17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #32

[LynnM]

I don't think MOM wants the SA to question GZ on the stand and in a SYG hearing the SA can do that. jmo

I bet you're right about that. And I think I remember one of the lawyers here posting that even if GZ had lost his SYG hearing he could still present that defense to a jury, so I would imagine even if he didn't ask for the SYG hearing he still has the option of mounting an SYG defense in a trial.

 

[jjenny]

Could possibly be nothing more than he doesn't want to show his hand yet?

Most likely. I don't see any reason for him not to use SYG defense.

 

[jjenny]

I bet you're right about that. And I think I remember one of the lawyers here posting that even if GZ had lost his SYG hearing he could still present that defense to a jury, so I would imagine even if he didn't ask for the SYG hearing he still has the option of mounting an SYG defense in a trial.

He could, but why would he want to? If judge grants immunity then Zimmerman will not go on trial and will be immune from civil lawsuits too.

 

[LambChop]

I bet you're right about that. And I think I remember one of the lawyers here posting that even if GZ had lost his SYG hearing he could still present that defense to a jury, so I would imagine even if he didn't ask for the SYG hearing he still has the option of mounting an SYG defense in a trial.

I think the idea of the SYG hearing is so he would not have a trial. When he does go to trial he can still claim self defense, yes. jmo

 

[Reader]

I bet you're right about that. And I think I remember one of the lawyers here posting that even if GZ had lost his SYG hearing he could still present that defense to a jury, so I would imagine even if he didn't ask for the SYG hearing he still has the option of mounting an SYG defense in a trial.

He doesn't have to present his case so the SA can see what it is before trial, in case GZ does not get immunity, and also maybe he thinks GZ would have a better chance before a jury, especially if it stays in his home county.

 

[jjenny]

I think the idea of the SYG hearing is so he would not have a trial. When he does go to trial he can still claim self defense, yes. jmo

Unless his lawyer wants some plea deal I don't see any reason for him not to request SYG hearing. It gives GZ a shot at walking away completely free and I believe he can demand that state paid his lost wages, etc, if judge were to grant him immunity.

 

[LynnM]

He could, but why would he want to? If judge grants immunity then Zimmerman will not go on trial and will be immune from civil lawsuits too.

I don't know, I'm wondering if it's a cost/benefit thing. If he goes to the hearing and wins, then there's no trial, clearly the most desirable outcome for Zimmerman. But if he goes to the hearing and has to testify and he loses, would he be at a disadvantage during the trial?

Does anyone know about these kinds of hearings?

 

[Reader]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular

This link about the meeting on Chief Lee resigning also says this:

But Bonaparte said he and Lee "determined that with the vote of no confidence, it would be very challenging for him to continue as the police chief" and worked out a severance plan.

Bonaparte said the review will "take time" and there will be a lot of evidence emerging since the case is a criminal matter. He has said an interim chief -- who would replace Scott, the current acting chief -- could be in place early next week.

"While I asked for a review, it seems as though it will be some time before I can get that information, maybe as much as three months or more," Bonaparte said. "And rather than staying in this limbo, it would be better for us to have a separation. Chief Lee and I talked and came to an agreement it would be best if he separate from the Sanford Police Department."

 

[Velouria]

Unless his lawyer wants some plea deal I don't see any reason for him not to request SYG hearing. It gives GZ a shot at walking away completely free and I believe he can demand that state paid his lost wages, etc, if judge were to grant him immunity.

Would that include the wages lost when from the time he moved out of his house and disappeared immediately after the shooting up to his arrest and brief incarceration, or just what period, exactly? GZ hasn't spent any significant time behind bars (unfortunately).

 

[Reader]

I don't know, I'm wondering if it's a cost/benefit thing. If he goes to the hearing and wins, then there's no trial, clearly the most desirable outcome for Zimmerman. But if he goes to the hearing and has to testify and he loses, would he be at a disadvantage during the trial?

Does anyone know about these kinds of hearings?

Only what I've read here, lol....but I do think it would be a disadvantage to GZ to have the SYG hearing and lose, since the SA can use all his testimony in the trial and will know what the defense's case is...the better to fight it. That's what I understand so far.

Yesterday I brought up that the SA and prosecutor have both talked about going to trial...either they are very confident of winning an SYG hearing, or they know there won't be one...IMO...

Only MOM knows at this point and I will be watching to see if a filing is posted for the hearing...

 

[Sensei]

I don't know, I'm wondering if it's a cost/benefit thing. If he goes to the hearing and wins, then there's no trial, clearly the most desirable outcome for Zimmerman. But if he goes to the hearing and has to testify and he loses, would he be at a disadvantage during the trial?

Does anyone know about these kinds of hearings?

Exactly, If MOM feels that they have a really good chance after seeing the discovery then there will most likely be a SYG hearing, but they do NOT want to have this hearing if there is a significant chance that they will lose because first George will HAVE to testify at that hearing, in a trial he would not have to but in that he has no shot at getting the immunity if he does not testify and what he says is then information that the SA could cross him on at trial if he were to choose to testify. A SYG hearing will give the Prosecutor a preview of exactly what his defense is going to be at trial and precisely what story she is going to have to discredit....so if there is a chance that they stand to lose that hearing it will very likely not happen. IMO JMHO and stuff.

