All George Zimmerman Threads

[annunaki]

"LEA cannot base an arrest for a current crime on a perps past record"

If the arresting officer is aware of a perp's prior arrests, or upon processing makes discovery, it can impact and in some cases elevate the charges

If a perp is on parole and arrested for a crime it can be given higher charges.

Three-strikes laws are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which mandate state courts to impose harsher sentences on habitual offenders who are convicted of three or more serious criminal offenses. In most jurisdictions, only crimes at the felony level qualify as serious offenses.

Organized Crime "RICO Laws"
search
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an "ongoing criminal organization".

Clinton Perjury was based on an attempt for prosecutors to obtain information (Lewinsky) in a law suit brought by Paula Jones. The information sought included PAST&POST SIMILAR BEHAVIOR, to demonstrate "an on going pattern of behavior"

Twenty-four states have some form of habitual offender law

[Black wallnut]

"LEA cannot base an arrest for a current crime on a perps past record"

If the arresting officer is aware of a perp's prior arrests, or upon processing makes discovery, it can impact and in some cases elevate the charges

If a perp is on parole and arrested for a crime it can be given higher charges.

Three-strikes laws are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which mandate state courts to impose harsher sentences on habitual offenders who are convicted of three or more serious criminal offenses. In most jurisdictions, only crimes at the felony level qualify as serious offenses.

Organized Crime "RICO Laws"
search
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an "ongoing criminal organization".

Clinton Perjury was based on an attempt for prosecutors to obtain information (Lewinsky) in a law suit brought by Paula Jones. The information sought included PAST&POST SIMILAR BEHAVIOR, to demonstrate "an on going pattern of behavior"

Twenty-four states have some form of habitual offender law

Perhaps you know something I don't. Link to Rule 404

[annunaki]

It is impossible to respond to "Section 404. " when no information is given as to from whence it is quoted re: What Table Game, What Sport, What Company Policy Manual, What State, What Country Etc. The only
vague link at the bottom is " Routine Practice of Business; Individual Habit." which suggests to me some type of Business Law most likely Civil Law, which is an entirely different practice than Criminal Law. If that is the case then Comparing Apples to Oranges just doesn't work. Elaboration on your source for "Section 404" is needed. Simply put- Section 404 OF WHAT ???

[cabinetman]

It is impossible to respond to "Section 404. " when no information is given as to from whence it is quoted re: What Table Game, What Sport, What Company Policy Manual, What State, What Country Etc. The only
vague link at the bottom is " Routine Practice of Business; Individual Habit." which suggests to me some type of Business Law most likely Civil Law, which is an entirely different practice than Criminal Law. If that is the case then Comparing Apples to Oranges just doesn't work. Elaboration on your source for "Section 404" is needed. Simply put- Section 404 OF WHAT ???

It's from the Massachusetts Guide To Evidence. Scroll down to Article IV. Relavency And Its Limits, 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/guide-to-evidence/

I don't know if this would apply in Florida.

.

[dbhost]

It's from the Massachusetts Guide To Evidence. Scroll down to Article IV. Relavency And Its Limits, 404. Character Evidence Not Admissible To Prove Conduct; Exceptions; Other Crimes.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/sjc/guide-to-evidence/

I don't know if this would apply in Florida.

.

Interesting quote from Massachusetts however, how is that relevant to the case in Florida? It would be interesting to see if Fla has anything similar.

[cabinetman]

Interesting quote from Massachusetts however, how is that relevant to the case in Florida?

I have no idea...Black wallnut posted it.

.

[annunaki]

Why would Florida be concerned with Massachusetts Evidence Laws any more than they would be concerned with Nevada's Prostitution Law or Colorado's Marijuana Law ?

[woodturner]

If the arresting officer is aware of a perp's prior arrests, or upon processing makes discovery, it can impact and in some cases elevate the charges

If a perp is on parole and arrested for a crime it can be given higher charges.

Three-strikes laws are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which mandate state courts to impose harsher sentences on habitual offenders who are convicted of three or more serious criminal offenses. In most jurisdictions, only crimes at the felony level qualify as serious offenses.

