TexasCHLforum.com

Kythas wrote:This is a factual fallacy in the affidavit, which is a sworn document and the investigators may be charged with perjury for falsifying information in it.

I'm sure they'll get right on it. After Holder goes to jail for providing guns to known felons.

geekwagun wrote:IANAL, never been on a jury or involved in a criminal court case, unfortunately I don't see this going well for Mr. Zimmerman however this is played out.

If the case does not go forward and charges are dismissed, there will be backlash and more threats against him.
If the case does go to trial and he is aquitted, there will be backlash and more threats against him.
If it goes to trial and he is convicted - he'll be in prison.

I want the truth to be found, but not a conviction by public opinion or political motivations.

Not much good can come from any of this. Look at it from the judges perspective.
1: If they accept the affadavit, they've opened the door for future sloppy charges.
2: If they reject it, the mob will be out with molotovs looking for your house

I think the judge floated the Conflict of Interest (COI) as a way of getting clear of this mess. A COI is kind of like a 'get out of jail free' for her on this one.

Question for the lawyers. Can the prosecutor re-sumbit the charges if the judge rejects them? Given the actual 'trial' wouldn't have started, I'm assuming they could. But I don't know for certain.

XinTX wrote:

geekwagun wrote:IANAL, never been on a jury or involved in a criminal court case, unfortunately I don't see this going well for Mr. Zimmerman however this is played out.

If the case does not go forward and charges are dismissed, there will be backlash and more threats against him.
If the case does go to trial and he is aquitted, there will be backlash and more threats against him.
If it goes to trial and he is convicted - he'll be in prison.

I want the truth to be found, but not a conviction by public opinion or political motivations.

Not much good can come from any of this. Look at it from the judges perspective.
1: If they accept the affadavit, they've opened the door for future sloppy charges.
2: If they reject it, the mob will be out with molotovs looking for your house

I think the judge floated the Conflict of Interest (COI) as a way of getting clear of this mess. A COI is kind of like a 'get out of jail free' for her on this one.

Question for the lawyers. Can the prosecutor re-sumbit the charges if the judge rejects them? Given the actual 'trial' wouldn't have started, I'm assuming they could. But I don't know for certain.

For what it's worth -- I seem to remember reading (or hearing) somewhere that if the court rejects the affidavit, it's over. It cannot be re-issued. Whoever said that may not have known what he was talking about.

sjfcontrol wrote:For what it's worth -- I seem to remember reading (or hearing) somewhere that if the court rejects the affidavit, it's over. It cannot be re-issued. Whoever said that may not have known what he was talking about.

I am sure that another affidavit can be submitted to the court just like a case can be submitted to a grand jury if new evidence is obtained. It is not "double jeopardy".

WildBill wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:For what it's worth -- I seem to remember reading (or hearing) somewhere that if the court rejects the affidavit, it's over. It cannot be re-issued. Whoever said that may not have known what he was talking about.

I am sure that another affidavit can be submitted to the court just like a case can be submitted to a grand jury if new evidence is obtained. It is not "double jeopardy".

Well, I must admit I can't find anything online that would indicate that it does (attach double jeopardy). You could very well be right.

steveincowtown wrote:IMHO the 2nd Degree Murder Charge being thin is intentional on the DA's part and just a move to pass the buck down the line so that someone else can suffer the death threats, etc. that will come when this thing comes to an end.

This just all seems like a charade to me.

It's pure theater. I watched the Chief Inquisitor making her announcement of the charges. Within the first two sentences, she mades reference to the "sweet parents" of Treyvon's, and gave thanks to the two family attorneys, well-known race-baiters, for all of their assistance and communication in the case. It was plainly evident that the fix is in. Her follow statement, after the initial press conference, was to decry the release of exculpatory evidence.

The fix is in, and justice isn't the goal. I am reminded so very much of the Rodney King case and its aftermath. I lived in Pasadena and worked in downtown Los Angeles at the time. One of my best friends at the time, the late Ernest Pajaud, lived just a couple of blocks from where Reginald Denny was dragged out of his truck and beaten nearly to death and permanently disabled—for the crime of being white—by a mob of subhuman and unrepentant thugs. Ernest and I were in his office, watching a small TV. He phoned his wife and told her to get his AK out of the closet, make sure it was loaded, and told her to shoot anybody who came through the door uninvited, and then he left.

