17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #31

[TonyGatto]

Originally Posted by Aedrys

I think it was eight burglaries in twelve to fifteen months? I don't remember it being eight per day?

Here is the video of FT talking about the 8 burglaries (actually reports of burglaries)...all perpetrated by "young black males." Says FT, "You plant corn, you get corn."

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoft...taffee-one.cnn

[badme102]

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...zimmerman-case

Documents released in George Zimmerman case

Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester issued an order to unseal several documents. According to one of the documents released Monday, Zimmerman's arraignment was pushed forward from May 29 to May 8.

Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...#ixzz1stU5VbNz

Court order:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/90825621/G...eal-Court-File

[Sherbie]

Originally Posted by curl_in_progress

Question on how things work with a defense lawyer. Let's pretend that GZ tells MOM that the story he told the SPD wasn't true. That he did keep chasing Trayvon and was trying to detain him until the cops came and that it spun out of control and he shot him. But once he realized that he shot an unarmed 17 year old who was supposed to be in the complex, he couldn't take his words back because he'd already locked himself into those statements and he didn't want to go to jail.

Can MOM still defend GZ's original statements as if they are true and try to get him off?

He can't suborn perjury (knowingly elicit false testimony from witnesses or knowingly allow his client to testify untruthfully). That said, it's perfectly fine (and ethically obligatory) for him to cast whatever doubt he can on the state's evidence and hold their feet to the fire in making them prove their allegations, even if the defense attorney knows it's all true.

[m00c0w]

Originally Posted by curl_in_progress

Question on how things work with a defense lawyer. Let's pretend that GZ tells MOM that the story he told the SPD wasn't true. That he did keep chasing Trayvon and was trying to detain him until the cops came and that it spun out of control and he shot him. But once he realized that he shot an unarmed 17 year old who was supposed to be in the complex, he couldn't take his words back because he'd already locked himself into those statements and he didn't want to go to jail.

Can MOM still defend GZ's original statements as if they are true and try to get him off?

He would be helping his client commit perjury. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that might be a career-ender.

[annalia]

Zimmerman supporters say he was protecting neighborhood

A neighbor and friend of George Zimmerman's said Tuesday on CNN that their neighborhood had suffered eight burglaries, all committed by young black men, in the 15 months prior to Trayvon Martin's shooting.

Frank Taaffe's account paints a picture of a neighborhood watch volunteer making rounds in a community suffering a spate of burglaries when he ran across what he thought was a suspicious figure walking the streets. Police records appear to only partially substantiate Taaffe's claims about the burglaries, citing three of eight cases in which suspects were identified as black males.

City officials posted police reports to the city website detailing eight burglary reports in the neighborhood in the 14 months prior to Martin's February 26 death.

In three of those incidents, black males were implicated by witnesses or arrests. A fourth incident was less clear.

A homeowner who reported that someone had broken into her home and had stolen a video game console referred police to a black man who had previously visited her home asking for her son.

Police do not list that man as a suspect in their report.

In the other four incidents, there were no witnesses or suspects, according to police reports.

It was not clear if the documents posted to Sanford's website include all burglary incidents in the time period mentioned by Taaffe. A city spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comments.

full article; http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/justic...ies/index.html

[daisy7]

Originally Posted by mercuriod

Yes, because he has a contract, they have to officially approve his breaking the contract or they could be held responsible to pay him the remainder of his contract.

I am a consultant and most of my work is contract-based (some is verbal commitments for long-time clients). All my contracts have some type of out clause (for me and the client). If he is the one that broke the contract (by resigning), I'm not sure why the city would have to pay him anything?

[badme102]

Not much of a doc-dump, but hey! It's something.

Interesting to read the Motion to Appear in Civilian Clothing.

[mercuriod]

Originally Posted by daisy7

I am a consultant and most of my work is contract-based (some is verbal commitments for long-time clients). All my contracts have some type of out clause (for me and the client). If he is the one that broke the contract (by resigning), I'm not sure why the city would have to pay him anything?

