All George Zimmerman Threads

[annunaki]

What George Zimmerman can teach us about legal defense

What George Zimmerman can teach us about legal defense

http://www.secondcalldefense.org/sel...ffiliate=20007

[JimD]

I think we always need to be worried when we have somebody telling us how bad we need them. A lawyer telling us we can't survive without lawyers doesn't seem real obviously true to me.

My bigger problem is I believe George Z was prosecuted because of public pressure, not what he said to the police. If that is true, it doesn't matter when he got legal representation, he was going to be tried. It really worries me too. Either we are a society that obeys laws or we are a society of mob rule. When I hear talk about civil rights prosecution I think "mob rule" again. Blacks and black males in particular are not always treated well in our society. I accept that as a fact. But it doesn't change George Z's right to defend himself. It just doesn't.

Jim

[All Thumbs]

I think we always need to be worried when we have somebody telling us how bad we need them. A lawyer telling us we can't survive without lawyers doesn't seem real obviously true to me.

I think it depends on the police officers you're talking to. Some are obviously smarter and/or more honest and/or more impartial than others. Certainly their motivations can vary. Some may want to get to the bottom of what actually happened, still others may want to impress the brass that they got a prosecutor to file charges.

Of course, you can't know why kind of cops they are when you just start talking to them, so the best advice still is to keep your mouth shut and let the attorney do your talking.

The article in the link is really spot on. If there is any way whatsoever in which the events surrounding a shooting or whatever could be twisted to make you look guilty of a crime, it is wise to use a mouthpiece.

While I don't have first-hand experience in this regard, I have watched friends "cooperate" themselves into a mess.

[Black wallnut]

Heads up to members linked site generates pop-ups......

[annunaki]

Wow, Sorry, I didn't get any

[cabinetman]

I got them too.

.

[gsmittle]

None for me.

g.

[annunaki]

Excellent Analysis Of GZ Case

AFTERBURNER w/ BILL WHITTLE: The Lynching

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ebu6Yvzs4Ls

[cabinetman]

The "justice system" can be a game. The GZ incident was a pressured movement to convict from the start. It doesn't seem fair for LEO to be able to carry on an interview, whether it's at the onset of an incident or in one of the "interview rooms" to lie or lead into a forced confession. I agree with that article 100%. Unfortunately some people are too rattled at the beginning to realize what to say or do, and what not to. I doubt that GZ thought that what he said and did, and then re-enacting the incident would be the controlling factor of the evidence against him. So, that "game" wasn't enough for the jury, which was the other part of the game.

.

[alpha]

In Kentucky, you must take a class before being licensed for CCDW. The suggestion is exactly what our instructor said. He was also a lawyer.

[JimD]

Maybe it depends some on your experience. Most of us get pretty comfortable doing things others would pay for working with wood. There are good reasons others pay people to make things of wood but that doesn't mean we need to pay instead of doing it ourselves.

In my paying job, I get orders in the form of 100-200 page contracts. I work with lawyers a lot. They are helpful and know things I don't. But just as a "professional" woodworker may be better or worse than I am making some things out of wood, a lawyers input may or may not help me if I have to talk to the police. The only times I have talked to police has been social or traffic situations. I have seen a range of individuals in that limited exposure. I had one attempt to get me to incriminate myself after a wreck where a young lady turned left in front of me (she wanted me to say I was speeding). So I know it happens. But with my experience, I would not call a lawyer before talking to police in a situation where I know I had done nothing wrong. But in George Z's case, where somebody died, I think I would limit how much talking I did as the lawyer suggests. It isn't a property dispute or a traffic matter. It would pay to be careful.

I continue to reject a "don't talk to police without a lawyer" as a general good idea for all people and circumstances. But if you are involved in the death of another person, I would agree it is probably a good idea. Emotions are going to be an issue for any normal person and that is another reason to have somebody else helping.

