When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

In some of these cases, they give the jury a choice. Some of the lawyers on television were saying that in cases like this, the prosecutor will often over-charge, then give the jury a choice, and then hope that the jury compromises and finds the person guilty of a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

In some cases, they don't give the jury a choice. It's murder or nothing. I'm sure they will give the jury a choice in this case.

This case aside, the prosecutor ALWAYS over-charges!

I'm starting to think that there must be something in the evidence not yet made public that weighs heavily on the side of this prosecutor. Would make sense, too, and would kind of justify the original conclusion 45 days ago not to arrest Z because the evidence wasn't available then.

This late-emerging evidence, I believe, has to do with either:

1. The gunshot wound that took Trayvon out. Could it possibly have been fired from other than close range? Obviously, that crushes Z's case.

2. The voice analysis on the 911 tapes. Was that Z or Trayvon yelling?

[Rupert Pupkin]

I'm sure you guys are all familiar with the famous Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz. Here is his opinion on the charges filed in the Trayvon Martin case:

“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder."

He goes on to call the arrest affidavit "Irresponsible and unethical". Here is the interview:

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2...unethical.html

Typical that a few libs on the board are praising the prosecutor.

You're f.ucking dumb. Real, real dumb. I feel sorry for Pupkin having to reply to your drivel.

It's akin to trying to teach a chimp how to drive.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

I'm starting to think that there must be something in the evidence not yet made public that weighs heavily on the side of this prosecutor. Would make sense, too, and would kind of justify the original conclusion 45 days ago not to arrest Z because the evidence wasn't available then.

This late-emerging evidence, I believe, has to do with either:

1. The gunshot wound that took Trayvon out. Could it possibly have been fired from other than close range? Obviously, that crushes Z's case.

2. The voice analysis on the 911 tapes. Was that Z or Trayvon yelling?

3. There was a 2nd shooter in the grassy knoll.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

The Affidavit filed for Second Degree Murder charges:

http://apne.ws/Itn7Nu

This prosecutor is well-respected and is considered very tough. I'm sure she brought second-degree murder charges because that's what the evidence proves.

Conclusions like this are why cases should not be tried in the media and ultimately such asinine assumptions taint potential jury pools. It is idiotic to assume that because a prosecutor has charged something that they have the evidence to prove a case, particulary in high profile cases such as this.

There are careers to be made here and I am sure that the special prosecutor is chomping at the bit for her 15 minutes in the limelight.

Originally Posted by Riot

Because juries don't leave their emotions out of it.

This is an incredibly uninformed statement and clearly said by someone who actually spends little or no time in criminal courtrooms. The jury system is the best protection American citizens have. Without it we would be a police state.

You have the stones to criticize others for stepping into what you claim is your expertise, but have no issue stating your uniformed opinions within the expertise of others. The more I read your nonsense (and I try to avoid it as much as possible, but since every other post in this section is yours, it is impossible to avoid), the more it becomes clear to me that hypocrites like you and those that think with your warped logic, like your god Obama, are truly the problem with this country today. People like you are trying to make us a third world country.

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

This case aside, the prosecutor ALWAYS over-charges!

Sadly, this is mostly true in reality. A prosecutor's job is supposed to be to seek justice. The reality is that they take a win at all costs attidute often regardless of the true facts of the case and whether justice is really being served. Some of the burying of exculpatory evidence that I have seen by prosecutors over my almost 20 years of criminal practice is astonishing. But when Judges don't impose strict penalties when it occurs, and more often than not no penalty, and prosecutors have absolute immunity from being sued and being held accountable, it will continue to occur.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by pointman

Conclusions like this are why cases should not be tried in the media and ultimately such asinine assumptions taint potential jury pools. It is idiotic to assume that because a prosecutor has charged something that they have the evidence to prove a case, particulary in high profile cases such as this.

There are careers to be made here and I am sure that the special prosecutor is chomping at the bit for her 15 minutes in the limelight.



This is an incredibly uninformed statement and clearly said by someone who actually spends little or no time in criminal courtrooms. The jury system is the best protection American citizens have. Without it we would be a police state.

You have the stones to criticize others for stepping into what you claim is your expertise, but have no issue stating your uniformed opinions within the expertise of others. The more I read your nonsense (and I try to avoid it as much as possible, but since every other post in this section is yours, it is impossible to avoid), the more it becomes clear to me that hypocrites like you and those that think with your warped logic, like your god Obama, are truly the problem with this country today. People like you are trying to make us a third world country.



Sadly, this is mostly true in reality. A prosecutor's job is supposed to be to seek justice. The reality is that they take a win at all costs attidute often regardless of the true facts of the case and whether justice is really being served. Some of the burying of exculpatory evidence that I have seen by prosecutors over my almost 20 years of criminal practice is astonishing. But when Judges don't impose strict penalties when it occurs, and more often than not no penalty, and prosecutors have absolute immunity from being sued and being held accountable, it will continue to occur.

