Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Let Me Explain Why I Don’t Think The Zimmerman Case Is Merely A Distraction
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.rightwingnews.com/column ... -case-is-merely-a-distraction/
Published: Jul 20, 2013
Author: Jaz McKay
Post Date: 2013-07-20 23:58:43 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 63979
Comments: 95
Those of you who think the Zimmerman case is a distraction are wrong. Dead wrong. It’s all a part of the plan, the agenda and has been so from day one.
Obama knew, Holder knew, they all know there was no case. They knew that there wouldn’t be a conviction. That was all a part of their plan.
Obama’s DoJ sends a bunch of rabble rousers to Sanford, Florida in March of 2012 to stoke the flames of a small local story in an attempt to stir up the useful idiots of the black community to take to the streets to demand that Zimmerman be arrested and tried for murder.
There were no grounds for an arrest let alone a trial. The DoJ staged march’s, rally’s and townhall meetings to further the Obama agenda that America is a racist nation that would not even seek justice for the shooting of a poor little black baby boy by an evil, gun toting white man. (Who happened to be half Hispanic.)
Then the pressure is on the DA and local police. When the Chief of police refuses to arrest Zimmerman what happens? The operatives of the Obama DoJ pressure the city to fire Bill Lee. They fold and they do just that. With a new police chief in place, and an Obama selected State Attorney to call for a special prosecutor the case then moves forward.
All along they knew they had no case. They knew they would loose. They knew that Zimmerman would walk but that was OK. That didn’t matter; in fact that was what they wanted. Because if Zimmerman had been convicted how could they then tell the idiots that justice was not equal for a young black child? How could they advance the agenda of a racist America if it appeared that justice had prevailed and the evil white – Hispanic killer was going to jail?
So when Zimmerman is acquitted this works perfectly into the hands of Obama and his Alinsky style followers. This way he can decry to the masses as he did Friday afternoon that the system just didn’t work. That it’s now legal to shoot young black babies in the streets of America.
Oh I know he said “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works.” But what was he really saying? “The jury has spoken and that is how our system works. But maybe we need to change that system.” That is what he meant, and that’s what the useful idiots heard. Believe you me.
So Friday Obama takes to the stage to further fan the flames of hatred and division in America by declaring that this was a case based solely on racial profiling and a racist system of justice. Not to mention the “stand your ground law” and CCW permit holders.
I’m telling you that this is a very important story! Not a red herring to distract you away from the IRS, NSA or Benghazi scandals. No this case is equally as important as all of those. In fact this is just the latest in a LONG list of scandals involving Obama.
The most dangerous man in America. (1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-55) not displayed.
.
.
.
It doesn't point to Zimmerman being guilty of anything.
It provides the elements of manslaughter. Self defense is not an element of the crime. It is an affirmative defense.
#57. To: A K A Stone (#55)
It is up to the jury to decide what is relevant per John Jay.
That is absolutely incorrect. The jury is the trier of fact. The court says what the law is. It is a court determination of what is, or is not, relevant evidence. Irrelevant evidence is excluded.
#58. To: A K A Stone (#50)
The burden of going forward with a case varies in different jurisdictions.
Note for Stone. FYI, Ohio follows the common law rule that the defense must prove self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The case decided in the U.S. Supreme Court is Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228 (1987)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#54)
They had to get a special prosecutor. Is that even legal.
Yes.
#60. To: A K A Stone (#53)
That is evidence that Trayvon Martin was shot. It doesn't point to Zimmerman being guilty of anything. When you take into account the events and evidence of that night. Everyone knew it before the juries verdict. They just pointed out the obvious.
After the prosecution rested, the defense moved for dismissal. That was rejected. The judge found sufficient evidence had been presented in the case to continue to a jury verdict.
George Zimmerman Judge Rejects Motion to Dismiss the Case
By SENI TIENABESO (@seniABC) and MATT GUTMAN (@mattgutmanABC)
SANFORD, Fla. July 5, 2013
[excerpt]
The prosecution rested their second-degree murder case against George Zimmerman today and his legal team immediately asked the judge throw out all charges, arguing that the state had failed to present evidence he murdered Trayvon Martin.The judge swiftly rejected the argument, but not before both sides made emotional legal arguments that are usually reserved for summations at the end of a trial.
In an impassioned plea, Zimmerman's defense attorney Mark O'Mara stated that the state did not produce direct or circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman acted with "ill-will or spite," the Florida requirements for second degree murder.
