholding exculpatory and other evidence from them in violation of discovery rules.

• Yet repeatedly overruling — at times even reprimanding — Zimmerman's lawyers when they objected to the underhanded tactics of the prosecution.

• And even, in one of the most bizarre interventions by a judge many court watchers have ever observed in a criminal case, directly grilling defendant Zimmerman not once, but three times about his intentions to personally testify — while scolding his lawyers not to counsel him in what seemed to many to be an attempt by the court to bully him into taking the stand.​

Read More:
Judge Presiding Over Zimmerman Trial Repeatedly Put Thumb On Scales - Investors.com

The one thing I've come away with after listening to practically all of this trial is that The State (you and I) should have to pick one charge and prove it. Lesser charges not allowed. I think that would stop over-charging -- which is a strong-arm tactic used by the prosecution -- who already has far too many advantages in the system.

I don't fault the judge for much...certainly didn't find her objections biased. Thought she comported herself well. Zimmerman's criminal background didn't come in either, so I have no problem with that. If audio experts had been allowed, it would have been dueling experts. I have no problem with that. I've already discussed my thoughts on lesser alternative charges...but that's our current system. It needs to change, in my opinion. I had absolutely no problem with her questioning Zimmerman on his intention to take the stand. And no problem with her verbal judo with the defense attorney who objected three different times the same way after being over-ruled. I didn't she was strong-arming him in the least. He should have been counseled by his attorneys to the answer the judge with, "I haven't decided yet." And when she asked him when he might decide, he should have been prepped by his attorneys to answer, "I don't know." Re the cellphones texts, etc., there should be clear case law on this. If she ruled incorrectly, it'll be a basis for a new trial should that become necessary. No problems there either.

Those of us who support George Zimmerman already sound like poor losers. ;)
 
While questioning the "Compromises" in the Zimmerman trial, I question whether or not it was a Kangaroo court atmosphere because presiding Judge Debra Nelson ruled against the Defense using the past of Martin while allowing the past of Zimmerman to be used by the prosecution.

Her (Judge Debra Nelson) shameful rulings and behavior, therefore, are worth cataloging, and include:

• Suppressing exculpatory evidence recovered from the (double-password-protected) cell phone of Trayvon Martin that reveal deleted texts of the 17-year-old bragging about street-fighting with friends and relatives and photos showing him brandishing guns, gangsta-style. This evidence supports Zimmerman's claim he feared Martin and shot in self-defense.

• Disallowing Martin's criminal background, including arrests by Miami-Dade school district police for drugs, theft, graffiti and other delinquent behavior. (Martin, in fact, had been suspended from school the week he jumped Zimmerman inside his gated townhouse complex, after police found stolen jewelry and burglary tools inside his backpack.)

• Excluding any testimony from audio experts who could definitively ID Zimmerman's voice screaming for help on 911 calls as Martin bashed his head against a concrete sidewalk.

• Allowing, conversely, the last-minute request of plainly desperate prosecutors to have jurors consider an alternative lesser charge of manslaughter to try to secure some kind of conviction, any kind of punishment, in the complete absence of a sound murder case.

• Never sanctioning the prosecution despite Zimmerman's lawyers justifiably filing no fewer than six formal complaints against the state for withholding exculpatory and other evidence from them in violation of discovery rules.

• Yet repeatedly overruling — at times even reprimanding — Zimmerman's lawyers when they objected to the underhanded tactics of the prosecution.

• And even, in one of the most bizarre interventions by a judge many court watchers have ever observed in a criminal case, directly grilling defendant Zimmerman not once, but three times about his intentions to personally testify — while scolding his lawyers not to counsel him in what seemed to many to be an attempt by the court to bully him into taking the stand.​

Read More:
Judge Presiding Over Zimmerman Trial Repeatedly Put Thumb On Scales - Investors.com

The use of voice "experts" for scream identificaiton was was disallowed for both sides, and rightfully so. The whole idea of this trial was: since we have a dead, unarmed, teenager that means something "wrong" must have been done by Zimmerman. Had the state of Floriduh initially gone via the grand jury I would feel much better about "the legal process". Why wait 44 days and then skip that grand jury process?
 