It seems the confusion is between the role of the LEO and DA. As BW said, in general a LEO cannot arrest someone based on their prior record. For example, a LEO could not arrest a person who served time for robbery for some other robbery without probable cause that is unrelated to the prior robbery. Some municipalities do make specific exceptions for specific offenses, hower.

As you note, though, prior offenses can be considered by the DA once probable cause is established and the person is arrested. A LEO arrests a person at the direction of the DA or based on suspicion of a crime, but it is the DA that charges the person with the crime.

In addition, often prior convictions are inadmissable in court, but the judge can and, in some cases, must consider prior convictions when sentencing. However, that is after the person has been convicted of the current crime, and affects only their sentencing. The "three strikes" laws you referenced are an example of this.

Disclaimer: This is my best understanding, but I do not practice criminal law and this is not legal advice.

[Black wallnut]

Rule 404 is an Evidence Rule that all states have since it is a Federal rule see this. I may be wrong and acceptable evidence changes over time as cases are tried and lawyers try to stretch the boundaries to benefit their clients. My knowledge of rules of evidence come from what I learned in my Reserve Police Academy 18 or so years ago. Subjects such as this are so critically important to LEA that it is not likely that I learned it wrong as one minor mistake jeopardizes the entire case. Evidence rules are uniform to reduce federal appeals. However I do not know for sure how Florida runs their courts, (other comment withheld due to political ban)

Most of the time research on the readers part is called for as in this case. Otherwise posts may become wordy.

[cwsmith]

Short of a weapon, what TM was carrying is totally irrelavant... unless of course it could have been shown that he too had pulled a weapon. Also completely irrelavent is whether the kid used drugs, had any drugs in his past, had any relationship with drugs or drug dealers... and whether or not he ever had questionable valueables on him at some time in the past.

What is relavent is that GZ called in to the police a suspicious character. That GZ felt it necessary to arm himself, and that inspite of the police dispatch telling him to NOT pursue, he ignored it and went after TM.

Now someone said that the dispatcher was not a police officer, as if that should have made a difference. First off, the dispatcher was an employee of the police and in every instance that I know of, has the training and the responsibility to advise anyone who calls in. They speak with the authority of the police dept. SO, GZ did ignore the police warning and took it upon himself to take his weapon and follow TM to the point of confrontation and the eventual death of TM. That in any fair court system would place the results squarely on the shoulders of GZ. Perhaps not murder, but manslaughter would be likely I believe.

Look, here in NY if I discover someone robbing my house, I have a right to protect my family... IF I FEEL THREATENED! But, if upon hearing me coming down the stairs, the felon flees... I have no right whatsoever in shooting the thief. And, if I call the police and they tell me to stay put, and instead I pursue the thief... I still do not have a right to fire at him. And if the thief turns on me, and attacks me and I then kill him in self-defence, then and only then might the shooting be justified. BUT, I'm sure there would be a great deal to be made of whether or not I prompted the fight simply by my pursuit. IN all likelyhood I would be subject to manslaughter based on the fact that the death need never to have happened if I had not brought the incident upon myself in defiance of the police advisement and the willful pursuit with intent to carry out my armed apprehension of the thief.

While the intent of GZ was not necessarily murder, his motivation, and action resulted in the death of TM. TM's drug addiction and past actions have not been proven to be in effect on that night. There was no proof that he was armed, no proof that he had robbed anyone and I have not read where anyone, on that night or recent nights had been robbed in that immediate area.

Regarding the "concrete" issue. I must have missed that somewhere! The eyewitness reported that the fight took place on the grass and not on the sidewalk. Unless it was reported otherwise, the issue of GZ having his head slammed against "concrete" is conjecture and contrary to the initial eyewitness who stated that they were tussleing on the grass, and it's contrary to the initial reports of grass stain and dampness on GZ's jacket. So, unless there was follow-up proof of the sidewalk being used to bash in GZ's head, the defense had no right whatsoever to introduce that hunk of concrete into the trial. It has been stated by the jury (today) that such "evidence" was a swaying factor.

