Soxbadger

This thread is all over the place. I am not sure what happened after the shooting (ie the media) is relevant to this case. Obviously the position taken by the defense will be that the relevance is that but for media outrage there never would have been any charges. But the idea of Zimmerman's fear, that really does nothing but try and make Zimmerman out to be someone who is weak and cant protect themselves (subliminal message that Zimmerman had to use deadly force against Martin because Zimmerman is so mentally/physically weak that he fears everything.) That being said, objections in opening and closing are very rare, usually they are just to try and disrupt the other side. Now onto the evidence arguments. We have no idea what the prosecutor has or doesnt have. Some attorneys like to sandbag their case, others like to use the best evidence as leverage, it is impossible to tell what the strategy is here. Trying to reason based on what the first prosecutor did is meaningless. The first prosecutor didnt prosecute because they were worried about their conviction rate. Zimmerman was not a great defendant to prosecute, his father is a judge, which means he likely would get an attorney, he likely will not quickly plea or say something stupid. As for a plea? I would consider it unlikely. There is just no way they are going to be able to knock those charges down low enough where Zimmerman wouldnt have to spend time in jail. I cant see him agreeing to that, so Im guessing it goes to trial. There just are never going to be good facts in a case where there are 2 witnesses and 1 of them is dead and the other is the killer. That being said, unless there is something that really proves Zimmerman was in life threatening danger, he really is fighting an up hill battle. Even if Martin had any weapon it would have been an easier defense, but when you have an unarmed 17 year old, it just is hard to say you had to shoot him to save your life, especially when you didnt suffer any severe injuries (severe being subjective.)

lol No state is going to refuse to transfer a criminal back to their home state.

Rex, Crean has a terrible reputation in Wisconsin for over-signing. My guess is that on the recruitment trail someone told his family about his love of oversigning and they didnt want to feel their sons commitment caused another player to lose his spot. http://oversigning.com/testing/index.php/2...more-1419\ http://kentsterling.com/2010/08/24/indiana...rivals-5-stars/ I dont know if that will play well in the Indiana High Schools. At Marquette he basically would get 1 recruit from Wisconsin a year, at Indiana he seemingly is going to get multiple in state. You have to believe the Creaning of players is going to eventually ruin some relationships.

I understand how the game is played. Which is why I could never understand what the first prosecutor did.

So from one extreme to another. No charges by 1 prosecutor, basically the highest possible charge from another (I cant really imagine Murder 1 was even considered).

I was saying that before Lebron went to Miami. Its just not a good match and why most people assumed Lebron would not go there.

Floyd could be available at the Bears pick, so you definitely can use a 2nd to trade up for him.

Yeah Ive read that its likely, but why hang my hat on likely, might as well wait and see.

Im just going to wait and see what happens at this point, if the Prosecutor charges him, yay I was right, if they dont charge, boo hiss I was wrong. It happens.

And I dont think you need to have a "slam dunk" to prosecute, you just need to have enough evidence that there is a good chance the person is guilty. A good chance should result in about a 50% conviction rate, nothing like the rate the Prosecutors get. Prosecutors only take sure bets, Id have no problem taking this case to the mat right now. Unarmed victim, shot on the street, not near the shooters home. I dont even need any other facts, the only question is going to be jury selection. Bad jury I lose, good jury I win. But I dont win 99% of my cases either, if they dont settle, that means that there is generally a legitimate question of fact. But do I quit? Do I tell my client, "Well sir, I may lose so Im not going to take this case because its difficult." No, I take the case and I do my best, and sometimes I win cases I shouldnt, sometimes I lose cases I should have won, but that is the system. Anyone who has tried a case or even argued a motion, knows that there is always a slight chance you will lose and you cant let that small chance dissuade you for going for it. What the Prosecutor does, and what should be done, are 2 entirely different things. I disagree if the police send me an affidavit asking that I press charges, I am going to press charges. The police wanted this prosecuted... Lets look at the facts, which are clearly available, instead of relying on the ever insightful, "Throwing s*** against the wall" remark. You do realize, that in basically every criminal thread, I have supported the Defendant, Bonds, Blago, and the list goes on, this is the 1 time, Im saying that something is wrong. So dont try and make some grandiose statement, about how you think I want arrests to work, because obviously you have not read a single post of mine on these boards. http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/28/sanfo...arge-zimmerman/ Now lets look at the facts. You have a police officer who signs an affidavit stating that he does not believe Zimmerman. Does the Prosecutor reconsider? Does the Prosecutor want to file charges so that they can perhaps interrogate Zimmerman, maybe ask him some questions to try and determine if he is lying. You have other evidence, a 911 call where the operator specifically instructed Zimmerman not to follow. Is that not enough? What do they need to press charges? A witness who saw the whole thing? The police who interviewed Zimmerman (unlike the Prosecutor who likely never has even spoken to him), did not believe Zimmerman. If you are the only witness to a killing that you committed and you are not "believable", what else do they need? Its basically saying that if they walk into my apartment and there is a dead body, if I say "It was self defense" they cant charge me, even if they think Im lying. What type of a f***ed up world is that, seriously? What more evidence could they have? You have the murder weapon, you have a confession and you have a liar. That is means and opportunity, add in all of the 911 calls, now you got motive "Police dont do anything, Zimmerman was going to take the law into his own hands." If that is not good enough evidence, then no one should ever be charged with a crime. "Officer that wasnt my marijuana, I dont know how that got in my backpack." There isnt any solid evidence that didnt happen, so they cant charge me, right? They found the bag in my car, but they cant prove I put it in there, although they believe im lying. No charges, agree? (edit) No, my argument is that there is so much evidence to suggest charging him with a crime, that its absurd when you consider how many truly nonsensical crimes are prosecuted.