"There is not a scintilla of evidence to support that," O'Mara said referring to the implication that Zimmerman acted out of "ill will and spite."
#61. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone (#57)
The jury is the trier of fact. The court says what the law is. It is a court determination of what is, or is not, relevant evidence
The jury makes an independent judgement based on whatever they want, the facts, law, indigestion, the prosecutor is an ahole (think Rudy Guilani), or whatever.
They're perfectly free to judge whether the law is fair or constitutional, regardless of what the judge's spin is. Jury nullification of bad law has long been popular, especially during prohibition when speakeasy's and moonshiners were frequently deemed not guilty.
As a president once said of a supreme court decision..."They've made their decision, now let them enforce it". The decision was ignored. The people are the top tier of government, not elected or appointed gov officials. They're our servants, not our masters.
The D&R crime family hates us because we're free
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#62. To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#61)
The jury makes an independent judgement based on whatever they want, the facts, law, indigestion, the prosecutor is an ahole (think Rudy Guilani), or whatever.
When the judge upholds an objection on the grounds of irrelevance, the evidence does not come in and the jury does not hear it or see it. On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record. I know, they can't unring the bell.
If the irrelevant evidence is brought in after an instruction to attorneys that it is excluded, that could result in sanctions or a mistrial.
Once the case is given to the jury, they can do as they please. They only have to return their decision and need not tell anyone how they decided it. Jury nullification is a solution to bad law.
#63. To: nolu chan (#62)
t. On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record. I know, they can't unring the bell.
I would laugh at that instruction and ignore the judge.
#64. To: nolu chan (#62)
On those occasions where the jury hears improper testimony, such as the lead detective saying he believed Zimmerman's story, the judge instructs the jury to disregard the answer and strikes it from the record.
Perhaps you'd care to explain why having the lead investigator saying he believed the defendant's story should be considered 'improper' testimony.
#65. To: Thunderbird (#64)
Perhaps you'd care to explain why having the lead investigator saying he believed the defendant's story should be considered 'improper' testimony.
Judge Nelson did that when she struck the comment from the record and instructed the jury to ignore it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bennett-l-gershman/instructing-zimmerman-jur_b_3546640.html
During his cross-examination of Officer Chris Serino last Monday, Mark O'Mara, George Zimmerman's lawyer, asked Serino a highly improper question. After establishing that there were no significant discrepancies between Zimmerman's description of his encounter with Trayvon Martin and the physical evidence and statements from neighbors, O'Mara asked Serino: "Do you think he was telling the truth?" Without any objection from the prosecution, Serino answered "Yes." The judge then recessed for the day.The following morning, after hearing arguments from the prosecution, the judge instructed the jury to ignore Serino's comment that he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth. The judge's instruction to the jury to disregard Serino's comment was clearly correct. It is a well-established rule of courtroom testimony that a witness is forbidden from commenting on the credibility of another witness, or as in this case, the credibility of Zimmerman. It is the exclusive function of the jury to make determinations of credibility, and a lawyer subverts this principle when he or she invites a witness to endorse the credibility of someone else. Indeed, convictions in child sexual abuse, domestic violence, rape, and drug prosecutions have been reversed when prosecutors asked experts to give opinions that validate a victim's or a witness's truthfulness, or even assert that a victim has in fact been abused.
SANFORD, Fla. -Judge Debra S. Nelson on Tuesday ruled that the opinion-based testimony from the lead police investigator in the death of Trayvon Martin should be stricken from court records.
[...]
Ultimately, Nelson sided with the state, telling the jury, "That was an improper comment as to truth of veracity of another witness. You are asked to disregard question and answer."
#66. To: A K A Stone (#63)
I would laugh at that instruction and ignore the judge.
On the law, the judge was correct. The solicitation of the comment, and the comment, are clearly disallowed.
#67. To: nolu chan (#65)
Lol..this is a great bit of courtroom questioning by the defense, obviously meant to lead to an objection from the prosecution. When they didn't object, and even though O'Mara was clearly waiting for them to do so, the judge adjourns for the day.
#68. To: nolu chan (#66)
On the law, the judge was correct.
No. I will take John Jay over the welfare recipient student aid judge.
#69. To: nolu chan (#66)
Lets cut to the chase. Bottom line.
All the evidence you laid out here. Does it prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
#70. To: A K A Stone (#68)
I will take John Jay over the welfare recipient student aid judge.