 

[jjenny]

[/B]

Only what I've read here, lol....but I do think it would be a disadvantage to GZ to have the SYG hearing and lose, since the SA can use all his testimony in the trial and will know what the defense's case is...the better to fight it. That's what I understand so far.

Yesterday I brought us that the SA and prosecutor have both talked about going to trial...either they are very confident of winning an SYG hearing, or they know there won't be one...IMO...

I don't read much into it.
I wouldn't expect the prosecutors to be saying they expect to lose the SYG hearing even if they did have concerns that they could lose it.

 

[Phoenixfla]

<modsnip>

Personally, I like to consider both sides of the story when I'm voicing an opinion, particularly a very strong opinion, regarding whether a citizen of this country should spend the rest of their natural life behind bars or where, even if they do not, they have been destroyed in the media and in the court of public opinion so that their lives will never be the same, regardless.

I get Trayvon and his family's side, here. But that doesn't mean there isn't another perfectly valid side of the story, or that it shouldn't be sought or brought out elsewhere, or that judgment shouldn't be reserved until it has been. jmo

Great post. Thank you.

 

[Sensei]

Would that include the wages lost when from the time he moved out of his house and disappeared immediately after the shooting up to his arrest and brief incarceration, or just what period, exactly? GZ hasn't spent any significant time behind bars (unfortunately).

I don't think so, since he was not under arrest or in fact under any restrictions by the PD. He voluntarily quit his job and moved and the State nor the local PD had anything to do with that, he would be entitled to lost wages (and that may be dependant on whether or not he even had a job.) You can't collect lost wages from a job you didn't have. IMO JMHO and stuff.

 

[jjenny]

I don't think so, since he was not under arrest or in fact under any restrictions by the PD. He voluntarily quit his job and moved and the State nor the local PD had anything to do with that, he would be entitled to lost wages (and that may be dependant on whether or not he even had a job.) You can't collect lost wages from a job you didn't have. IMO JMHO and stuff.

Yea, in his case he might not get lost wages back (since he appears to have quit his job even before he was arrested and charged)-but that is probably the last thing on his mind right now.

 

[Just K]

It was a Sunday evening at about dinnertime (7:00 PM)

People have friends and relatives that visit and especially on Sunday evenings for dinner. People have pet-sitters, especially on weekends. Teenagers go for walks because they often don't have a car.

Burglars generally don't hang out, check out or approach anyone who might have seen them. They tend to turn their head away from possible witnesses to their presence in the the area. They do not want to be identified. They do not want to be seen.

If a burglar sees headlights or a person they tend to hide until a car passes. They are looking out for a time to strike when they will not be seen.

Burglaries tend to occur when people/residents are at work/away or asleep.

Burglars often wear dark clothes and shoes not brand new white tennis shoes that can be seen in the dark.

IF a police officer had come up on the "scuffle" they most likely would not have shot & killed either person. They would have broken up the fight, asked questions and most likely arrested the person with the gun. If anyone would have been shot by a police officer, because of a physical fight, it would have been the person pointing the gun.

 

[Sensei]

I bet you're right about that. And I think I remember one of the lawyers here posting that even if GZ had lost his SYG hearing he could still present that defense to a jury, so I would imagine even if he didn't ask for the SYG hearing he still has the option of mounting an SYG defense in a trial.

He does, he has the option of using the defense but not requesting the hearing if he chooses.

I said it before though and I will say it again, I will NOT be at all surprised if the defense they decide to use will be based on the story about GZ and Trayvon both struggling for the gun, and it just went off....Accidental and all that....don't know why but they have done dry runs on several different stories so who knows what might come up, but I think that is possible. IMO JMHO and stuff.

 

[MaryAnn]

I don't think so, since he was not under arrest or in fact under any restrictions by the PD. He voluntarily quit his job and moved and the State nor the local PD had anything to do with that, he would be entitled to lost wages (and that may be dependant on whether or not he even had a job.) You can't collect lost wages from a job you didn't have. IMO JMHO and stuff.

You would think he would be worried about supporting his family. Instead of Patroling he should have been on the internet looking for a job!

Why didn't he join the Service if he wanted to play with guns so much! :banghead:

 

[LambChop]

Unless his lawyer wants some plea deal I don't see any reason for him not to request SYG hearing. It gives GZ a shot at walking away completely free and I believe he can demand that state paid his lost wages, etc, if judge were to grant him immunity.

GZ would have to answer questions I don't think MOM wants him to answer. Once he testifies in a hearing and loses he is stuck with those answers before MOM can even look at what the state has. The State has already admitted that GZ's statements to LE conflict with some of their evidence. If GZ lied on his statement a SYG hearing would not be a walk in the park for him. jmo

 

[HiHater]

I don't know what he means by that at all. What other defense is available to him? He admitted to the shooting. I guess he could claim he didn't intentionally shot the gun and it went off during the struggle, but that would not work if he told police otherwise.

Is there a traditional self-defense law, just plain old justifiable homicide, or in FL is it Stand Your Ground?

Sorry, hope that makes sense...