When "Neighborhood Watch" Gets Out of Hand

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

You would ass-ume wrongly. The prosecutors reputation is exemplary, and is that of getting convictions, of being very tough and accurate. She didn't need a grand jury. I'm sure she's filed those charges, and not 1st degree murder charges, and not manslaughter charges, because she has evidence that readily meets the definition of 2nd degree murder.

If that's what he'll be convicted of, if he's convicted at all, I don't know what the jury will do.

You said that you believe the prosecutor brought those charges "because that is what the evidence proves". If that is what the evidence proves, then why wouldn't you think he will be convicted of those charges?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, they did not ask for bail today. He's in prison now.

There appears to be only three defenses against 2nd degree murder, and self-defense is the only one Zimmerman appears to have. And considering Zimmerman followed and stalked Trayvon, self-defense doesn't look good.

I know that. But he is going to ask for bail well before his next hearing (May 29).

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You said that you believe the prosecutor brought those charges "because that is what the evidence proves". If that is what the evidence proves, then why wouldn't you think he will be convicted of those charges?

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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I know that. But he is going to ask for bail well before his next hearing (May 29).

Ah. Got it. I don't know how they would keep him safe. He certainly can't go out in public.

He's in for a hell of a life, no matter what happens to him.

Did you read the wording in the affidavit of murder charge? Zimmerman "profiled" Trayvon is what was said.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Ah. Got it. I don't know how they would keep him safe. He certainly can't go out in public.

He's in for a hell of a life, no matter what happens to him.

Did you read the wording in the affidavit of murder charge? Zimmerman "profiled" Trayvon is what was said.

"Zimmerman "profiled" Trayvon is what was said."

They can say whatever they want. Saying it doesn't prove it. They need to prove it.

While we're on this subject, I'm going to give you a hypothetical. Let's pretend you spotted me walking in your neighborhood and you didn't recognize me. You thought my body-language looked somewhat suspicious. In addition, let's say that I was black and this made you slightly more suspicious because there had been a recent string of burglaries in your neighborhood committed by black people.

So you call the police and then you follow me. You finally confront me and grab me by the arm. I punch you in the face and knock you to the ground. Then I get on top of you and continue punching you in the face and start banging your head on the cement. Then you pull out a gun and shoot me. Even in that scenario, I don't think 2nd degree murder would be a slam dunk. Even though you followed me and grabbed me by the arm, I still don't think it would be a slam dunk because when you finally shot me it was to save yourself from death or grave bodily harm. You probably couldn't claim self-defense since you grabbed me first.

Granted you would be at fault for starting the whole altercation. But if you had no plans to harm me and only wanted to hold me until the police got there, I think 2nd degree murder would be hard to prove. I think manslaughter would be more likely.

My hypothetical is a much stronger case for the prosecutor than the Zimmerman case because in the Zimmerman case I don't think there is any evidence that Zimmerman started the physical altercation.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin;852144 [b

I don't think there is any evidence that Zimmerman started the physical altercation.[/b]

None of us on-lookers know what evidence the prosecuter has...Filing for 2nd degree hints at something they have in their bag....and maybe it is a ploy to get him to plead out for a lesser charge....??

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

None of us on-lookers know what evidence the prosecuter has...Filing for 2nd degree hints at something they have in their bag....and maybe it is a ploy to get him to plead out for a lesser charge....??

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.

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by bigrun

None of us on-lookers know what evidence the prosecuter has...Filing for 2nd degree hints at something they have in their bag....and maybe it is a ploy to get him to plead out for a lesser charge....??

I doubt it. There would be too much of a public outcry if he was allowed to plead guilty. The state is going to roll the dice and hope the jury comes back with a responsive verdict of manslaughter at worst.

[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]

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?

[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

[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.