How is there any difference between this situation and Jim Crow? There isn't. Only the roles have been reversed.

If Zimmerman isn't convicted and imprisoned, society will be made to pay at the hands of people who are not interested in justice. If he is convicted and imprisoned, he'll die in prison at the hands of people who aren't interested in justice.

But all of that is OK as long as Al Sharpton gets his day in the sun, nobody has to critically examine thug culture, and the media never have to answer the very much open question of whether or not their brains are still intact.

After watching 15 years of Law and Order, it seems like they have to present new and compelling evidence before he can be brought up again, at least in New York!

gdanaher wrote:After watching 15 years of Law and Order, it seems like they have to present new and compelling evidence before he can be brought up again, at least in New York!

We went to the same law school! I did my undergraduate work at NYPD Blue U.

Ameer wrote:

Kythas wrote:This is a factual fallacy in the affidavit, which is a sworn document and the investigators may be charged with perjury for falsifying information in it.

I'm sure they'll get right on it. After Holder goes to jail for providing guns to known felons.

sjfcontrol wrote: ...Whoever said that may not have known what he was talking about.

sjfcontrol wrote: For what it's worth -- I seem to remember reading (or hearing) somewhere that if the court rejects the affidavit, it's over. It cannot be re-issued. Whoever said that may not have known what he was talking about.

Possibly you're confusing something else I read (though I'm not 100% sure it's true). According to one of the articles I read, a Florida lawyer says that Zimmerman's attorneys can petition the court to determine whether or not this was self defense under the stand your ground law. If the judge determines that it is, he must be released and is immune from prosecution and civil action.

ScooterSissy wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: For what it's worth -- I seem to remember reading (or hearing) somewhere that if the court rejects the affidavit, it's over. It cannot be re-issued. Whoever said that may not have known what he was talking about.

Possibly you're confusing something else I read (though I'm not 100% sure it's true). According to one of the articles I read, a Florida lawyer says that Zimmerman's attorneys can petition the court to determine whether or not this was self defense under the stand your ground law. If the judge determines that it is, he must be released and is immune from prosecution and civil action.

I would fall over if ANYONE in the process displayed the intestinal fortitude to make such a call.

ScooterSissy wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: For what it's worth -- I seem to remember reading (or hearing) somewhere that if the court rejects the affidavit, it's over. It cannot be re-issued. Whoever said that may not have known what he was talking about.

Possibly you're confusing something else I read (though I'm not 100% sure it's true). According to one of the articles I read, a Florida lawyer says that Zimmerman's attorneys can petition the court to determine whether or not this was self defense under the stand your ground law. If the judge determines that it is, he must be released and is immune from prosecution and civil action.

This still doesn't sound right. I would like to read that article to see what he actually said.

WildBill wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: For what it's worth -- I seem to remember reading (or hearing) somewhere that if the court rejects the affidavit, it's over. It cannot be re-issued. Whoever said that may not have known what he was talking about.

Possibly you're confusing something else I read (though I'm not 100% sure it's true). According to one of the articles I read, a Florida lawyer says that Zimmerman's attorneys can petition the court to determine whether or not this was self defense under the stand your ground law. If the judge determines that it is, he must be released and is immune from prosecution and civil action.

This still doesn't sound right. I would like to read that article to see what he actually said.

Neither of these are the original article I read (I couldn't quickly find it), but both of them touch it:

Here's a quote from this one http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/14/la ... gal-fight/:

One area that sets Florida apart is the next step Zimmerman faces: With the police and prosecutor having weighed in, a judge will decide whether to dismiss the second-degree murder charge based on "stand your ground." If Zimmerman wins that stage, prosecutors can appeal.

But in another aspect peculiar to Florida, if the appeals court sides with Zimmerman, not only will he be forever immune from facing criminal charges for shooting the 17-year-old Martin — even if new evidence or witnesses surface — he could not even be sued for civil damages by Martin's family for wrongfully causing his death.

(my emphasis added)

This NPR article has even more details in an interview: http://www.npr.org/2012/04/12/150516915 ... rman-trial

Now here's my thought, and it's just a passing thought, I'm no consipracy nut - what if those against the SYG defense laws pushed to have this go forward, believing a judge would rule in favor of Zimmerman, and knowing that such a ruling would be an inevitable backlash by mobs?

This seems to be what they are referring:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.