patrick.net

I think you providing no links to people who make the same statements as you is not shocking.

Even if the prosecutor chose not to have the statements put into evidence, the defense could have put them into evidence. It is legitimate evidence. A suspect making legal statements to a police officer will never be kept out of court. Attempting to keep that out is the best way to get a mistrial.

You are correct in stating that the state does not get a chance to question GZ about any statements he made prior to the trial. Once again, GZ can give numerous statements to police and choose not to testify. This is done in many trials and no one bats an eye.

The police asked numerous questions in that interview, to which GZ gave plausible answers to.

If you had read the juror instructions, which it appears you did not, you would find that there was a whole section on GZ's statements and GZ not testifying. There is nothing in these statements that made these statements by GZ "factual". Just the opposite, the juror instructions say to weigh these very carefully and use caution. Upon doing so, the jurors found that GZ was telling the truth.

To quote part of it:

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN'S STATEMENTS

A statement claimed to have been made by George Zimmerman outside of court has been placed before you. Such a statement should always be considered with caution and be weighed with great care to make certain it was freely and voluntarily made. Therefore, you must determine from the evidence that George Zimmerman’s alleged statement was knowingly, voluntarily and freely made. In making this determination, you should consider the total circumstances, including but not limited to

1. whether, when George Zimmerman made the statement, he had been threatened in order to get him to make it, and

2. whether anyone had promised him anything in order to get him to make it. If you conclude George Zimmerman’s out of court statement was not freely and voluntarily made, you should disregard it.

robertoaribas says

so in this post you insinuate that black people are too stupid to think for themselves... because they are black I guess.

And yet you are bothered when people point out you are a racist?

I've read your writing on here for over a year. Bap33 for over 2 years. In your thoughts and ideas, it is pretty clear that both of you are very low IQ, and education. So, I'm sure the ironies outlined above will go over both of your stupid heads.

Fort Wayne echoed the comments of Booker T Washington.. I guess that would make Booker also a Racist for speaking the obvious.

"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

Booker T. Washington

foxmannumber1 says

Even if the prosecutor chose not to have the statements put into evidence, the
defense could have put them into evidence. It is legitimate evidence.

Are you fucking serious???????????? WHO has the BURDEN OF PROOF????? The prosecutor or the defense???? You already concluded that the juror referred to those GZ statements, and NOW you want a fucking link???? Could the prosecutor somehow go back in time or through the tv monitor and fucking ask GZ any questions, or cross examine him as to the validity or specifics of those same statements????
So, how could she do that then if he never testified at all, and she was NOT able to ask him ANY questions directly????

Are you really that stinkin' dense?????
Really, stop while you're so behind.

foxmannumber1 says

The police asked numerous questions in that interview, to which GZ gave
plausible answers to.

It's an interview by police, in a police station. He did not give those statement UNDER OATH, but ONLY knowing that those statements MAY be used as evidence against IN A COURT OF LAW!!!!!

And, the prosecutor could not ask him ANY questions, UNDER OATH, in a police station, could she??? As she did not also, right???

upisdown says

for her to allow GZ's statements to be entered into the trial(which would then accept them as wholely factual) and then not have any chance whatsoever to refute ANY part of those statements or the WHOLE of them.

Wait just a minute. Hold your horses...

Is someone here suggesting that Zimmeman's version of the events that night are not facts ?

Wait a minute I'm confused, If we can consider it a fact that a statement was given, then we can also consider everything in the statemtn to be factual as well, right ?

Wait. I'm getting confused. So much thinking hurts my brain. I'm not used to my brain getting this kind of a workout. MAybe I'll rest and come back to this later.

Who knew that sorting out facts from what are not facts could be so difficult?

I think it would be far easier just to take Zimmerman's statement to be exactly what happened. Besides, that's what I would really prefer to believe anyway.

foxmannumber1 says

There is nothing in these statements that made these statements by GZ "factual".

They became "factual" when they were wholely admitted into the trial as evidence.

WHY would she do that when she did have the option to disallow them?????? It only hurt her whole case, while making each and every admitted statement by GZ to be taken as wholely fact .foxmannumber1 says

Upon doing so, the jurors found that GZ was telling the truth.