Certainly, it's a good argument that TM should have walked away and should not have attacked GZ. BUT, what do we really know about what provoked this action. Did GZ say something, use a slur as he had with the initial call in to the police, or perhaps something worse? We don't know. Did TM simply, and irrationally, turn and attack the person who was questioning him and following him. We don't know! Stupid move for sure, but then youth doesn't always act wisely... but if GZ had followed the police advice and not followed and provoked this altercation, the death would NOT have occurred... and we do know that.

I have other questions too, like why did GZ feel it necessary to carry a weapon into this situation? Did this gated community have a rash of burglaries and muggings? Is it a policy of volunteer watch people to be armed and was it the agreed policy of this particular group of volunteers to be armed. What was the normal police procedure regarding volunteer watchmen? We've got all kinds of neighborhood watch organizations here as well as uniformed auxiliary police and sheriff.... but none of them are supposed to be carrying weapons. There's simply too many wanna-be's who would endanger the public if they were so empowered

CWS

[woodturner]

that inspite of the police dispatch telling him to NOT pursue, he ignored it and went after TM.

FWIW, the police dispatcher did not tell GZ not to pursue - there was no warning or direction from the dispatcher. The comment was that they "did not need him to do that", according to the transcripts released.

[annunaki]

What is relavent is that GZ called in to the police a suspicious character. That GZ felt it necessary to arm himself, and that inspite of the police dispatch telling him to NOT pursue, he ignored it and went after TM.

WRONG

"THE POLICE TOLD ZIMMERMAN TO STOP FOLLOWING TREYVON"

Sorry, but that’s not true.. That discussion was with a 911 dispatcher who was not a police officer. The conversation went like this:

Dispatcher: “Are you following him?”

Zimmerman; “Yeah.”

Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.”

Zimmerman; “OK.”

At no time did a police officer order Zimmerman to stop following Treyvon Martin. In fact, nobody ordered him to stop following Martin … Zimmerman was just told that he didn’t “need” to follow him.

" SO, GZ did ignore the police warning and took it upon himself to take his weapon and follow TM to the point of confrontation"

WRONG

So … did Zimmerman continuing following Treyvon at this point? There was no evidence presented at trial that he did. Zimmerman’s testimony was that he headed back to his car.

AS far as "TAKE HIS WEAPON" you make it sound like he had to remove/take it from some place and had it in his hand. HE WAS WEARING IT ON HIS HIP IN ITS HOLSTER.

" And if the thief turns on me, and attacks me and I then kill him in self-defence, then and only then might the shooting be justified. BUT, I'm sure there would be a great deal to be made of whether or not I prompted the fight simply by my pursuit. IN all likelyhood I would be subject to manslaughter based on the fact that the death need never to have happened if I had not brought the incident upon myself in defiance of the police advisement and the willful pursuit with intent to carry out my armed apprehension of the thief."

TOTAL NONSENSE You have every right to apprehend, detain, and in some states make a "citizen's arrest"

As to GZ carrying his weapon, Florida is a Right to Carry State if a person has a CC License -which he did. If a person has a CC Permit and leaves his gun at home he may as well not have one. You can never know when a situation might occur where you might need your weapon and when that happens you can't "Call Time -Out", so you can run home to get it. That would be as Stupid as leaving your spare tire at home in the garage.
A gun, like a spare tire, is something you hope you never have to use, but if you do, you're very glad you have it.

As a Retired NYPD Det. as well as a former Fla LEO, I speak from years of investigative experience gleaned from both New York and Florida working in Organized Crime Control Bureau, Narcotics, Joint Task Force Units (DEA, US Customs, Coast Guard, NYPD) cases, as well as having a Secret Service Clearance for Liaison between SS & NYPD.

[dbhost]

Before I post this reply, PLEASE understand I am not arguing for or against anything here. Please do not take offense to this post. I know it is pointed, but the points are meant to, like the point of a shovel, to dig for information that I just don't have, and a deeper understanding of this whole tragedy. Just trying to get answers to the questions I have about this. I see a lot of assumptions from people about Trayvon, about George Zimmerman, and about the law that I either don't know anything about, or that I have seen contradictory testimony and evidence, that I would like to get answered.

... Also completely irrelavent is whether the kid used drugs, had any drugs in his past, had any relationship with drugs or drug dealers... and whether or not he ever had questionable valueables on him at some time in the past.

