TexasCHLforum.com

VoiceofReason wrote:

RX8er wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Interesting double standard. Prosecutors couldn't wait to charge Shellie Zimmerman with perjury, but their star witness? Well, that's another matter entirely.

I say we gather a bunch of people and start protesting. This is a travesty of justice.

Zimmerman is the victim of political persecution. There is no way the man or his family can have any sort of normal life after this.

Even if justice is done in the court and he is found not guilty, there will be demonstrations and/or riots.

I look for the persecutor to threaten to go for the max penalty against his wife (five years and $5000.00) unless he pleads guilty to a lesser charge. This is the only way the persecutor and judge can get out of the situation they allowed themselves to get railroaded into.

I don't think the "allowed" themselves to get railroaded....I think they jumped in on their own, with both feet, expecting a quid pro quo.

Fox news just reported that the homeowner's association has settled a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the Martin family.

Link here - http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/04/05/pa ... Insider%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They're going to look awfully stupid if Zimmerman is released after the immunity hearing.

baldeagle wrote:Link here - http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/04/05/pa ... Insider%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They're going to look awfully stupid if Zimmerman is released after the immunity hearing.

Even dumber if Zimmerman is cleared and then sues the Martin estate for $1 mil.

jmra wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Link here - http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/04/05/pa ... Insider%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They're going to look awfully stupid if Zimmerman is released after the immunity hearing.

Even dumber if Zimmerman is cleared and then sues the Martin estate for $1 mil.

Looks like it was paid to the parents. So there rich now not Martin's estate.

Interesting that they settled. First I guess (not being a lawyer) they would have to show that Zimmerman was acting in an official capacity of the Subdivision association. Then I guess they would have to show that the subdivision was some how negligent.

They may have decided the payment was worth the risk of trial and maybe more bad publicity for their company for not settling in the first place. Afterall it was Obama's son. I suspect Zimmerman's homeowner's insurance will try and settle too even if he is found not guilty, if it goes that far.

On the bad side, Civic Association insurance dues will be going up. They will probably make rules that any watch group be unarmed. And worse homeowner's insurance policies may start asking about if there are guns in the home and charge more if there are.

Dadtodabone wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... ma-bullied

Zimmerman's brother and family in California in hiding due to being a target. No love for Obama.

If Mr. Zimmerman is found not guilty in his trial, will the State of Florida provide some form of protection for him and his family? What about the Feds, could they petition the Marshall's Service for entry into the Witness Security Program or the like?

They won't do a thing form him. They can ruin a person's life with nearly complete immunity. One would have to prove malice, I think, before they could get anything from the state.

philip964 wrote:

jmra wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Link here - http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/04/05/pa ... Insider%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They're going to look awfully stupid if Zimmerman is released after the immunity hearing.

Even dumber if Zimmerman is cleared and then sues the Martin estate for $1 mil.

Looks like it was paid to the parents. So there rich now not Martin's estate.

Interesting that they settled. First I guess (not being a lawyer) they would have to show that Zimmerman was acting in an official capacity of the Subdivision association. Then I guess they would have to show that the subdivision was some how negligent.

They may have decided the payment was worth the risk of trial and maybe more bad publicity for their company for not settling in the first place. Afterall it was Obama's son. I suspect Zimmerman's homeowner's insurance will try and settle too even if he is found not guilty, if it goes that far.

On the bad side, Civic Association insurance dues will be going up. They will probably make rules that any watch group be unarmed. And worse homeowner's insurance policies may start asking about if there are guns in the home and charge more if there are.

You're probably right on the payout. I got hung up on this:
Under the terms of the settlement, Trayvon’s parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, and his estate, agreed to set aside their wrongful death claim and claims for pain and suffering, loss of earnings and expenses.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/state- ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Prosecution seeks to not allow Trayvon's past to be brought up at trial.

Any of this make any sense? I understand, when a man is charged with murder and he is also been charged with murdering five other people at different times than this. It is prejudicial to mention the other murders he is charged with as that really has no bearing on the murder in question. Here evidence is being with held back to make it more fair to the accused. Here the evidence is being with held to make it less fair to the accused. Do they often prevent defendant's from presenting evidence at their trial. I understand in rape trials this can get touchy. But to me any evidence a defendant wants to produce that is relevant should be allowed. To me this is all relevant. After all we are not talking about him presenting evidence about "space aliens" or something.

philip964 wrote:http://www.clickorlando.com/news/state- ... index.html

Prosecution seeks to not allow Trayvon's past to be brought up at trial.

Any of this make any sense? I understand, when a man is charged with murder and he is also been charged with murdering five other people at different times than this. It is prejudicial to mention the other murders he is charged with as that really has no bearing on the murder in question. Here evidence is being with held back to make it more fair to the accused. Here the evidence is being with held to make it less fair to the accused. Do they often prevent defendant's from presenting evidence at their trial. I understand in rape trials this can get touchy. But to me any evidence a defendant wants to produce that is relevant should be allowed. To me this is all relevant. After all we are not talking about him presenting evidence about "space aliens" or something.