Was it because the prosecutor let his statements be admitted as a whole which made them considered to be factual evidence, whether they were or not????At that point, both the psoecutor and the defense agreed that they are considered fact.

Who actually knows if they are wholely factual besides GZ, because they never had to withstand ANY questions about their details? You???

marcus says

Wait a minute I'm confused, If we can consider it a fact that a statement was
given, then we can also consider everything in the statemtn to be factual as
well, right ?

No. A statement to be considered evidence in a court of law must have consent from both the prosecutor and the defense. The prosecutor could have disallowed the statements as they(her)the state has the burden of proof to prove.
But when she allowed them, she never would get a chance to cross examine or question him(GZ) if he did not testify, and of course he didn't.
He(GZ) would have been open to her questioning him about each and every statement that he made,(that she idiotically allowed to be admitted)if he chose to testify, and then be UNDER OATH and subject to perjury also.

GZ's lawyer wasn't stupid enough to let him testify and subject himself to questioning. Too bad the prosecutor wasn't half as smart as GZ's defense lawyer

GZ's statement was weighed just like any other piece of evidence. It did not make it "factual". I'm not sure why you keep using that word.

Since the evidence made sense to the jurors in explaining a self defense killing of TM, they found him not guilty.

Those questions with all the ????'s have no coherency.

Once again, you are the only one making these claims. No one with a legal background agrees with you.

upisdown says

The prosecutor could have disallowed the statements as they(her)the state has the burden of proof to prove.

No, the prosecution had to allow GZ's legal statements to police or it would be an instant mistrial. You can't keep statements freely given to police out of court.

foxmannumber1 says

GZ's statement was weighed just like any other piece of evidence. It did not
make it "factual". I'm not sure why you keep using that word.

Did the prosecutor EVER once question GZ? NO
Did she have the option to disallow GZ's statements as evidence? YES
If she DID allow them as evidence, are those statements susceptible to cross examination(by the prosecutor) IF GZ testifies? YES
SO, since GZ did NOT testify, are those statements that the prosecutor ALLOWED admitted as evidence, considered to be on their face, wholely factual? YES, because they weren't subjected to cross examination.
Why weren't they(the statements)subjected to cross examination? Because GZ did NOT testify, therefore the prosecutor could NOT ask him ANY questions(coss examine).

Do you get it yet??????

foxmannumber1 says

No, the prosecution had to allow GZ's legal statements to police or it would
be an instant mistrial. You can't keep statements freely given to police out of
court.

Yes, the prosecutor has that option BECAUSE if GZ does NOT testify at all, the prosecutor NEVER, EVER gets the chance to question GZ about each and every detail of those same statements of his. Also, the prosecutor has the burden of proof to prove, not the defense.

The procedural rules of evidence gives her that option, and specifically for the reason above. GZ could make any claim he wanted in a statement, and then get lockjaw, and never have to answer ANY questions about his words, and considering they were said during an interview and he could stop talking WHENEVER HE wanted, and he would not have to worry about perjury as long as he does NOT testify.

Was TM going to refute what GZ said???? Nope, he's dead.

I still find your position comical and I suspect most people who watch this thread think you're wrong as well.

I can't repeat myself anymore. You're simply wrong. You may now claim victory on this matter.

foxmannumber1 says

can't repeat myself anymore. You're simply wrong. You may now claim victory on
this matter.

That's ok, I pegged you as pretty ignorant a very LONG time ago, along with you yet to prove anything to change my mind of that.

Good riddance.

marcus says

Number three -- and this is a long-term project -- we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys.

that is the task of the black community to get its shit together. it can start by cleaning
"their streets" of gangs if they dont want the police to do it.

marcus says

And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they're a full part of this society and that they've got pathways and avenues to succeed -- I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation. And we're going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.

You can start by scrapping all your failed leaders and start seeing a different way.
But that means no more Jackson, no more Sharpton, no more Obama. You can no longer afford failure sponging off the black community for their own greed.