I can quote the judge. You can only parrot the name John Jay.
#71. To: A K A Stone (#69)
All the evidence you laid out here. Does it prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
The jury obviously found that the Zimmerman claim of self-defense was not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt after Zimmerman met his initial burden under Florida self-defense law.
There was enough to proceed to trial and to give the case to the jury. The court so ruled.
#72. To: nolu chan (#70)
You can only parrot the name John Jay.
It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
#73. To: nolu chan (#71)
The court so ruled.
Courts are corrupt. They rule incorrectly all the time. So just the fact that they rule a certain way doesn't mean it was the correct ruling.
Here is what I was trying to get. Your opinion.
You seem to not give your opinion very often. You quote laws and stuff like that, which you are quite good at.
If you were on the jury. Knowing what you know. Would you have found Zimmerman guilty? You seem to be trying to make the case that he is in fact guilty and the jury got it wrong. You obviously accept the juries decision.
#74. To: nolu chan (#71)
The jury obviously found that the Zimmerman claim of self-defense was not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt after Zimmerman met his initial burden under Florida self-defense law.
Lol..the "burden" was on the prosecution to disprove self defense, not the other way around. Even if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, he would have had the lawful right to use deadly force once fight reached a certain level of intensity.
#75. To: nolu chan (#71)
There was enough to proceed to trial and to give the case to the jury.
Nonsense. Have you read the probable cause affidavit for this case?
A poorly constructed pack of lies, bound together with prosecutorial malfeasance and rubber stamped by a corrupt judge.
#76. To: A K A Stone (#73)
You seem to be trying to make the case that he is in fact guilty and the jury got it wrong. You obviously accept the juries decision.
I am only trying to state the fact that there was enough to give the case to the jury and let them decide on the issue of self-defense. Zimmerman said he reasonably feared for his life. I do not believe him. That is not to say that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the assertion was false. That was the judgment call that the jury had to make after hearing all the evidence.
#77. To: A K A Stone (#72)
t is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision.....you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. Chief Justice John Jay, Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794
The cited Jay comment was not a court opinion but reportedly a comment in a charge to a civil case jury in 1794. The U.S. Supreme Court dispatched Jay's comment into retirement in 1895. These days judge's may and do prohibit attorneys from arguing jury nullification and, upon learning of a juror intent to nullify, can remove such juror for good cause before the verdict.
From the final instructions to the Zimmerman jury:
You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case.
U.S. v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606 (2d Cir. 1997)
Paragraph 24:
To determine whether the court erred in dismissing Juror No. 5, we must first decide whether the district court's primary basis for the dismissal--the juror's intention to disregard the applicable criminal laws--constitutes "just cause" for his removal under Rule 23(b). In holding that a presiding judge has a duty to dismiss a juror who purposefully disregards the court's instructions on the law, we briefly review the factors that courts have traditionally considered to be "just cause" for dismissal pursuant to Rule 23(b), and discuss the dangers inherent in so-called "nullification." Having concluded that a deliberating juror's intent to nullify constitutes "just cause" for dismissal, we next consider whether the district court in this case had a sufficient evidentiary basis for concluding that Juror No. 5 was purposefully disregarding the court's instructions on the law.
Sparf and Hansen v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895)
Syllabus[...]
In the courts of the United States, it is the duty of the jury, in criminal cases, to receive the law from the court, and to apply it as given by the court, subject to the condition that, by a general verdict, a jury of necessity determines both law and fact as compounded in the issue submitted to them in the particular case.
[...]
156 U.S. 52
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
[...]
156 U. S. 64
The general question as to the duty of the jury to receive the law from the court is not concluded by any direct decision of this Court. But it has been often considered by other courts and by judges of high authority, and, where its determination has not been controlled by specific constitutional or statutory provisions expressly empowering the jury to determine both law and facts, the principle by which courts and juries are to be guided in the exercise of their respective functions has become firmly established. If this be true, this Court should not announce a different rule unless impelled to do so by reasons so cogent and controlling that they cannot properly be overlooked or disregarded. Some of the members of this Court, after much consideration, and upon an extended review of the authorities, are of opinion that the conclusion reached by this Court is erroneous both upon principle and authority. For this reason, and because the question is of great importance in the administration of justice, and also involves human life, we deem it appropriate to state with more fullness than under other circumstances would be necessary the grounds upon which our judgment will rest, looking first to cases determined in the courts of the United States.
In Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 Dall. 1, 3 U. S. 4, a case in this Court tried by a special jury upon an amicable issue, Chief Justice Jay is reported to have said:
"It may not be amiss here, gentlemen, to remind you of the good old rule that on questions of fact, it is the province of the jury, on questions of law it is the province of the court, to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law which recognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have, nevertheless, a right to take
Page 156 U. S. 65
upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy. On this and on every other occasion, however, we have no doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion of the court, for as on the one hand it is presumed that juries are best judges of facts, it is, on the other hand, presumable that the courts are the best judges of the law. But still both objects are lawfully within your power of decision."
Of the correctness of this report, Mr. Justice Curtis in United States v. Morris, 1 Curtis 23, 58, expressed much doubt, for the reason that the Chief Justice is reported as saying that, in civil cases -- and that was a civil case -- the jury had the right to decide the law, and because also the different parts of the charge conflict with each other, the Chief Justice, according to the report, saying at the outset that it is the province of the jury to decide questions of fact, and of the court to decide questions of law, and in the succeeding sentence informing the jury that they had the right to take upon themselves the determination of both law and fact. If the Chief Justice said that it was the province of the court to decide questions of law, and the province of the jury to decide questions of fact, he could not have said that the jury had the right, in a civil case, to judge of and determine both law and fact. "The whole case," Mr. Justice Curtis said,
"was an anomaly. It purports to be a trial by jury in the Supreme Court of the United States of certain issues out of chancery, and the Chief Justice begins by telling the jury that the facts are all agreed, and the only question is a matter of law, and upon that the whole court were agreed. If it be correctly reported, I can only say it is not in accordance with the views of any other court, so far as I know, in this country or in England, and is certainly not in accordance with the course of the Supreme Court for many years."
#78. To: Thunderbird (#75)
Nonsense. Have you read the probable cause affidavit for this case?
That's an affidavit of probable cause. Get over it.
#79. To: Thunderbird (#74)
[nc] The jury obviously found that the Zimmerman claim of self-defense was not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt after Zimmerman met his initial burden under Florida self-defense law.[Thunderbird] Lol..the "burden" was on the prosecution to disprove self defense, not the other way around.
There was no such burden on the prosecution regarding self-defense before Zimmerman met his initial burden re self-defense. My statement was correct as stated. Lol.
[Thunderbird] Even if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, he would have had the lawful right to use deadly force once fight reached a certain level of intensity.
That would depend if fearful George had his weapon drawn when he went down the dark alley to find and possibly confront the scary suspect. If George was mounted and Trayvon was holding his head down, it is difficult to explain just how George unholstered his weapon. It was claimed by the prosecution to be impossible to have happened as described. No explanation was offered by the defense. It just "happened."
#80. To: A K A Stone (#73)
Courts are corrupt. They rule incorrectly all the time. So just the fact that they rule a certain way doesn't mean it was the correct ruling.
That's why they have appellate courts.
#81. To: nolu chan (#78)
That's an affidavit of probable cause. Get over it.
Lol..no you get over it, you fucking twit.
The PCA is supposed to be the whole truth, not a pack of lies, withheld evidence, and malicious supposition.
#82. To: nolu chan (#79)
No explanation was offered by the defense.
The defense provided a use of force expert to explain how it could have happened, and the prosecution had ample opportunity to cross examine the expert.
Did you even follow the trial or are you just pulling this stuff out of your backside?
#83. To: nolu chan (#76)
I am only trying to state the fact that there was enough to give the case to the jury and let them decide on the issue of self-defense.
Enough what? Bullshit?
No evidence of mens rea was presented by the prosecution.
Prosecution witnesses provided evidence of self defense.
The prosecution presented no physical evidence that disputed Zimmerman's claim.
The prosecution went to extraordinary lengths to hide exculpatory evidence from the court and from the jury.
Pfft.
#84. To: Thunderbird (#83)
No evidence of mens rea was presented by the prosecution.
Mens rea was not a required element for conviction.
#85. To: Thunderbird (#82)
The defense provided a use of force expert to explain how it could have happened, and the prosecution had ample opportunity to cross examine the expert.Did you even follow the trial or are you just pulling this stuff out of your backside?
I watched that. He offered no explanation of how Zimmerman got the gun. You are invited to quote the testimony of force expert Dennis Root.