Actually it IS relevant if he was currently doped up, not in his right mind, and under the influence of substances that could have altered his judgement and made him more aggressive, that is absolutely relevant.

What is relavent is that GZ called in to the police a suspicious character. That GZ felt it necessary to arm himself, and that inspite of the police dispatch telling him to NOT pursue, he ignored it and went after TM.

According to Ammendment 2 to the Constitution of The United States of America, where the incident occoured, he was guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.

As I understand it, the Police / 911 dispatcher told GZ they did not "need him" to follow Trayvon. I could be wrong, but I do not believe they directly told him do not do XYZ. If you have a link to the audio of that 911 call segment where they dispatcher instructs him so, I would like to see it posted.

Now someone said that the dispatcher was not a police officer, as if that should have made a difference. First off, the dispatcher was an employee of the police and in every instance that I know of, has the training and the responsibility to advise anyone who calls in. They speak with the authority of the police dept. SO, GZ did ignore the police warning and took it upon himself to take his weapon and follow TM to the point of confrontation and the eventual death of TM. That in any fair court system would place the results squarely on the shoulders of GZ. Perhaps not murder, but manslaughter would be likely I believe.

I believe in New York where you live, there was a 911 / EMT dispatcher that recently was let off the hook for not assisting a pregnant woman that had some sort of seizure who eventually died, because that 911 dispatcher was "on her break". Different states have different laws regarding the authority of a dispatcher, in many states they have no more authority than a parking lot attendant. And again the issue of GZ being armed is irrelevant. It is his right that he used. It could have just as easily been a convenient clump of concrete he picked up in the scuffle and smashed Trayvon's skull in during the struggle. The gun is NOT the issue. The issue is WHO assaulted WHO. The fact that Trayvon lost the fight, does NOT mean he didn't start it. I am not saying he did, I am not saying Zimmerman did. I simply have not seen any evidence to show who assaulted who. Clearly according to the testimony of Rachael Jeantel, Zimmerman scared and annoyed Martin. But scared and annoyed doesn't necessarily mean HE started the altercation, it doesn't mean he didn't. But if he did, it also does not excuse it.

Look, here in NY if I discover someone robbing my house, I have a right to protect my family... IF I FEEL THREATENED! But, if upon hearing me coming down the stairs, the felon flees... I have no right whatsoever in shooting the thief. And, if I call the police and they tell me to stay put, and instead I pursue the thief... I still do not have a right to fire at him. And if the thief turns on me, and attacks me and I then kill him in self-defence, then and only then might the shooting be justified. BUT, I'm sure there would be a great deal to be made of whether or not I prompted the fight simply by my pursuit. IN all likelyhood I would be subject to manslaughter based on the fact that the death need never to have happened if I had not brought the incident upon myself in defiance of the police advisement and the willful pursuit with intent to carry out my armed apprehension of the thief.

Okay that is all well and good. Again show me where Zimmerman was instructed to not leave his vehicle. (I am not trying to be jerkish here, that is something I keep hearing that I haven't found, and suspect it is a media fabrication, I want proof!). Now assume that they just told him they don't need him to do whatever instead of don't do whatever (HUGE difference by the way, one is a suggestion, the other is a command.). As far as I can tell it is still legal to exit your vehicle in your own neighborhood. From the evidence I have heard, he had no intention of apprehending Martin, merely observing where he was going. That may be annoying, but as far as I can tell, is still legal.

While the intent of GZ was not necessarily murder, his motivation, and action resulted in the death of TM. TM's drug addiction and past actions have not been proven to be in effect on that night. There was no proof that he was armed, no proof that he had robbed anyone and I have not read where anyone, on that night or recent nights had been robbed in that immediate area.

I do agree with your statement there. To a certain extent. You are assuming what GZ's motives were, and that it was his actions specifically that lead to Martin's death. As I understand the testimony that I heard, Trayvon was slipping in and out from between houses, on private property, not just strolling along the sidewalk. Zimmerman got out of his car to see where he had gone. Again if you have links of testimony that shows otherwise, please post them.