To me it seems even less relevant during the trial because the defendant wouldn't normally have any knowledge of the other person's past. That's certainly the case here. Stuff like that could come up in sentencing hearings, but shouldn't be a factor in a trial.

Seems like Martin's past might be relevant in deciding whether he was more or less likely to attack Zimmerman as Zimmerman claims.

brainman wrote:Seems like Martin's past might be relevant in deciding whether he was more or less likely to attack Zimmerman as Zimmerman claims.

Zimmerman's account is more credible if Martin's past actions suggest that he would be prone to that type of response. It should be allowable as Zimmerman's account has not changed from his original statement and he had no way of knowing anything about Martin's past at the time in order to shape his story to match.

jmra wrote:

brainman wrote:Seems like Martin's past might be relevant in deciding whether he was more or less likely to attack Zimmerman as Zimmerman claims.

Zimmerman's account is more credible if Martin's past actions suggest that he would be prone to that type of response. It should be allowable as Zimmerman's account has not changed from his original statement and he had no way of knowing anything about Martin's past at the time in order to shape his story to match.

There is no doubt the rabble will do their best to keep this from being a factor.

philip964 wrote:http://www.clickorlando.com/news/state- ... index.html

Prosecution seeks to not allow Trayvon's past to be brought up at trial.

Any of this make any sense?

Yes, it makes sense in a sick twisted way. Prosecution maintains that Martin is the victim here, when most of us suspect that Zimmerman is the victim, who successfully defended himself from a punk thug. Prosecution's case against Zimmerman falls apart if Martin's record is admitted into evidence. There is a reason they MUST convict Zimmerman........he's not their real target. Their real target is Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which is what the Martin entourage set out to blame the shooting on. (...even though that is not really an issue here; Zimmerman didn't "stand his ground." He was getting his butt handed to him during a fight for his life, on his back, with a younger, larger, stronger, thug on top of him, and he had the scalp lacerations on the back of his head and the broken nose to prove it. Zimmerman did not reach for his gun until Martin tried to take it from him while issuing a verbal threat to use the gun on Zimmerman.) If Martin's record can be introduced into evidence, it bolsters Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

There is something really corrupt about a prosecution which depends on suppressing the truth to arrive at a verdict they can live with......because living with the truth is not acceptable. THAT is the kind of crap liberals foster.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.clickorlando.com/news/state- ... index.html

Prosecution seeks to not allow Trayvon's past to be brought up at trial.

Any of this make any sense?

Yes, it makes sense in a sick twisted way. Prosecution maintains that Martin is the victim here, when most of us suspect that Zimmerman is the victim, who successfully defended himself from a punk thug. Prosecution's case against Zimmerman falls apart if Martin's record is admitted into evidence. There is a reason they MUST convict Zimmerman........he's not their real target. Their real target is Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which is what the Martin entourage set out to blame the shooting on. (...even though that is not really an issue here; Zimmerman didn't "stand his ground." He was getting his butt handed to him during a fight for his life, on his back, with a younger, larger, stronger, thug on top of him, and he had the scalp lacerations on the back of his head and the broken nose to prove it. Zimmerman did not reach for his gun until Martin tried to take it from him while issuing a verbal threat to use the gun on Zimmerman.) If Martin's record can be introduced into evidence, it bolsters Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

There is something really corrupt about a prosecution which depends on suppressing the truth to arrive at a verdict they can live with......because living with the truth is not acceptable. THAT is the kind of crap liberals foster.

The ironic thing here is that it is almost always the defense that is trying to suppress evidence and the prosecution the one crying about not being able to do he job if the evidence is suppressed.

jmra wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

philip964 wrote:http://www.clickorlando.com/news/state- ... index.html

Prosecution seeks to not allow Trayvon's past to be brought up at trial.

Any of this make any sense?

Yes, it makes sense in a sick twisted way. Prosecution maintains that Martin is the victim here, when most of us suspect that Zimmerman is the victim, who successfully defended himself from a punk thug. Prosecution's case against Zimmerman falls apart if Martin's record is admitted into evidence. There is a reason they MUST convict Zimmerman........he's not their real target. Their real target is Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which is what the Martin entourage set out to blame the shooting on. (...even though that is not really an issue here; Zimmerman didn't "stand his ground." He was getting his butt handed to him during a fight for his life, on his back, with a younger, larger, stronger, thug on top of him, and he had the scalp lacerations on the back of his head and the broken nose to prove it. Zimmerman did not reach for his gun until Martin tried to take it from him while issuing a verbal threat to use the gun on Zimmerman.) If Martin's record can be introduced into evidence, it bolsters Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

There is something really corrupt about a prosecution which depends on suppressing the truth to arrive at a verdict they can live with......because living with the truth is not acceptable. THAT is the kind of crap liberals foster.

The ironic thing here is that it is almost always the defense that is trying to suppress evidence and the prosecution the one crying about not being able to do he job if the evidence is suppressed.

Prosecutors suppress evidence all the time....usually they don't get caught. Plenty of prosecutors are not any more interested in the truth than the defense is.