Do prosecutors sometimes overcharge trying to flush out a plea bargain with some schmo facing a boatload of time? If said schmo didn't bite are they allowed to reduce charges prior to trying in court?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Do prosecutors sometimes overcharge trying to flush out a plea bargain with some schmo facing a boatload of time? If said schmo didn't bite are they allowed to reduce charges prior to trying in court?

probably. and they can instruct juries to consider lesser crimes. hell, the state and the defense attorney can come up with a plea at any time during the proceedings.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by jms62

Do prosecutors sometimes overcharge trying to flush out a plea bargain with some schmo facing a boatload of time? If said schmo didn't bite are they allowed to reduce charges prior to trying in court?

I have seen that happen many times. In New York there is very little discovery prior to trial, and evidence is really shrouded in secrecy. I know that Florida permits more discovery than New York, such as pre-trial depositions which a defendant does not have a right to in New York. There is no more valuable discovery than depositions which give each party equal access to all evidence and actually often avoids trials since everyone knows where they stand and it becomes easier to formulate a just agreement.

A scheme that is often used in New York is to take a policy that any plea bargain that involves a reduction in the charges must be done prior to the prosecutor presenting the case to a Grand Jury. Since a defendant has absolutely no right to discovery in New York prior to being indicted by a Grand Jury, prosecutors often intimate that their case is much stronger than it really is without actually allowing me to see the evidence they have.

They are permitted to reduce (or increase) the level of charges in New York any time prior to trial. And yes, I often get threats that if my client does not take the plea bargain today, they will go for the maximum on charges with suggestions of evidence to back it up only to see them reduce the charges often below the level of the plea bargain offer if my client rejects it.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by pointman

I have seen that happen many times. In New York there is very little discovery prior to trial, and evidence is really shrouded in secrecy. I know that Florida permits more discovery than New York, such as pre-trial depositions which a defendant does not have a right to in New York. There is no more valuable discovery than depositions which give each party equal access to all evidence and actually often avoids trials since everyone knows where they stand and it becomes easier to formulate a just agreement.

A scheme that is often used in New York is to take a policy that any plea bargain that involves a reduction in the charges must be done prior to the prosecutor presenting the case to a Grand Jury. Since a defendant has absolutely no right to discovery in New York prior to being indicted by a Grand Jury, prosecutors often intimate that their case is much stronger than it really is without actually allowing me to see the evidence they have.

They are permitted to reduce (or increase) the level of charges in New York any time prior to trial. And yes, I often get threats that if my client does not take the plea bargain today, they will go for the maximum on charges with suggestions of evidence to back it up only to see them reduce the charges often below the level of the plea bargain offer if my client rejects it.

justice

[Danzig]

i agree with you, point, and with tim-they always go for the maximum they feel they can get. it's what cost the state a successful prosecution of casey anthony, as it was the only charge they sought. had they allowed finding of a lesser charge, i believe she'd have gotten a guilty-perhaps for involuntary manslaughter.
i'm afraid this case has gotten so muddied in the press that a successful prosecution is next to impossible. finding an untainted jury pool will be difficult at best. it's why i mentioned a plea deal-the state ought to seek one, and zimmerman and his attorney might agree that they would all be better served if they can do that. however, at this point zimmerman might feel he can be completely cleared. his lawyer had mentioned a possibility of a plea deal, but said he still had plenty of things to look over before he'd think any further about it.
i'm figuring the family did the right thing in pushing this, as i don't feel the case is a cut and dried deal based on the stand your ground law. however, the same thing that brought about a charge could negate any trial, because the same press who shed light on the case has gone completely overboard with it now.
i read zimmerman is receiving death threats-i always find that appalling. people are outraged over a murder, so they want to commit one. how in the hell does that make sense?

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i agree with you, point, and with tim-they always go for the maximum they feel they can get. it's what cost the state a successful prosecution of casey anthony, as it was the only charge they sought. had they allowed finding of a lesser charge, i believe she'd have gotten a guilty-perhaps for involuntary manslaughter.
i'm afraid this case has gotten so muddied in the press that a successful prosecution is next to impossible. finding an untainted jury pool will be difficult at best. it's why i mentioned a plea deal-the state ought to seek one, and zimmerman and his attorney might agree that they would all be better served if they can do that. however, at this point zimmerman might feel he can be completely cleared. his lawyer had mentioned a possibility of a plea deal, but said he still had plenty of things to look over before he'd think any further about it.
i'm figuring the family did the right thing in pushing this, as i don't feel the case is a cut and dried deal based on the stand your ground law. however, the same thing that brought about a charge could negate any trial, because the same press who shed light on the case has gone completely overboard with it now.
i read zimmerman is receiving death threats-i always find that appalling. people are outraged over a murder, so they want to commit one. how in the hell does that make sense?

