17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #35

[highflyer]

To hold us to something we did at 21 when we are 28, yes, not right. To hold someone like TM to something they did a week or two before, is reasonable. And I am not talking about the "bling", as that is a fashion thing. I am talking about the two extended middle fingers, the empty pot baggie, the jewelery (which was being investigated) the vandalism of the school, etc. These are things he (TM) was CURRENTLY doing.

But the bottom line is that they HAD to smear GZ, because all the physical evidence and even the CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidence points to TM being the aggressor in the fight.

It's not right to hold a 28 year old to something they did at 21 but it is alright to hold a 17 year old to something they did now? :floorlaugh:

 

[tehcloser]

Isn't Mark O'Mara a very busy lawyer by all accounts? How did this idea arise that he is representing GZ only so he (MO'M) can run up big fees and milk the taxpayers of Florida?

In my personal experience, judges tend to look at claimed expenses very closely and a lot gets written off and never submitted for reimbursement. Maybe Florida judges are sloppy. Maybe O'Mara knows how to game the system.

But why would we assume either at this point?

Really, the blind hatred of defense attorneys that seems to be the rule of thumb at WS distorts a lot of people's view of the legal process.

Really....blind hatred? That's distorted in itself.

 

[zenreaper]

and could you please provide the link to the evidence of Trayvon doing the hitting? Just because Zimmerman said it doesn't make it true. It's already been well established that he likes to tell tall tales.


~jmo~

Well, there are the marks on GZ, the eyewitness account of seeing him on the ground. I mean COME ON, are you really going to stand by the idea that GZ made the marks on him HIMSELF? You have PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE that he was bleeding, you have a police report as well as medical reports stating his injuries, do you REALLY want to hang your hat on the idea that ALL of those people in the RACIST town of Sanford worked together to cover for a MEXICAN (I know, I know, he is actually half Peruvian, I was using poetic license)?

 

[LambChop]

BBM

:what: Seriously?

Yes, I think so, too. SPD's actions in the past was like a big old red flag waving in the breeze. It provided a platform on which to build and it did by leaps and bounds. Had the Martins not spoken up this would have been swept under the rug, again. jmo

 

[Emma Peel]

BBM

:what: Seriously?

Hey katydid ya see where we agreed back there?

LOL. What thread is this? :crazy:

 

[LolaMoon08]

Well, there are the marks on GZ, the eyewitness account of seeing him on the ground. I mean COME ON, are you really going to stand by the idea that GZ made the marks on him HIMSELF? You have PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE that he was bleeding, you have a police report as well as medical reports stating his injuries, do you REALLY want to hang your hat on the idea that ALL of those people in the RACIST town of Sanford worked together to cover for a MEXICAN (I know, I know, he is actually half Peruvian, I was using poetic license)?

BBM Nope, haven't seen medical reports stating his injuries. I've bled worse from shaving my legs.

MOO

 

[Allusonz]

Isn't Mark O'Mara a very busy lawyer by all accounts? How did this idea arise that he is representing GZ only so he (MO'M) can run up big fees and milk the taxpayers of Florida?

In my personal experience, judges tend to look at claimed expenses very closely and a lot gets written off and never submitted for reimbursement. Maybe Florida judges are sloppy. Maybe O'Mara knows how to game the system.

But why would we assume either at this point?

Really, the blind hatred of defense attorneys that seems to be the rule of thumb at WS distorts a lot of people's view of the legal process.

I have a theory with respect to why MOM was pursuing this particular line of questioning and I believe it has to do with the fact that the attorney representing TM's parents interviewed a witness who could potentially have some very critical information.

Not only did he question her he as well had ABC news there.

Instead of passing this information to the people that should of been doing the interviewing of the GF he has opened up the potential credibility of this witness testimony.

I expect that MOM will at some point try if he can to have this particular witness testimony limited.

Thus I must ask why this is not being scrutinized more than what MOM did at a bail hearing....

ABC exclusive

"ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Crump about the last moments of the teenager's life. Martin had been talking to his girlfriend all the way to the store where he bought Skittles and a tea. The phone was in his pocket and the earphone in his ear, Crump said."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-mar...ry?id=15959017

 

[Emma Peel]

Thread Service Announcement:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7861183#post7861183"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

^link to discussions re: race



http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169007&page=12

^link to discussions re: race protests/riots

 

[vlpate]

It's not right to hold a 28 year old to something they did at 21 but it is alright to hold a 17 year old to something they did now? :floorlaugh:

The difference is the time frame in which they did that "something". It had been seven years for GZ, completely without incident. The teenager had been in trouble three times in 7 months.

