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

[Just K]

Or it could be as simple as he wants to protect the witnesses.
:waitasec:

IMO, nothing in this case is simple or done merely for the reason "publicly" which is stated.

 

[Emma Peel]

Both.

Let me ask you this... how is it he has an abundance of time to make his prolific appearances on his media tour while at the same time he claims he hasn't had time to review a simple motion? His priorities are showing.

:yes: yes they are.

Defense Priority #1 = damage control.
Defense Priority #2 = humanize your client.
Defense Priority #3 = reverse spin - spin in your favor
Defense Priority #4 = manage media, make some friends
Defense Priority #5 = use bond hearing to defense advantage

etc..

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

I think that name slipped out. He said he was sorry and the judge seemed to accept that.

I don't, for one second, think he said that name to place that witness in danger or to have the media camping at her doorstep.

Show me one person on this planet that has not let something slip before and been sorry after.

I don't think there are any.

JMO

But he's an attorney and should have been mindful to the minor child..he knows the rules....

 

[Gin]

Ok, but what if he was truly sorry? Perhaps he's not sorry per se of his actions because he truly believes he was warranted in what took place that night, but what if he's sorry that someone died? What if he's sorry that his gun went off that night? I've seen many on here who stand fully behind GZ being guilty but also saying that they do not believe GZ ever intended to kill anyone that night.

How would he go about that? I'm not saying what he said on the stand is correct because I also believe it was for his benefit but how exactly can he show that he never meant things to happen the way it did that night? Issue a statement? Put something on the website?

JMO/IMO
Here's the thing. GZ doesn't get to dictate, everything. It is the family's right to say, "No, thank you to hearing your apology." That can be for perpetuity, or it can be for a period of time.

The concept of asking and receiving permission is one that GZ could use to learn.

If GZ wants to write something he could. I'm not going to get into the legalities of that.

In this life, sometimes you have to live with the effects of your actions. GZ doesn't get to whisk his guilt away by filling the "sorry" square.

For many decent folks, GZ's choice to deliberately add to the grief of sorrowing parents by ambushing them was just indecent.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

IMO, nothing in this case is simple or done merely for the reason "publicly" which is stated.

A lot of discussion was had during the hearing Friday by the state, MO'M, the media, and the judge about witness protection. I believe they all want to protect the witnesses JMO.

I would not want all that information handed over to the public.

This case is way too volatile IMO.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

But he's an attorney and should have been mindful to the minor child..he knows the rules....

Because something slips means he was not mindful of the minor child?

I think it just means he made a mistake.

 

[Emma Peel]

JMO/IMO
Here's the thing. GZ doesn't get to dictate, everything. It is the family's right to say, "No, thank you to hearing your apology." That can be for perpetuity, or it can be for a period of time.

The concept of asking and receiving permission is one that GZ could use to learn.

If GZ wants to write something he could. I'm not going to get into the legalities of that.

In this life, sometimes you have to live with the effects of your actions. GZ doesn't get to whisk his guilt away by filling the "sorry" square.

For many decent folks, GZ's choice to deliberately add to the grief of sorrowing parents by ambushing them was just indecent.

IMO, GZ's not making these choices.

Everyone's making very good points about how they felt about GZ's apology and Crump's rejection of it.

I wonder how MOM's strategy here is playing out in the general world - away from victim-friendly websites & crime entertainment shows?

 

[Just K]

But he's an attorney and should have been mindful to the minor child..he knows the rules....

ITA. That was a huge "slip." Any attorney knows that the name of minors are protected more than others. He practices Family Law as well. So I am certain that he was well aware of the "confidentiality" issues surrounding this witness. Also, this particular witness, IMO, holds the most weight against his client and the chances of a jury finding his client guilty.

Anyone who thinks O'Mara is that forgetful and unawares is, IMO, kidding themselves.

 

[suzihawk]

Ok, but what if he was truly sorry? Perhaps he's not sorry per se of his actions because he truly believes he was warranted in what took place that night, but what if he's sorry that someone died? What if he's sorry that his gun went off that night? I've seen many on here who stand fully behind GZ being guilty but also saying that they do not believe GZ ever intended to kill anyone that night.

How would he go about that? I'm not saying what he said on the stand is correct because I also believe it was for his benefit but how exactly can he show that he never meant things to happen the way it did that night? Issue a statement? Put something on the website?

That his gun 'went off'?! His gun didn't go off all by itself - he pulled the trigger. And as some have pointed out, it has a five pound pull. And let's not forget it was loaded with hollow point bullets. He meant business!

