Author Topic: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery  (Read 16975 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #45 on: October 20, 2012, 11:55:06 AM »
The hostile remarks were clearly directed at Martin. They suggest that Zimmerman had concluded that Martin was a burglar.

I'm not sure what 'the state' means in this context. The police call was disclosed by the city of Sanford. What difference does it make who disclosed it?

The hostile remarks were mentioned in the charging affidavit.

They were "clearly directed at Martin"? Really? You were riding along in GZ's head, so you know exactly what he was thinking and what he meant?


Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #46 on: October 20, 2012, 12:03:25 PM »
For me, it is the fact that they are pluralized.  That makes it a generality.  It is not directed at Martin, neither personally nor directly.

Zimmerman clearly considered Martin a member of the generality. That means the animus was directed at Martin.

It doesn't matter if it was personal. The question is simply whether the animus existed.

Quote
The words didn't seem to be spoken angrily as much as it seems to be expressing frustration.

I hear anger in both statements. Even were that not so, the words in their context express hostility. I would consider them evidence of animus even if no emotion could be heard in the voice.

Again, the question is whether animus was there. It is not whether it was expressed 'as much as' some other sentiment.

Quote
He wasn't yelling.  He wasn't even speaking loudly.

Seriously? It is your experience that people never express anger without raising their voices?

The considerations you raise are subjective. They are reasons you, personally, may not find the remarks to be convincing evidence of animus. I don't think they are reasons to dismiss the remarks as not being evidence of animus at all, and claim that no such evidence has been presented.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2012, 12:11:58 PM by nomatter_nevermind »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #47 on: October 20, 2012, 12:08:51 PM »
You were riding along in GZ's head . . . ?

I am a native speaker of English.

Offline Redbrow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 332
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #48 on: October 20, 2012, 12:10:05 PM »
'A*holes' and 'f*ing punks' are evidence of animus where I come from.

Note that they were both plural and generalized statements. George was merely thinking aloud, entertaining the possibility that the suspicious fleeing guy might be a burglar. The FBI reports only 13% of burglary cases are ever solved. So yes, they almost always do get away. He had a tone of resignation.

Even then, they were not directed specifically at Trayvon. George did not say 'this a*hole will not get away. Big difference.

George did not call TM anything because as far as he knew Trayvon was not even around at the time. He was not within earshot unless he was stalking Zimmerman and hiding nearby.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #49 on: October 20, 2012, 12:30:56 PM »
George was merely thinking aloud, entertaining the possibility that the suspicious fleeing guy might be a burglar.

I don't agree that this is a plausible interpretation of the remarks. I don't hear any words expressing 'might'.

Quote
He had a tone of resignation.

I addressed this in my reply to DebFrmHell. Animus is not precluded by being accompanied with other sentiments.

Again, the issue is not whether the remarks are conclusive evidence of animus, but whether they are evidence of animus at all.

I want to add another thought, not in response to Redbrow, but on the question of whether the remarks are properly in evidence. O'Mara himself has submitted all of Zimmerman's police statements. They include the playing of a recording with both remarks, and Zimmerman implicitly acknowledging that he said them.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #50 on: October 20, 2012, 12:41:25 PM »
I am a native speaker of English.

So am I. I even tutored how to write in it. What exactly does that have to do with anything at all?

We know GZ was already annoyed about the break ins etc in his neighborhood. Had he said something like "hurry, get the damn cops here quick or this effing punk, this ahole will get away" then I might consider buying into your theory. Since he didn't even--as DFH points out--raise his voice--then I can't, and am forced to conclude you're simply once again showing your bias.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #51 on: October 20, 2012, 12:49:03 PM »
I don't agree that this is a plausible interpretation of the remarks. I don't hear any words expressing 'might'.

I addressed this in my reply to DebFrmHell. Animus is not precluded by being accompanied with other sentiments.