 

[mercuriod]

To hold us to something we did at 21 when we are 28, yes, not right. To hold someone like TM to something they did a week or two before, is reasonable. And I am not talking about the "bling", as that is a fashion thing. I am talking about the two extended middle fingers, the empty pot baggie, the jewelery (which was being investigated) the vandalism of the school, etc. These are things he (TM) was CURRENTLY doing.

But the bottom line is that they HAD to smear GZ, because all the physical evidence and even the CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidence points to TM being the aggressor in the fight.

That may be YOUR opinion, but according to the Florida State Attorney's office the physical evidence points to George Zimmerman MURDERING Trayvon Martin with a DEPRAVED mind.

 

[Nova]

Money does crazy things to people. People kill each other over money, societies have risen and fallen because of it, and a lot of it makes people feel invulnerable while not enough usually means injustice and poverty. I think the greed bug has hit O'Mara, and that's just a shame.

Why are people assuming O'Mara took this case for the money? Saying he took it for the fame would make more sense to me, though we don't really know even that.

Trying a major, high-profile murder case means a year or more of 16 to 24-hour days--and I suspect only some of those hours will be billable if GZ is declared indigent. I could be wrong, but I doubt the State of Florida will pay MO'M $400/hour to go on Nancy Grace, though he may consider such appearances necessary to keep GZ's story before the jury pool. I'm not even sure the State will pay MO'M his usual rate; some states have "standard hourly rates" they pay for indigent defendants, depending on the lawyer's experience.

O'Mara could be using the same hours trying much easier DUI and divorce cases with rich clients who can afford to pay his full fee.

Where is the proof he will end up richer by defending GZ?

On the other hand, O'Mara will almost certainly establish himself as an expert on SYG cases and may be a central player if the law is revisited, appealed and/or reinterpreted. And he may find that very fulfilling, particularly compared to arguing about breathalyzer results.

Lawyers are people, too. They want to be challenged at work. It isn't always about the money, particularly not if they are already successful enough to charge $400/hour. That's quite a lot for a lawyer who doesn't work for a huge, corporate firm. (By comparison, senior partners at large, international law firms where I've worked billed at about $500/hour.)

 

[Zak]

“Do you agree that you changed your story?” Mr. de la Rionda asked, referring to the five separate statements that Mr. Zimmerman gave the police about the shooting.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/21/us/george-zimmerman-bail-hearing.html

I'm playing catch up reading all the pages since this afternnoon. Not sure if anyone has already pointed this out, but this is what was really said at the bond hearing.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But before you committed this crime on February 26th, you were arrested -- I'm sorry, not arrested. You were questioned that day, right, February 26th?

ZIMMERMAN: That evening into the 27th.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then the following morning. Is that correct?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the following evening, too. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?

ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that in some of those statement when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started "I don't remember"? O'MARA: Outside the scope of direct examination. I will object your honor.

JUDGE LESTER: We'll give you a little bit of leeway. Not a whole lot but a little bit here, ok.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn't it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn't believe it, that you would say "I don't remember"?

JUDGE LESTER: I'm going to grant his motion at this time.

O'MARA: Thank you, your honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you agree you changed your story as it went along?

ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely not.



BBM

Actually, de la Rionda asked GZ if it would be fair to say that he gave 4 or 5 statements to which GZ said he only remembered 3. So I guess the de la Rionda isn't sure how many statements there actually were. Also notice that de la Rionda said that there were inconsistancies in some of the statements. Lastly, de la Rionda asked if GZ would agree that his story changed as it went along.

 

[highflyer]

Well, there are the marks on GZ, the eyewitness account of seeing him on the ground. I mean COME ON, are you really going to stand by the idea that GZ made the marks on him HIMSELF? You have PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE that he was bleeding, you have a police report as well as medical reports stating his injuries, do you REALLY want to hang your hat on the idea that ALL of those people in the RACIST town of Sanford worked together to cover for a MEXICAN (I know, I know, he is actually half Peruvian, I was using poetic license)?

I cannot tell that is GZ in the photo and I have not seen medical reports stating his injuries. Can you please give me the link for that?