The one thing I've come away with after listening to practically all of this trial is that The State (you and I) should have to pick one charge and prove it. Lesser charges not allowed. I think that would stop over-charging -- which is a strong-arm tactic used by the prosecution -- who already has far too many advantages in the system.

I don't fault the judge for much...certainly didn't find her objections biased. Thought she comported herself well. Zimmerman's criminal background didn't come in either, so I have no problem with that. If audio experts had been allowed, it would have been dueling experts. I have no problem with that. I've already discussed my thoughts on lesser alternative charges...but that's our current system. It needs to change, in my opinion. I had absolutely no problem with her questioning Zimmerman on his intention to take the stand. And no problem with her verbal judo with the defense attorney who objected three different times the same way after being over-ruled. I didn't she was strong-arming him in the least. He should have been counseled by his attorneys to the answer the judge with, "I haven't decided yet." And when she asked him when he might decide, he should have been prepped by his attorneys to answer, "I don't know." Re the cellphones texts, etc., there should be clear case law on this. If she ruled incorrectly, it'll be a basis for a new trial should that become necessary. No problems there either.

Those of us who support George Zimmerman already sound like poor losers. ;)

The problem I have with all manner of "voodoo" or pseudo science "expert" opinions is that they are, well, simply paid opinions. The state almost always has the financial resources to beat the tar out of the defense when that game is allowed to be played. The state can afford to hire 20 "expert" opinion givers, how many can the defense afford in rebuttal - perhaps 3? If the "expert" opinions presented are 20 to 3 in favor of the state then the defense still loses on that point - every time.
 
The problem I have with all manner of "voodoo" or pseudo science "expert" opinions is that they are, well, simply paid opinions. The state almost always has the financial resources to beat the tar out of the defense when that game is allowed to be played. The state can afford to hire 20 "expert" opinion givers, how many can the defense afford in rebuttal - perhaps 3? If the "expert" opinions presented are 20 to 3 in favor of the state then the defense still loses on that point - every time.

You may have misunderstood me? I meant I didn't have any problem that they were excluded. I didn't write that very clearly. I'm with you.
 
The one thing I've come away with after listening to practically all of this trial is that The State (you and I) should have to pick one charge and prove it. Lesser charges not allowed. I think that would stop over-charging -- which is a strong-arm tactic used by the prosecution -- who already has far too many advantages in the system.

I don't fault the judge for much...certainly didn't find her objections biased. Thought she comported herself well. Zimmerman's criminal background didn't come in either, so I have no problem with that. If audio experts had been allowed, it would have been dueling experts. I have no problem with that. I've already discussed my thoughts on lesser alternative charges...but that's our current system. It needs to change, in my opinion. I had absolutely no problem with her questioning Zimmerman on his intention to take the stand. And no problem with her verbal judo with the defense attorney who objected three different times the same way after being over-ruled. I didn't she was strong-arming him in the least. He should have been counseled by his attorneys to the answer the judge with, "I haven't decided yet." And when she asked him when he might decide, he should have been prepped by his attorneys to answer, "I don't know." Re the cellphones texts, etc., there should be clear case law on this. If she ruled incorrectly, it'll be a basis for a new trial should that become necessary. No problems there either.

Those of us who support George Zimmerman already sound like poor losers. ;)

Maggie, and I too like watching NCIS.
Did you hear and see the prosecution bring in the prior incidents of Zimmerman's supposed criminal behavior? You know the so-called interference in police matters, and the supposed physical altercations? If these accusations were allowed to be presented against Zimmerman, why couldn't the past of Martin be allowed.
 
Last edited:
Where does George's right to Self-Defense start on the time line? Does Self-defense start when George perceives that Trayvon has seen his gun, is reaching for George's gun, and tells George that George is going to die?


Or does George's right to Self Defense start when George had experienced some certain number of head banging blows on the sidewalk?

Or has George been exaggerating his injuries from Trayvon, and exaggerating his perception of George's fear of risk of further injuries, so that George never had a right to use self-Defense?

If George never had a right to fire a pistol aimed at Trayvon, was George negligent in his participation in the altercation, giving rise to the crime of manslaughter?


//
 
Back
Top Bottom