I get the sense that I'm a man on an island here (it's OK I'm used to it). Apparently no one else things that his age played a role. So be it.

thomaswong.1986 says

Fort Wayne echoed the comments of Booker T Washington.. I guess that would
make Booker also a Racist for speaking the obvious.

I think roberto needs a nap and a hug. Facts and truth make his head hurt or something. They make him see racists at every corner.

Be careful ... 'ol roberto is a self-described hispanic badass judo master. make no fast moves.

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

Apparently no one else things that his age played a role.

I do think that the age of both TM and GZ played a role. TM was young and, to borrow an observation from another thread, in current America young kids get too little time with their parents/elders and maybe too much with contemporaries. Parents warn their kids not to fall in with the wrong crowd, and TM's story illustrates why. Based on Rachael's testimony, she seems to have been really unhelpful on the phone. If TM had been on the phone with his mom, she might have talked him through that situation much better. Rachael played with his mind and brought out fight or flight, both of which were wrong answers; if TM had answered GZ's question (what are you doing here?) and asked GZ the same question, the whole encounter might have ended peacefully. Instead as Robert Sproul wrote two angry young males met on a dark and rainy night, and the rest is history.

Regarding the President's comments, he is right that this whole story occurred in a context, including a history of violence going back more than a century. I do acknowledge that but I think more recent factors, including especially the drug war, have more current effect. It is amazing how the disproportionate sentencing of crack v powder cocaine coincided with HIV to remove many black males, shifting the gender balance and thus making black women more vulnerable and many fathers less accountable. Also Bob2356 pointed out an unintended consequence of Johnson's war on poverty, most black kids are born outside of marriage. These recent forces conspired against TM, a teen who didn't know whom to call for advice, and who got disastrous advice from his contemporary Rachael.

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

Apparently no one else things that his age played a role

Zimmerman was a very irrational person (with a gun) deluded in to thinking that Martin was probably a bad person, an asshole that was getting away, when Martin was in fact a fairly normal kid trying to mind his own business.. The reason for Ziimerman's messed up delusional thinking isn't really that important. In fact it's a distraction.

Straw Man says

What used to be called "punk" passes for "fairly normal kid" now. Isn't it sad?

The Punks (Punk Rockers) we knew back when are all dead.. gone before their time. Died in a dirty ally way from drug overdose or AIDS. None turned normal from what i saw. So the black kids have ended the same way.

marcus says

Zimmerman was a very irrational person (with a gun) deluded in to thinking
that Martin was probably a bad person, an asshole that was getting away, when
Martin was in fact a fairly normal kid trying to mind his own business.. The
reason for Ziimerman's messed up delusional thinking isn't really that
important. In fact it's a distraction.

Yea, the 42 times prior that GZ had called the police about someone "wearing all black", he never got out of the car, and apparently the Neighborhood Watch program frowned upon carrying weapons(obviously for a good reason) but this time he suddenly got some courage because he had his weapon with him.

I think that it's hilarious that all the right wing extremists are defending a child molesting-drug addict, simply because he shot and killed a black kid. I guess hatred has no limits.

upisdown says

Really, "Mirandized"????? "Any statement can and will be used against you",
remember that from watching L A LAw???? To bad that the show couldn't have
taught you some real info.

It's heresay that's not subject to verification/cross examination, and if the
prosecutor were even remotely bright, wouldn't allowed any of his interview
statements to have been entered. You have the right to not incriminate yourself,
but not to advance your theory of defense. That's why the burden of proof is on
the state/prosecutor.

But, it's Florida...............the land of paranoid and lazy boomers. Now
they'll NEVER come out after dark(as if they did anyway).

It seems that at least one (former)prosecutor agrees with me about the statements being heresay.
Did George Zimmerman's prosecutors try to get him off?: Jarvis DeBerry
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2013/07/did_george_zimmermans_prosecut.html

5) Prosecutors played for the jury a television interview that Zimmerman gave to Fox News' Sean Hannity. The defense wouldn't have been permitted to play that tape if they'd asked, he said, "so what's the prosecution playing it for?" Didn't prosecutors play the tape to highlight Zimmerman's inconsistencies? I asked. Those inconsistencies were "microscopic," he said. He said he was taught that "if it hurts your case, let the other guy do it." But in this case, the defense wouldn't have been able to do it because, he said, the tape was clearly hearsay and not subject to cross-examination.