 

[kimpage]

To hold us to something we did at 21 when we are 28, yes, not right. To hold someone like TM to something they did a week or two before, is reasonable. And I am not talking about the "bling", as that is a fashion thing. I am talking about the two extended middle fingers, the empty pot baggie, the jewelery (which was being investigated) the vandalism of the school, etc. These are things he (TM) was CURRENTLY doing.

But the bottom line is that they HAD to smear GZ, because all the physical evidence and even the CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidence points to TM being the aggressor in the fight.

Do you have a link for that?????????? From what i know it has NOT been established who started the altercation.....But i believe it was GZ because he didnt want to let another A$%hole get away.......IMHO JMHO and all that

 

[Emma Peel]

Thread Service Announcement:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=484"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

^link to "Sound Off" discussions re: race
and race protests/riots




having soooo much lag & connection trouble posting & refreshing WS tonite....

 

[vlpate]

<modsnip>

http://www.myspace.com/onlytobekingagain

Wonder what he did that he should have been in jail for a year?

He was in jail for a year? BTW, is anyone the least be curious why this is still up?

 

[UCAKID]

Hiya, am wondering if Geo. Zimmerman will consider a bench trial instead of jury. If so, when is the latest he could request one in FL?

 

[Nova]

I totally agree. He is a blowhard, a show off, an idiot, trying too hard to be kool for his boyz. He is a narcissist. But using the word 'ho' at that time is what young guys did. Imo he was using the current hip hop jargon, as millions of other young men did at the time too.

But I don't think any thing in that old MS tells me much about what happened that tragic final two minutes. I think he deserves to do time for manslaughter for sure, for setting up that tragic set of circumstances. But nothing in this MS shows me that he was out hunting for an innocent black teen that night. I think he was a vigilante minded moron and deserves to be punished for that. But pre-meditated murder? I am not convinced yet.

BBM: "pre-meditation" is first degree murder. GZ wasn't charged with that.

The issue for 2nd degree (and IANAL so I'm probably not expressing this perfectly) is whether the defendant demonstrated a depraved indifference for the life of the deceased. Or whether the situation at the time mitigated his fatal action sufficiently to reduce the finding to manslaughter or even acquittal.

 

[Aedrys]

Why are people assuming O'Mara took this case for the money? Saying he took it for the fame would make more sense to me, though we don't really know even that.

Trying a major, high-profile murder case means a year or more of 16 to 24-hour days--and I suspect only some of those hours will be billable if GZ is declared indigent. I could be wrong, but I doubt the State of Florida will pay MO'M $400/hour to go on Nancy Grace, though he may consider such appearances necessary to keep GZ's story before the jury pool. I'm not even sure the State will pay MO'M his usual rate; some states have "standard hourly rates" they pay for indigent defendants, depending on the lawyer's experience.

O'Mara could be using the same hours trying much easier DUI and divorce cases with rich clients who can afford to pay his full fee.

Where is the proof he will end up richer by defending GZ?

On the other hand, O'Mara will almost certainly establish himself as an expert on SYG cases and may be a central player if the law is revisited, appealed and/or reinterpreted. And he may find that very fulfilling, particularly compared to arguing about breathalyzer results.

Lawyers are people, too. They want to be challenged at work. It isn't always about the money, particularly not if they are already successful enough to charge $400/hour. That's quite a lot for a lawyer who doesn't work for a huge, corporate firm. (By comparison, senior partners at large, international law firms where I've worked billed at about $500/hour.)

I don't think he took it for money, but with that Paypal account swelling to over $200,000 and now gun supporters pledging more for GZ's defense, I think the greed bug has now bitten O'Mara. He is definitely seeing dollar bills, y'all. A lot of them. Now the money is totally under his control and any further donations go to him, for GZ's defense, of course. I'm not saying he's the worst defense attorney out there, but I do think money has started to affect him with this case. Defense attorneys are also human and can be affected by things like money. But that remains to be seen, and I could very well be wrong. Jose Baez has really colored defense attorneys in high profile cases for me. I really do hope I am wrong here.

 

[LambChop]

The difference is the time frame in which they did that "something". It had been seven years for GZ, completely without incident. The teenager had been in trouble three times in 7 months.

I don't believe TM was involved in anything violent. I also believe it was twice as I only saw an incident in October and one in February. If you have a link for the third I'd be interested in looking at it. jmo