Because it is a government job it is just a formality, he doesn't even have to be there but because it is a government entity, they have to have it on "official" public record. And example is with a school district, anytime a teacher resigns the resignation has to be "approved" by the school board and entered into the official minutes.

[Donjeta]

I think subornation of perjury is considered criminal but in practice, what with the attorney-client privilege keeping their conversations with their clients confidential, who is ever going to be able to prove what an attorney has or has not been told by their client? So it comes down to each individual's professional ethics imo, and sometimes practical considerations might win (in that if your client's story is confirmed horsefeathers and the prosecutor can prove it it may be better to choose another line of defense).

[grandmaj]

I have never worked in FL but when I was City Manager in MA everything required a vote of the Council to keep the record clear. Permanent records of all hiring, firing, resignations. It there is any wrong doing on the part of the Chief in this investigation pretty much the City is on the hook. Of course it would have to be proven but a case like that is expensive and generally settled out of court.

But making the record clear right now is imperative. Because the Officers of the Department, the staff and the citizens need to know who is in charge. And a formal vote to accept the resignation makes it clear, that this chief is no longer at the helm and has no right to dictate how that department is run.

[badme102]

Wow...........everyone must be busy reading.

[Velouria]

Originally Posted by Donjeta

I think subornation of perjury is considered criminal but in practice, what with the attorney-client privilege keeping their conversations with their clients confidential, who is ever going to be able to prove what an attorney has or has not been told by their client? So it comes down to each individual's professional ethics imo, and sometimes practical considerations might win (in that if your client's story is confirmed horsefeathers and the prosecutor can prove it it may be better to choose another line of defense).

BBM

However, sometimes when your professional ethics and your client's veracity are both lacking, then you float whatever you think you can get away with to win your case. Just one of the many lessons we learned from that other Florida trial.

[Aedrys]

Originally Posted by badme102

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...zimmerman-case

Documents released in George Zimmerman case

Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester issued an order to unseal several documents. According to one of the documents released Monday, Zimmerman's arraignment was pushed forward from May 29 to May 8.

Read more: http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...#ixzz1stU5VbNz

Court order:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/90825621/G...eal-Court-File

Oh great, his arraignment is on my birthday now! I can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing!

[Aedrys]

Originally Posted by badme102

Wow...........everyone must be busy reading.

I hope they finish quickly because I want to know what's in those documents, but I'm at work, so I can't read them myself without getting into trouble!

[Dr.Fessel]

Originally Posted by Aedrys

Oh great, his arraignment is on my birthday now! I can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing!

LOL my daughter's too. It will be easy to remember.

[LinasK]

Originally Posted by atthelake

One thing that I have noticed and top of mind is how often it is said by DT and others (Tafee) that he "wasn't on duty" when this happened. WTF! You aren't *on duty* for NW - it's a continual thing! Me thinks they *think* have a loophole somewhere?

I've said it on other threads- I am Neighborhood Watch, there is NO on duty, where I live, there are NO shifts. If you see or hear something suspicious, you call it in, no matter what the hour. That's where it ends, you don't carry a weapon- I don't own a gun and never will, and you don't follow. You leave it up to LE, period!

[belle3]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,3336571.story

(snipped from above article at above link)

Commissioner Patty Mahany said the chief submitted his resignation over the weekend; Lee temporarily left his post last month amid complaints about how his department handled the investigation of the Feb. 26 shooting. The city commission is scheduled to hold a special meeting late Monday afternoon to discuss Lee's severance package, Mahany said.

"Elected officials used this man as a scapegoat to heal our community," she said in a telephone interview with the Los Angeles Times. "Our community was never broken."

Mahany, who had supported Lee during the political furor over his department’s investigation, called the resignation a "terrible tragedy." She said she blamed civil rights activists whose protests "ruined the reputation and career of a really stellar law enforcement officer."

Lee "is nothing but a scapegoat," Mahany said. "Our police department did nothing wrong."

[Kimberlyd125]

I'm sure most neighborhood watch groups have their own rules.

There may be shifts for some.