If Martin was overpowering Zimmerman, and Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun, how in hell did Zimmerman shoot Martin?

upisdown says

It seems that at least one (former)prosecutor agrees with me about the statements being heresay.

Another disingenuous comment. We were referring to the police interviews and onsite videotaped re-enactment with police, not the Sean Hannity interview. This article mentions nothing about the validity of the police interviews. Your article also mentions sexist comments about the jury and other things not to do with the facts of the case making it mostly polarizing rhetoric.

Again, there is no way any prosecutor ever will not submit a legally conducted police interview, with both GZ and the investigators making statements and asking questions, into evidence. Those interviews were the best way to show that GZ was lying because physical evidence or an eyewitness would contradict it and that would indicate guilt. However, since GZ was telling the truth, it did nothing of the sort.

upisdown says

She knew that there was a high likelihood that he wouldn't testify, too.

A judge can't disallow evidence because a defendant might not be called.

The horrible logic of your argument is the same as:

1. Police conduct a legal interview with a suspect who admits to committing the crime.
2. The suspects pleads not guilty.
3. The suspect does not take the stand to testify.
4. The prosecutors do not introduce the legally conducted interview into evidence because the suspect does not testify.

Makes no sense. Still, no one agrees with you.

foxmannumber1 says

A judge can't disallow evidence because a defendant might not be called.

The prosecutor can object to the admission of it as evidence, solely based upon the reason that the staements made cannot be questioned at all about anyy of the details.

As some statements derived from police interviews are admitted as evidence, usually it because parts or whole statements are admissions by a defendant as for placing them at a place at a given time, or things along that line. Self admission of certain facts are crucial to prosecutors, and defense lawyers really try to get those admissions excluded/suppressed because of their importance.

An informal term is that it "establishes knowns", in reference to who, when, where, why, etc.foxmannumber1 says

Your article also mentions sexist comments about the jury and other things not
to do with the facts of the case.

I don't remeber any sexist comments, but the issue of one juror making references to riots in Sanford that never actually happened, while being questioned and then not being dismissed is a real head scratcher.

Bottom line about the whole fiasco of wrong charges and the show trial; they never ever wanted to charge GZ, put him on trial or convict him. The whole mess was just an appeasement, because there's way too many scared right wing bigots there that vote consistently, to piss off. If blacks voted as much or as often, it might have been a different story.

upisdown says

The prosecutor can object to the admission of it as evidence, solely based upon the reason that the staements made cannot be questioned at all about anyy of the details.

GZ was on the witness list. He can't object based on a guess he might not testify.

foxmannumber1 says

GZ was on the witness list. He can't object based on a guess he might not
testify.

lol, seriously?? You actually posted that???

foxmannumber1 says

1. Police conduct a legal interview with a suspect who admits to committing
the crime.
2. The suspects pleads not guilty.
3. The suspect does not take
the stand to testify.
4. The prosecutors do not introduce the legally
conducted interview into evidence because the suspect does not testify.

1 And 2 are exact opposites and would progress through the legal system entirely differently. And, with an outright confession, unless it can be disallowed by the defense, there basically is no trial.

Again, your total lack of any knowledge of the trial system is apparent, and hypotheticals doesn't make you any more clever, but creative at best.

1. "I put the gun to his chest, pulled the trigger and the bullet went through him". was said in a legally conducted police interview.
2. Suspect pleads not guilty.
3. Suspect does not take the stand to testify.
4. Prosecution presents evidence that the person died of a gunshot wound, but not the police interview because the suspect does not testify.

Again, makes no sense.

Find the number of legally conducted police interviews that are not put into trial evidence and the number of legally conducted police interviews that are put into trial evidence. Compare those numbers to the total number of police interviews that result in charges being filed leading to a trial. I think you'll find that I'm right far more than you are.

foxmannumber1 says

Find the number of legally conducted police interviews that are not put into
trial evidence and the number of legally conducted police interviews that are
put into trial evidence. Compare those numbers to the total number of police
interviews that result in charges being filed leading to a trial. I think you'll
find that I'm right far more than you are.