 

[waltzingmatilda]

You know Cityslick she is a kind and gentle woman. Had that been me in the courtroom I am sure I would not have maintained my composure and had faith in the system after that stunt. I would probably be in jail for physically assaulting both men. I can't for the life of me understand why the legal system allows gamesmanship. It gives our legal system a black eye. FACT should all that is allowed. Not these lawyer games on either side.

Agree on all points grandmaj! I can't imagine how Sybrina Fulton must have felt. She is a stronger woman than I.

Sadly, I think it's 'Game On' for the attys now and let the manipulations begin. :maddening:
Neither side is technically trying the case in the media but MOM and Crump sure are posturing and image building thu MSM and Social Media. JMHO

wm

 

[Kimberlyd125]

That was a huge "slip." Any attorney knows that the name of minors are protected more than others. He practices Family Law as well. So I am certain that he was well aware of the "confidentiality" issues surrounding this witness. Also, this particular witness, IMO, holds the most weight against his client and the chances of a jury finding his client guilty.

Anyone who thinks O'Mara is that forgetful and unawares is, IMO, kidding themselves.

Until we have computer programmed robots trying cases, there will ALWAYS be the possiblilty of a mistake every now and then in a court room.

Not only is MO'M a defense attorney, he's also a human.

IMO if the judge thought for one second that MO'M meant to put her name out there, he would have done something about it.

JMO

 

[Just K]

That his gun 'went off'?! His gun didn't go off all by itself - he pulled the trigger. And as some have pointed out, it has a five pound pull. And let's not forget it was loaded with hollow point bullets. He meant business!

You can say that again!

 

[cityslick]

Both.

Let me ask you this... how is it he has an abundance of time to make his prolific appearances on his media tour while at the same time he claims he hasn't had time to review a simple motion? His priorities are showing.

IDK, you make it sound like this is the only case on his schedule. You can't expect him not to make TV appearances, he's the lawyer for a defendant in one of the most polarizing cases this country has seen in some time. I haven't seen him once discuss any facts in the case. I haven't seen him present details and say 'look at how this makes my client look'. I see him doing what any defense lawyer would do and to be honest, if they weren't doing it, they wouldn't be a good defense lawyer.

 

[Donjeta]

'
1moo

EDIT: sorry, this is not a cryptic message, I wiped my keyboard and apparently managed to post inadvertently.

 

[Adrienne37]

I think that name slipped out. He said he was sorry and the judge seemed to accept that.

I don't, for one second, think he said that name to place that witness in danger or to have the media camping at her doorstep.

Show me one person on this planet that has not let something slip before and been sorry after.

I don't think there are any.

JMO

So I guess that's why he's had so many blunders in court and during his various interviews, he just slipped up.


~jmo~

 

[suzihawk]

'
1moo

Gesundheit.

 

[Emma Peel]

'
1moo

I moo 2.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't believe it was a slip, I think he is professional enough to make just the mistakes he planned to. It's not a coincidence that the one witness he failed to protect was the one who appears to be the most damaging to his client's case IMO.

 

[Adrienne37]

Agree on all points grandmaj! I can't imagine how Sybrina Fulton must have felt. She is a stronger woman than I.

Sadly, I think it's 'Game On' for the attys now and let the manipulations begin. :maddening:
Neither side is technically trying the case in the media but MOM and Crump sure are posturing and image building thu MSM and Social Media. JMHO

wm

We don't see the prosecutors out there in the streets in front of microphones at every given opportunity. If it hadn't been for Crump and Parks, there wouldn't be a case to discuss.


~jmo~

 

[cityslick]

JMO/IMO
Here's the thing. GZ doesn't get to dictate, everything. It is the family's right to say, "No, thank you to hearing your apology." That can be for perpetuity, or it can be for a period of time.

The concept of asking and receiving permission is one that GZ could use to learn.

If GZ wants to write something he could. I'm not going to get into the legalities of that.

In this life, sometimes you have to live with the effects of your actions. GZ doesn't get to whisk his guilt away by filling the "sorry" square.

For many decent folks, GZ's choice to deliberately add to the grief of sorrowing parents by ambushing them was just indecent.

BBM

I don't think he has though. I have not seen any evidence whatsoever that shows that GZ has tried to hide from the events of that night. Yes, he has a certain version of what happened but I just do not see anything that says that he's not willing to answer for what happened.

Everyone wants to view or try to view GZ as a monster and I think he even knows this. I don't see him as a monster. I also don't see him as this cold blooded murderer, despite that fact that he did shoot and kill TM.