Regarding the "concrete" issue. I must have missed that somewhere! The eyewitness reported that the fight took place on the grass and not on the sidewalk. Unless it was reported otherwise, the issue of GZ having his head slammed against "concrete" is conjecture and contrary to the initial eyewitness who stated that they were tussleing on the grass, and it's contrary to the initial reports of grass stain and dampness on GZ's jacket. So, unless there was follow-up proof of the sidewalk being used to bash in GZ's head, the defense had no right whatsoever to introduce that hunk of concrete into the trial. It has been stated by the jury (today) that such "evidence" was a swaying factor.

Maybe I am wrong, I have mashed my knee on concrete enough times to know what a concrete / flesh would looks like, and the back of GZ's head looked to me to be consistent with that. Now I am no forensics expert, but did they take samples of debris from the wound to verify if that indeed was caused by concrete? Zimmerman himself in the Fox interview, that the fight started with him down on the concrete, and he scooted to the grass. I don't know. Again, where is the evidence?

Certainly, it's a good argument that TM should have walked away and should not have attacked GZ. BUT, what do we really know about what provoked this action. Did GZ say something, use a slur as he had with the initial call in to the police,

What slur did he use on the 911 call that could have justified an assault? He could have thrown a million N-words at Trayvon and that still wouldn't have justified physical assault. As far as I have heard, the only phrase used that could be considered slur like is he referred to Trayvon as looking like a "punk".

...Did TM simply, and irrationally, turn and attack the person who was questioning him and following him. We don't know! Stupid move for sure, but then youth doesn't always act wisely... but if GZ had followed the police advice and not followed and provoked this altercation, the death would NOT have occurred... and we do know that.

On the police "advice" versus command issue. IF Trayvon did turn and attack Zimmerman, then THAT is the event that precipitated Trayvon's death. NOT Zimmerman getting out of his car, or even having a firearm, again a constitutionally guaranteed right. There is no right to physically assault another human being. I don't know about other states, but I DO know, that here in Texas, if you are in the act of committing a felony such as assault, and a person dies because of your actions, say an elderly woman witnessing the assault has a heart attack and dies because of the shock of the scene, then YOU the perpetrator of the initial felony, can be found guilty of 2nd degree murder. The issue is NOT or at least it should not, and should never have been about Zimmerman carrying a gun, or getting out of his vehicle, or even if he should have been watching where Martin was going in the first place. The big question e, WHO initiated the assault that led to Trayvon's death. If Trayvon did indeed throw the first punch, and jump on top and start pummeling Zimmerman, then I would think that the blame would fall on Martin himself. This goes back to your first point about Martin's background and personality. Since there are no direct witnesses aside from Zimmerman as to who initiated the fight, we can only look at the history and personality of the involved parties to see who would have been more likely to initiate the altercation.

Another possibly culpable party to this is that Rachael Jeantel, which brings yet another layer of prejudice to this whole thing, telling Martin on the phone that Zimmerman could have been a Gay rapist. Did Martin turn on, and assault Zimmerman in some sort of twisted "Gay bashing" thing?

[cabinetman]

Do we know how we would react in that split second of interaction. People can say this or that, and maybe most of those saying who should have done what have never been in a situation where the decision is life threatening...on either player.

That physical confrontation was a relatively momentary interaction. Within seconds, it escalated to a moment of reaction, not withstanding the repercussions of ones actions. There was likely very little thinking. So, what I'm saying is that neither GZ or TM mulled out a plan when the action was close, and the onset of what happened could have gone a different way. There was an interaction, that had its consequences.

I doubt seriously that either of them had second nature training in physical contact. My military training instilled whatever defenses and offenses necessary to quell a close combat situation. My training leaves little doubt about my reactions, or what they would be even to this date. We become different people. I've been in those momentary predicaments, and if I took the time to think out my choices instead of reacting, I wouldn't be here typing this right now.

I'm also repeating myself, that we can discuss the case 'til the cows come home. We won't change anything by even extensive analysis of the details of the case. The jury decided to vote not guilty. What is interesting though, is the extensive analysis that the contributing members have provided. Very interesting.

So, what I'm saying is that neither GZ or TM mulled out a plan when the action was close, and the onset of what happened could have gone a different way. There was an interaction, that had its consequences.

.

[annunaki]

dbhost

Good Analysis !