No it absolutely cures it. The reason they dont want to arrest is because of the section I removed. I dont want to presume anything. I want it treated the same way any other shooting would be treated. If an unarmed person is shot and they are not in the act of committing a felony, its hard to argue that there isnt enough for any crime, ANY CRIME. Where am I saying murder? What about assault with a deadly weapon, what about a million other crimes that could be charged? People are arrested for nonsense every day, sometimes it isnt even the right person. No one is saying that the charges cant be dropped, but the simple fact is, there are 0 charges. Its just so absurdly unusual to have an unarmed dead man who wasnt committing a crime, and have 0 charges pending. Dont they even have something like unlawful discharge of a firearm? I mean really, no charges.

The grand jury may not mean anything, you dont need to go to a grand jury to file charges.

Just because I hate this line of argument: (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. turns into (2) A law enforcement agency must use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1). (rest of section removed) And done.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 10, 2012 -> 04:00 PM) Actually part of our system is the prosecutor can't just charge people and let juries sort it out. We have demanded that prosecutors be more careful than that. It is a waste of taxpayer money and clogs our courts. And I am not specifically stating that applies to this case, just to the idea that prosecutors should prosecute first and ask questions later. Thats not what I mean. Prosecutors want to have a conviction rate north of 95%. They basically take no risks. That isnt justice, thats putting your career first. With Zimmerman, they know he wont plea, thus they have to go to trial. At trial (if its a jury) conviction rate goes down to about 75%. This is a no win position. If you win, you did what you were supposed to, if you lose, its a failure.

No one is asking that the legal system be changed, what people are asking is what is generally considered the "normal" procedure be followed. Plenty of people have been charged with crimes and then acquitted. Not many people have admitted to killing an unarmed person when they werent in their house, and gone without being charged. Ultimately, Zimmerman may very well be innocent. But that decision should be made by a jury, not by a Prosecutor who is concerned about their conviction ratio.

Lil Wayne, Drop the World or if we are going classics, Method Man and Red Man, Da Rockwilder

Yeah I wanted to see it for myself. Unfortunately my guess is he exceeded his bandwith, so hell either have to get some funds, or Ill try it on May 1st.

Site is already down. My guess it has been overwhelmed by people trying to see it.

Not a legacy, his dad is the coach at the HS and I think Wisconsin was one of the first schools to offer. Im pretty sure when Wisconsin offered he was a 3/4*, but that was mainly because he was at a small school. Once he started getting press, his stock has risen exponentially.

Wisconsin adds Sam Dekker next year, supposedly the most talented player Wisconsin has ever gotten.

Okay first of all, anything can be dangerous. But, I strongly believe in the 1st Amendment, and the right of people to have opinions, regardless of how uninformed or stupid they may be. So, if you are at all suggesting that the news or media should censor themselves, I disagree. I disagree when it comes to both sides, Fox News can say their nonsense, MSNBC can say their nonsense, Al-Jazeera can say their nonsense. So, if you want to censor all news, if you want to make society "safe" by not reporting or giving opinions on delicate issues, count me out. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Now onto the facts of the actual article. This had nothing to do with news media or any hysteria put forth by the media. It simply is a case of misinterpretation. The victim claims he said to remember Martin, because he the victim was identifying with Martin, and he wanted the attackers to think about themselves as a Zimmerman. The attackers claim that the statement remember Martin was a threat by the victim, that if they didnt watch themselves, they would suffer the same fate as Martin. The end result, people are likely going to get convicted for assault and battery. But lets stop the "dangerous rhetoric" nonsense, sensationalism sells newspapers, thats the bottom line on both sides.

Did you not read the part where it said the guy who was attacked told them to "Remember Trayvon"? And thus the fact that they were yelling about it wasnt completely random, but it was actually because the victim made reference to it? Lets say Im walking down the street and some guy says to me: "Remember Anne Frank" If, I decide to assault and batter him over it, it is possible in my rage Im going to call him a Nazi and say this is for the Jews. When I read your posts I wonder if you are playing Tarzan on Survivor, just pretending to be obtuse for the fun of it, or if you actually believe what you write. I just can never decide.

And that is why reasonable people have to come to reasonable agreements. For example, while I may think it would be best if every gun was confiscated and destroyed, I do understand that there is no way to completely stop criminal activity. Thus we have to be honest and admit that criminals will likely have weapons. Due to that, it seems reasonable to allow people to have weapons on their property. But that in my opinion is where the reasonableness of allowing guns ends. Now, I could potentially be persuaded on carrying weapons in public, but, there would need to be training associated with that. There would need to be extremely strict laws, with almost no benefit of the doubt being given to the use of deadly force. Drugs are different. They for the most part only harm the individual taking them, it makes no sense to restrict that, it makes sense to increase criminal penalties for crimes committed while intoxicated.

Hunting? You can hunt with a bow and arrow, and Im also not very keen on killing animals for sport.

The laws are meant to restrict everyone not just criminals. Gun control isnt just about criminals, its about kids who get their hands on their parents guns and shoot themselves accidentally, its about untrained civilians using weapons on the street and harming another innocent, its about whether as a society guns are necessary to protect ourselves from common criminals. Some of us have a fundamental difference of opinion on guns and society. I do not read the 2nd Amendment the same way it is currently interpreted, but, that does not change my core belief.