You constantly claiming you're right, while never providing ANY proof to even make a reasonable person consider that option, doesn't wash in the real world. Playing dumb isn't working either.

Again, for the umpteenth time that I've posted this, interviews and the statements given in them are NOT given under oath with the possible penalty for perjury. Yes, those statements CAN or MAY be used against him, but it's usually to establish where or when the person was at X.

The prosecutor cannot question ANY part of ANY statements if the suspect(then) does not testify. Do I have to explain that also, or will past episodes of LA LAW teach you that?

A reasonable person would see that it's OK to let his statements given to police be admitted into evidence considering the prosecution thought the interviews would establish GZ's guilt.

You're making a claim of a conspiracy theory, from Angela Corey, the judge, prosecutor and to everyone in between on the state side. The claim is that they all intentionally wanted GZ to be found not guilty.

I don't find that reasonable or factual.

foxmannumber1 says

A reasonable person would see that it's OK to let his statements given to
police be admitted into evidence considering the prosecution thought the
interviews would establish GZ's guilt.

A smart prosecutor won't admit his statements simply because without GZ testifying, the prosecutor never gets the chance to challenge any part of the statement.

foxmannumber1 says

You're making a claim of a conspiracy theory, from Angela Corey, the judge,
prosecutor and to everyone in between on the state side. The claim is that they
all intentionally wanted GZ to be found not guilty.

Let's see, 2 judges and 1 prosecutor recused themselves, and then she chose to skip a grad jury for a capital crime, even though she had that option, and charge him herself. Little to no forensic eveidence because the crime scene wasn't secured. Botched autopsy by a political appointee/crony. Gee, what could go wrong???

And, GZ's defense attys had given political money to the judge and she was OK with that, didn't bat an eye over it.

She should have charged GZ with a lesser crime solely because there was absolutely no forethought/premeditation to his actions. I don't know Florida's specific satute on that, but am pretty certain that's an element or qualifier for that charge. A bottom of the class, state-school law grad would even know that.

All that talk sounds like they didn't have a case to begin with.

Possible botched crime scene evidence, police interview with triggerman supporting a self defense claim, no grand jury, special prosecutor from outside Sanford. Makes you wonder why they did anything at all.

Could it have been political pressure from disgruntled minorities and threats of violence from an easily agitated race that brought this case to trial instead of evidence?

foxmannumber1 says

All that talk sounds like they didn't have a case to begin with.

Possible botched crime scene evidence, police interview with triggerman
supporting a self defense claim, no grand jury, special prosecutor from outside
Sanford. Makes you wonder why they did anything at all.

Could it have been political pressure from disgruntled minorities and threats
of violence from an easily agitated race that brought this case to trial instead
of evidence?

Duh, and it was an appeasement to the angry crowd. She knew that he would walk on those charges, and also that the lack of evidence and police work were going to make a conviction of a lesser charge hard, but possible. There's way to many paranoid and bigoted right wing boomers that vote in every election that she was afraid of. Black voter turnout is usually low, especially in the lower economic groups.

The pathetic actions and lack of work by the police is what I thought was disgusting. If TM was white, their actions would have been different. A unarmed, dead 17 year old should raise a lot of questions and demand answers. BS answers by GZ without verifying/challenging every detail of them, isn't how a society governed by the rule of law works.

Another rule of law is don't punch people in the face. If you choose to punch people in the face, don't get on top of them to beat them some more and prevent their escape.

In doing so, you may find that the person you're beating and preventing retreat will defend themselves with deadly force.

foxmannumber1 says

Another rule of law is don't punch people in the face. If you choose to punch
people in the face, don't get on top of them to beat them some more and prevent
their escape.

Well, that's one side of the story, and unfortunately the only side anybody will ever hear, because the other person is dead.
So, what do you think prompted TM to supposedly punch GZ then? And how is it that GZ was close enough to supposedly be punched, and then supposedly be on the bottom of the two?