[Sherbie]

Originally Posted by Donjeta

I think subornation of perjury is considered criminal but in practice, what with the attorney-client privilege keeping their conversations with their clients confidential, who is ever going to be able to prove what an attorney has or has not been told by their client? So it comes down to each individual's professional ethics imo, and sometimes practical considerations might win (in that if your client's story is confirmed horsefeathers and the prosecutor can prove it it may be better to choose another line of defense).

And sometimes they get away with it even when guilt is obvious to all involved. The worst case I can recall is David Westerfield's attorney agreeing for DW to tell where Danielle's body was in exchange for a deal. LE found her before that deal could be made, thank goodness. But the atty, obviously knowing his client had murdered and dumped her, nevertheless was allowed to rip the parents to shreds and point fingers at them during trial, as if his client were a perfectly innocent angel.

That attorney's conduct, more than any other, has always bothered me. I get that he was doing whatever he could get away with for his client, but it was all such an obvious ruse. Everyone knew about the almost-made deal to give up her remains location. He was unnecessarily vicious toward the parents - in any circumstance, but especially knowing what he knew. I don't know how that atty slept at night.

[Gin]

Originally Posted by grandmaj

I have never worked in FL but when I was City Manager in MA everything required a vote of the Council to keep the record clear. Permanent records of all hiring, firing, resignations. It there is any wrong doing on the part of the Chief in this investigation pretty much the City is on the hook. Of course it would have to be proven but a case like that is expensive and generally settled out of court.

But making the record clear right now is imperative. Because the Officers of the Department, the staff and the citizens need to know who is in charge. And a formal vote to accept the resignation makes it clear, that this chief is no longer at the helm and has no right to dictate how that department is run.

JMO/IMO
I also thing some of this is set up so that if an employee is under some sort of investigation they can't just resign without permission. (Even if they want to...they have to stay until whatever legal issue is sorted out.)
I realize this isn't the case with the Chief, but I think that's part of why the formal vote is required.

[Kimberlyd125]

Originally Posted by belle3

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,3336571.story

(snipped from above article at above link)

Commissioner Patty Mahany said the chief submitted his resignation over the weekend; Lee temporarily left his post last month amid complaints about how his department handled the investigation of the Feb. 26 shooting. The city commission is scheduled to hold a special meeting late Monday afternoon to discuss Lee's severance package, Mahany said.

"Elected officials used this man as a scapegoat to heal our community," she said in a telephone interview with the Los Angeles Times. "Our community was never broken."

Mahany, who had supported Lee during the political furor over his department’s investigation, called the resignation a "terrible tragedy." She said she blamed civil rights activists whose protests "ruined the reputation and career of a really stellar law enforcement officer."

Lee "is nothing but a scapegoat," Mahany said. "Our police department did nothing wrong."

I've had the impression he was being used as a scapegoat too.

That's a shame IMO.

[Phoenixfla]

Originally Posted by badme102

Not much of a doc-dump, but hey! It's something.

Interesting to read the Motion to Appear in Civilian Clothing.

That is interesting to read, but why would the state care what he is wearing?

[jaded cat]

Originally Posted by m00c0w

Then a lot of reporters misspoke. JMO

Gee, that's never happened before in the history of the US media.

[KateNY]

Originally Posted by suzihawk

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8320UK20120403

When Tracy Martin greeted the police that morning, a plainclothes detective asked him to describe his son. "He asked me what he last had on. He asked me if I had any recent pictures," Martin said.

"I showed him a recent picture in the camera and he shook his head and said, 'OK, let me go to my car and get something.'" The detective returned with a folder.

It was drizzling, and he asked Martin if they could go inside. When they were seated he pulled out a photo. It was Trayvon, dead at the scene - his eyes rolled back, a tear on his cheek, saliva coming from his mouth. "From that point, our nightmare," Martin said.

BBM

where's the medico types?

saliva isn't always present at death, or CPR ( the ones I've seen anyway)
in violent deaths, may be different? what causes that- asphyxiation?


just curious

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by Phoenixfla

That is interesting to read, but why would the state care what he is wearing?

I know. That seemed a bit strange to me, too. Why would they care??? jmo