I would not want to represent Zimmerman regardless of whether he is guilty of not. I think it would be very difficult for him to get a fair trial with the bloodthirst the media has had for this case. Couple that with the pressure that people like Sharpton and Jackson place on potential jurors and the notion that juries let people walk because of the perception that a few high profile defendants got away with crimes because of dumb juries (most of those whom criticize did not sit in the courtroom and see all the evidence), it seems to me that finding a fair jury pool will be very difficult.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

Conclusions like this are why cases should not be tried in the media and ultimately such asinine assumptions taint potential jury pools.

I've been against trying this case in the media from the start, as you well know, for precisely the reason you stated.

Yeah - it could be that the prosecutor will accept a lesser charge. It could be the prosecutor goes whole hog for a 2nd degree charge. It could be that Zimmerman is found innocent by a jury. It could be the case never gets to trial and a plea is taken.

There are careers to be made here and I am sure that the special prosecutor is chomping at the bit for her 15 minutes in the limelight.

That doesn't seem to go with what the public history about her professionalism has said.

You have the stones to criticize others for stepping into what you claim is your expertise, but have no issue stating your uniformed opinions within the expertise of others.

Get a f.u.c.k.i.n.g. grip. I'm claiming no "expertise" here, I'm talking about it like everyone else.

The more I read your nonsense (and I try to avoid it as much as possible, but since every other post in this section is yours, it is impossible to avoid), the more it becomes clear to me that hypocrites like you and those that think with your warped logic, like your god Obama, are truly the problem with this country today. People like you are trying to make us a third world country.

Oh, poor hate-filled, prejudiced you. "People like you" disgust the majority of us. "People like you" assume what other people are to give yourself justification your hate. "People like you" act like f.u.c.k.i.n.g. spoiled children, unable to tolerate anybody who doesn't think in lockstep with their narrow little minds filled with hate.

You don't like what I post, you don't like my political views, you don't like my opinions, stop throwing out ridiculous accusations about what you imagine I think, and stick your head back up your azz and put me on ignore, rocket scientist. I don't have to suffer your moronic, out-of-nowhere personal attacks. Guess what? Other people don't agree with you. Welcome to f.u.c.k.i.n.g. adulthood. Good luck, you're not dealing with it well.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

I've been against trying this case in the media from the start, as you well know, for precisely the reason you stated.

You claim that you are against trying the case in the media, yet you have jumped on snipits of media reports from one side of the story and formulated opinions calling for the arrest and prosecution of this man based upon those one sided accounts. You clearly have formulated the opinion that he is guilty. Then you question why I call you a hypocrite.

Yeah - it could be that the prosecutor will accept a lesser charge. It could be the prosecutor goes whole hog for a 2nd degree charge. It could be that Zimmerman is found innocent by a jury. It could be the case never gets to trial and a plea is taken.


That doesn't seem to go with what the public history about her professionalism has said.

The limelight makes good people do incredible things. Reputations can be deceiving and garnered from those with a bias towards one side. I'll reserve judgment and form an opinion based upon actions, not reputation.
Get a f.u.c.k.i.n.g. grip. I'm claiming no "expertise" here, I'm talking about it like everyone else.



Oh, poor hate-filled, prejudiced you. "People like you" disgust the majority of us. "People like you" assume what other people are to give yourself justification your hate. "People like you" act like f.u.c.k.i.n.g. spoiled children, unable to tolerate anybody who doesn't think in lockstep with their narrow little minds filled with hate.

You don't like what I post, you don't like my political views, you don't like my opinions, stop throwing out ridiculous accusations about what you imagine I think, and stick your head back up your azz and put me on ignore, rocket scientist. I don't have to suffer your moronic, out-of-nowhere personal attacks. Guess what? Other people don't agree with you. Welcome to f.u.c.k.i.n.g. adulthood. Good luck, you're not dealing with it well.

If you can't see that you are the worst offender of what you accuse me of, neither I or anyone can help you. No one on this board is unable to tolerate dissent from your opinion more than you. I love the accusation of personal attacks through a personal attack. There is no bigger hypocrite on this board than you. I am sorry that I find you and your moronic positions to be what is wrong with this country, but hey, I call it as I see it.

P.S. - I obviously don't know how to quote those sectionally, but my responses to Riots accusations are in red.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

If you can't see that you are the worst offender of what you accuse me of, neither I or anyone can help you. No one on this board is unable to tolerate dissent from your opinion more than you. I love the accusation of personal attacks through a personal attack. There is no bigger hypocrite on this board than you. I am sorry that I find you and your moronic positions to be what is wrong with this country, but hey, I call it as I see it.

YOU are the one who started the personal attack here. You leap from me to your Obama hate to making this a third-world country. Are you prejudiced crazy much? Your little mind whirling with your vivid imaginings of what you assume I must think or mean?

Yeah - I don't take crap personal attacks from idiots like you. Please - stop whining about it when you are confronted for it.

If you can't talk here about the Zimmerman case without personally insulting and attacking other posters, I suggest you go away and sit with the children at the little table.