TM's love for fighting("he didn't bleed enough, only the nose" after a 3 round fight) and GZ being a single pudgy male who was paying attention to TM. Paying attention to blacks is 'disrespecting" them. For TM to gain back his respect, he would have to hurt GZ. TM was also about to get high considering his 7-11 acquisitions. Any interaction with someone else could prevent that from happening.

TM hid behind the 3' tall hedge bushes along every townhouse in the dark/rain. GZ probably got within 10-15 feet of TM before he knew it.

GZ immediately went to the bottom, as he went down from the sucker punch to the nose.

foxmannumber1 says

For TM to gain back his respect, he would have to hurt GZ. TM was also about to
get high considering his 7-11 acquisitions. Any interaction with someone else
could prevent that from happening.

lol, yea that's some creative culture intrepretation, too bad it doesn't make any sense or even better, is that it's true.

foxmannumber1 says

TM was also about to get high considering his 7-11 acquisitions.

Again, more pulling of some really ludicrous and unfounded thoughts from your ass.

foxmannumber1 says

TM hid behind the 3' tall hedge bushes along every townhouse in the
dark/rain. GZ probably got within 10-15 feet of TM before he knew it.

GZ immediately went to the bottom, as he went down from the sucker punch to
the nose.

Well this much isn't in question, because GZ even admitted as such. He(GZ) got out of his car and followed TM, for whatever reason, as TM was walking away. Then, for whatever reason and how, GZ is obviously close enough to supposedly be struck by TM, which had reason to be startled/scared considering he was being stalked/followed.

The rest is mostly BS-cover-your-ass stuff by GZ to keep from going to prison for the rest of his life. A normal and thorough police investigation would have probably led to a different recomendation and charges, along with a conviction. Not only were most of the LE officers involved lazy, inexperienced-incompetent, but some of their statements never really showed any expediency or steadfast efforts on their part. The lazy morons didn't even bother to try and identify TM other than field fp samples, and only figured out(accidentally) who he was when his dad filed a missing person report.

Apparently a really shitty canvas of the area was done. That's after they didn't even secure the whole scene for evidence, and then only did that well after the incident and after the fact.

Pathetic at best, and the chief was to take the fall for some lazy and worthless officers, considering that he'd only been there a year. There were something like 400 calls in the area for the previous year prior to the incident, and yet they PD seemed as though they were ho-hum about the incident and following investigation.

upisdown says

lol, yea that's some creative culture intrepretation, too bad it doesn't make any sense or even better, is that it's true.

Black violence rarely makes sense to normal white people. Spend some time with teenage blacks at TM's high school and you'll see this irrational and violent behavior all the time.

What evidence do you think the police would have got from a more thorough canvas of the area? More rounds GZ fired? The blunt TM bought from the 3 guys at 7-11? TM's weed/cough medicine? Blood from GZ when he bashed his own front and rear head to create a self defense claim?

foxmannumber1 says

Black violence rarely makes sense to normal white people. Spend some time
with teenage blacks at TM's high school and you'll see this irrational and
violent behavior all the time.

100% right. And no civil free society can allow this behavior to become "acceptable". (kinda the same way public acts of erotic behavior between male sodmites is shunned in all good cultures)

foxmannumber1 says

Black violence rarely makes sense to normal white people. Spend some time
with teenage blacks at TM's high school and you'll see this irrational and
violent behavior all the time.

What evidence do you think the police would have got from a more thorough
canvas of the area? More rounds GZ fired? The blunt TM bought from the 3 guys at
7-11? TM's weed/cough medicine? Blood from GZ when he bashed his own front and
rear head to create a self defense claim?

lol, do you just make that shit up as you go? You no more know what black youth/teens do than Ted Nugent, as you've never lived in the hood, and sure as hell never been in it after dark.

You know how I know that? Because EVERY damned discription that you give about blacks or what they do, is straight from some white-right wing soundbite. Practically everthing that you've posted is pure BS when it comes to the habits/culture of blacks.

That's why it's so disgustingly funny but yet pathetic, because you don't even know what you don't even know.