#86. To: Thunderbird (#81)
The PCA is supposed to be the whole truth....
You are legally insane. A PCA never states the whole case. It states enough for probable cause.
#87. To: Thunderbird (#74)
[nc] The jury obviously found that the Zimmerman claim of self-defense was not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt after Zimmerman met his initial burden under Florida self-defense law.[Thunderbird] Lol..the "burden" was on the prosecution to disprove self defense, not the other way around.
Re the initial burden on the defendant when asserting self-defense.
The defendant has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence that he acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to a jury instruction on the issue. But the presentation of such evidence does not change the elements of the offense at issue; rather, it merely requires the state to present evidence that establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
Mosansky v. State of Florida, District Court of Appeal, First District, State of Florida, Case 1D09-3312, (20 Apr 2010).
- - - - -
When self-defense is asserted, the defendant has the burden of producing enough evidence to establish a prima facie case demonstrating the justifiable use of force. Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Fields v. State, 988 So. 2d 1185, 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see Murray v. State, 937 So. 2d 277, 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that law does not require defendant to prove self-defense to any standard measuring assurance of truth, exigency, near certainty, or even mere probability; defendant’s only burden is to offer facts from which his resort to force could have been reasonable). Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing of self-defense, the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense. Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188. The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, never shifts from the State to the defendant. Montijo, 61 So. 3d at 427; Fields, 988 So. 2d at 1188; see Monsansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (explaining that defendant has burden to present sufficient evidence that he acted in self-defense in order to be entitled to jury instruction on issue, but presentation of such evidence does not change elements of offense at issue; rather, it merely requires state to present evidence that establishes beyond reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense); Murray, 937 So. 2d at 279 (explaining that defendant in trial for aggravated battery was not required to prove self-defense claim beyond reasonable doubt or by preponderance of evidence; rather, self-defense evidence needed merely leave jury with reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force).
Fallwell v. State of Florida, District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, State of Florida, Case 5D10-2011 (27 Apr 2011).
#88. To: nolu chan (#80)
That's why they have appellate courts.
They get it wong too.
Only I am right all the time. ;)
#89. To: nolu chan (#76)
I am only trying to state the fact that there was enough to give the case to the jury and let them decide on the issue of self-defense. Zimmerman said he reasonably feared for his life. I do not believe him. That is not to say that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the assertion was false. That was the judgment call that the jury had to make after hearing all the evidence.
Fair enough.
One thing though.
If your head is being pounded into the concrete you fear for your life.
Pigs in Covington Kentucky did that to me and I feared for my life.
#90. To: A K A Stone (#89)
If your head is being pounded into the concrete you fear for your life.Pigs in Covington Kentucky did that to me and I feared for my life.
His head wasn't pounded into no concrete.
He had no gross injuries, bruising or swelling. He had a couple of long scratches on the back of his head that could be caused by coming in contact with branches while trying to hide in the bushes with his hat off. Ditto with his nose. Small wounds on the face and back of head tend to bleed a lot, ESPECIALLY if they are superficial.
But we will never know for sure because he refused timely medical treatment.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
#91. To: A K A Stone (#89)
Pigs in Covington Kentucky did that to me and I feared for my life.
That will teach you to stay on your side of the river.
#92. To: mininggold (#90)
he refused timely medical treatment
He was in shock from having his head pounded against the concrete by Obama'a son.
The D&R terror cell hates us because we're free
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#93. To: hondo68 (#92)
He was in shock from having his head pounded against the concrete by Obama'a son.
Then he couldn't have refused medical treatment in the ICU even if he wanted to.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
#94. To: hondo68 (#92)
He was in shock from having his head pounded against the concrete by Obama'a son.
He could have just been eating punches, was about to go out at a point and thought his head was being pounded into the concrete. I say that because I've been in that position, not on the street but in the gym.
I had no idea how many punches I ate, I only remembered one before I escaped. Later I was told it was 4 or 5 and I didn't believe it until I watched it on video.
#95. To: nolu chan (#86)
Thunderbird: The PCA is supposed to be the whole truth....Nolu Chan: A PCA never states the whole case.
I see what you did there no-luck, nice try.
The PCA is NEVER supposed to omit exculpatory evidence, like the fact that Zimmerman's head was beaten and nose broken. Nor is it supposed to include misstatement of fact or outright LIES as the Zimmerman affidavit did.
Its against the law to do this, and Angela Corey should be criminally indicted.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]