Jim

[cabinetman]

Is what you don't say an indication of guilt? It may be difficult for some to have an attorney immediately. You would think with all the cop shows on TV, that it's evident how overt law enforcement can be. It's almost a joke to watch real questioning that leads to a desired answer.

.

[vaking]

About a year ago I was a juror on a case of "attempted armed robbery". The case was a mockery of judicial system. The "victim" walked over to a policeman, pointed at another man and claimed that the man demanded money from the victim. According to the victim the defendant said that he had "a gun and a knife". Police arrested the man and found no weapons whatsoever. The only things he had was a plastic bottle with water and spare tee-shirt he was carrying home from work. The prosecution tried to present it as "plastic bottle wrapped in tee-shirt to appear as a weapon". Defendant maintained all the time he had never seen the victim before and never had any conversations.
The story told by the "victim" was full of inconsistencies. It was obvious from the very beginning that there was no evidence the crime even took place at all. It should have been a closed-and-shut case, the police should have dropped all charges within a day for lack of evidence.
The reality was very different. The defendant was arrested and spent 15 months in jail waiting for the trial. When the case came in front of the judge - both prosecution and defense knew that prosecution had no real case and it would be a non-guilty verdict. Prosecution and defense cooperated to make it as short as possible. This was probably the shortest armed robbery case in history.
Overall it took 2 days for jury selection, 1 day to hear all the evidence and one hour for the jury to acquit the defendant.
The defendant was black, victim was Hispanic, the jury was mixed. I believe that the only reason the case made it to court was because police needed to justify holding the man in jail for 15 months for nothing.

Overall my opinion - if there is any chance you can be accused of any violent or drug-related crime - overprotect yourself. Presume that you shall be accused even if you believe you are innocent. If you are accused - you will need a lawyer even if you are lawyer yourself. Never believe what investigator tells you. You are not allowed to lie but investigator is. His job is to make you say something you will regret later and he will not hesitate to lie to make you say it. And if you are going to get lawyer involved anyway - the faster you do it - the better.

[annunaki]

Having worked as a Detective in New York City, I had occasion to interview people in all types of situations and their respective parts in the human drama at hand.
In all walks and professions of life, there exists a broad spectrum of ethical range.
That said, some of my most gratifying cases were those of which I was able to obtain incriminating statements before the individual "Lawyer-ed up", even though I gave them their Miranda Rights.
One thing to keep in mind - it is not always apparent that someone being interviewed will evolve into a suspect.
One of the Darkest Places I ever had to go involved a call from the local hospital emergency room hospital regarding a 6yr old female with a Gonorrhea
infection. (it is standard procedure for something like that to immediately be notified to the local Detectives).
To cut to the chase, while interviewing the father, I had to pretend to understand how enticing little girls can be BLa Bla Bla to the father in order to seem sympathetic and get him to talk freely. He not only admitted his part in the molestation but implicated his brother as well in what had been on going for three years. Since there was no DNA evidence, only an infection that can be transmitted other than by sexual contact within a close contact family, who knows what a good defense lawyer might have pulled off?

That visit to a dark place creep-ed me out, and it took a long hot shower followed by several stiff drinks to rinse away the specter of where I had to go in that interview. I remember it vividly along with so many other moments in time.

In cases as the fore mentioned, the psychological affect can effect the performance behavior of LEO's, in a negative manner if they are unable to compartmentalize those incidents, and not let them overwhelm their day to day interactions "on the Job".
Unfortunately there are those few that cross the line/use short cuts that many times become the undoing of a good apprehension as well as their careers.
My policy was, once I gave them their Miranda Rights, if they still kept talking, I was going to become their favorite listener and conversationalist.

I put one Baby Faced (looked like a choir boy) Killer away for life on only two words he used- "Easy Geese", - but that's another story.....

[JimD]

One of the reasons I don't believe bringing in a lawyer immediately and always is the right answer is I think we have an obligation to help the police. If we really didn't do anything but can help the police move on to whoever did, it helps justice be done. They have a job to do and everybody being uncooperative doesn't help.