Again, the issue is not whether the remarks are conclusive evidence of animus, but whether they are evidence of animus at all.

I want to add another thought, not in response to Redbrow, but on the question of whether the remarks are properly in evidence. O'Mara himself has submitted all of Zimmerman's police statements. They include the playing of a recording with both remarks, and Zimmerman implicitly acknowledging that he said them.

He does acknowledge saying them.  He doesn't say they were directly made at/to or about Martin specifically.  Do you have a link that states he is directly referring to Martin?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #52 on: October 20, 2012, 01:12:50 PM »
Do you have a link that states he is directly referring to Martin?

Why would I need a link?




Offline AghastInFL

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 174
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #53 on: October 20, 2012, 05:23:01 PM »
Why would I need a link?
Because without it you are merely espousing your own opinion. The state mentions the statements in the charging documents, but those are as yet unproven.

IMO the others are correct; I hear no animus merely frustration, the same frustration we all feel when confronted with behaviors we define or generalize as criminal.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #54 on: October 20, 2012, 07:48:44 PM »
What amuses me about the animus discussion here is that it is the only element of the second degree murder charge the prosecution has a remote chance of proving.  ;D   

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #55 on: October 20, 2012, 09:23:30 PM »
Clearly GZ thought TM was up to no good.  Its why he called the police.  I don't see that calling the police because of a suspicious looking person acting suspiciously shows animus, or ill will towards TM.  His expletives seem to me to merely be relaying the same thought that TM has acted like someone who was up to something.  GZ may well have been wrong in his judgment of who TM was, but if we accept his account of the actions he observed (TM walking as if drugged, hiding his identity, looking at homes, putting his hand in his pants to simulate having a gun, trying to intimidate him, etc), I'd say its a judgment that any reasonable person would make.

I see no ill will in his words or actions while on the call with NEN, just that he pegged TM as a trouble maker. 

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #56 on: October 21, 2012, 12:25:39 AM »
I think the state has no chance of proving second degree murder. Even if George  was equating the actions of the suspicious person he saw (TM) with those who had burglarized the neighborhood and ran, and thought they were all a*sholes,  the remark had nothing to do with what happened after Trayvon hit him. GZ says he shot TM  as a response to TM's hitting him, not TM's running away. One has nothing to do with the other. What he thought of TM and criminals does not impact his self-defense claim.

I think this is is a silly discussion.  If you have to grasp at these kinds of straws to argue the state's case, you need to reexamine the law on law on second degree murder.  A crime has two elements: the act and the intent. It's the intent during the criminal act (shooting) that's relevant. (There is no premeditation alleged, that he cooked this up beforehand.)

Read the charge: The mens rea (intent) is during the act of killing:

Quote
IN THE COUNTY OF SEMINOLE, STATE OF FLORIDA, on February 26,2012, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, did unlawfully and by an act imminently dangerous to another, and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, kill TRAYVON MARTIN, a human being under the age of eighteen, by shooting the said victim,

here's the statute

Quote
s. 782.04 Murder

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree

Here's my analysis of the second degree murder charge from months ago. In other posts, I've cited the case law.

Nonetheless, please be civil in your comments to each other. I just deleted a comment unnecessarily insulting another commenter.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #57 on: October 21, 2012, 02:37:54 AM »
I think this is is a silly discussion.

Thanks for hosting it anyway.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1576
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #58 on: October 22, 2012, 06:55:10 PM »
Here is another video of the hearing with better  ;) audio than the first one posted  Also promised are commentaries by litigator Michael Mortimer, Esq.

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1124
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
Re: Oct. 19 Hearing on Discovery
« Reply #59 on: October 22, 2012, 09:53:01 PM »
Here is another video of the hearing with better  ;) audio than the first one posted  Also promised are commentaries by litigator Michael Mortimer, Esq.

Does he talk during it? Why can't someone just post the hearing without their thoughts?

 

Site Meter
click
tracking