The Hidden Agenda Exposed – Mark O’Mara On BET – Air Date April 20th @7:30pm (Videos)

Major big time HatTip to Treeper Froggielegs for digging up the golden nugget we needed to finally prove what we have suspected for a while.   And with the helpful brilliance of Ad rem Puddy capturing the moments, we are finally able to highlight the setup of George Zimmerman and expose the dark underbelly of the Sanford Machinations.

Black Entertainment Television (BET) aired a Trayvon Martin Exclusive hosted by Emmitt Miller on April 20th.     April 20th is the same date of the First Bond Hearing for George Zimmerman and nine days after Mark O’Mara took over as lead defense attorney (4/11).

There are two videos.   Part II is the segment where the ulterior motives of Mark O’Mara surface and things click into place.

Key things to note in video #1:

         

Pam Bondi phone call to Tracy and Sybrina – Listen to what she says – Remember Pam Bondi and Benjamin Crump are personal friends from the Martin Lee Anderson case.   Bondi was the State Prosecutor and Crump was the Anderson family civil lawyer suing the state of Florida and Bay County.  It was Bondi who talked Rick Scott into selecting Angela Corey as the prosecutor of George Zimmerman.  Ugh, ugh, ugh….. It’s a trap.

Also note how Benjamin Crump lawyerly parses his words regarding Trayvon’s school records.  We know Trayvon was excessively tardy, absent 53 days in the current school year, and serving his Third 10-day suspension at the time he was staying in Sanford.

The key things to note in Video #2

#1. Mark O’Mara’s words to Emmitt Miller @ 6:15 mark They will send Ice Cold shivers up your spine. Listen as O’Mara says that Stand Your Ground is “an absurd statute”, and “I don’t know it’s purpose”.

#2. The LOOK.    – AT EXACTLY 7:54 mark. During the bond hearing when George Zimmerman answers Judge Lester’s question about him being represented by Mark O’Mara.   Just as George says “yes sir” the “in your face picture” speaking 1,000 words as Mark O’Mara and Angela Corey look directly at each other.   The picture says it all.   Proof right there that the fix was in.   Angela Corey has the smiling look of glee, and O’Mara gives her the nod of recognition.  Watch it yourself.  Unreal.

Let me transcribe exactly what Mark O’Mara says at the 6:15 mark when questioned about Stand Your Ground:

It’s an absurd statute, y’ know, I don’t find it’s purpose.  To be quite honestly, because there have been a number of people quote “exonerated” because of the Stand Your Ground Law, um, it really should be a traditional self-defense.

[…]  A young black male was shot seemingly without reason….

Mark O’Mara (defense attorney)

BET 4/20/12 air date 7:30pm

What more proof do you need than this interview with Mark O’Mara before he even had substantive time with his client to discuss the events surrounding the shooting.   The interview took place before the Friday 4/20 air date obviously.

It’s an absurd statute, y’ know, I don’t find it’s purpose

Meaning the interview you just watched took place prior to the initial bond hearing where THE LOOKThis look, between Mark O’Mara and Prosecutor Angela Corey took place.

Watch the video and at the 7:54 mark you will clearly see how Mark O’Mara and Angela Corey look at each other.   In this moment, this frozen, captured, on TV moment, you can tell what is going on and it all begins to make sense.   George is being delivered.   Watch it, and look closely at these moments in time.  The screen shots do not do it justice.

I need only one more confirmation of what I believe took place between the morning of Tuesday April 10th and the evening of Wednesday April 11th to fully expose the manipulative den of vipers.

Then I will be able to blow the lid off the Sanford Setup of George Zimmerman by both the prosecution AND his defense.

To accomplish this I need two research Treepers to help me.   If you want to volunteer to help, send me an email asap.  Include your username in the subject line along with the word “Wolverine“.   To volunteer you must have an active twitter account and be well versed in twitter use, in addition you need to know how to “screen grab” and send screen shots to me via email.    If you are up to the challenge, and want to help, send me an email and I will provide specific details on the strategy.

In the interim please George Zimmerman family, please begin a conversation, an honest conversation, about changing representation.    Mark O’Mara needs to go.

Everyone else start praying.

Mark O’Mara is part of the problem and he is NOT on the side of setting George Zimmerman free.

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Decepticons, Mark O'Mara, media bias, Obama re-election, Obama Research/Discovery, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Predictions, Racism, Trayvon Martin, Treehouse Tips, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

657 Responses to The Hidden Agenda Exposed – Mark O’Mara On BET – Air Date April 20th @7:30pm (Videos)

  1. DizzyMissL says:

    I saw that interview with MOM when it was first aired and I have not trusted him since.

    Like

    • RiseFromBelow says:

      I think he knows what he’s doing. He can’t succeed with a frontal attack. He’s playing chess and the long game.

      Like

  2. mooserator says:

    MOM: It’s an absurd statute. Now, they’re a number of people that have been QUOTE exonerated ….

    I have never, in all my life, heard a Defense lawyer speak anywhere close to this – and to be interviewed for this case – and shooting down the means of that client having their case dismissed, and going further, and implying they wouldn’t be validly exonerated, if that comes to be, is criminal considering his position as protector of George Zimmerman.

    The “Quote exonerated” is chilling in context.

    .

    Like

    • DizzyMissL says:

      Chilling is the exact right word.

      Like

    • howie says:

      Corey could have an easier case charging Tracy Martin with Negligent Manslaughter than Zimmerman. He failed to supervise his child and it led to him being killed. That much is clear. He was responsible for his kid not Zimmerman.

      Like

    • myopiafree says:

      I am certain that O’Mara is a nice guy. But if my lawyer told the Press, that, “…I think I am INNOCENT..” – what the hell is the implication of that statement? If I found out about that statement, I would find another lawyer. GZ is in a very bad position to do that. But further, if my lawyer stated that the concept of “Castle” or Stand Your Ground” – was a JOKE – that lawyer would be incompetent to research the use of “SYG” for my benifet. It is very difficult to “change horses mid-stream” – but those statements are concerning.

      Like

    • mwsomerset says:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1TTyAn_Kko This would be the type of SYG case O’Mara might have been referring to. The shooter in this case walked and I find that apalling..

      Like

  3. Geosqt says:

    I’m at a loss for words. My heart is heavy as my suspicions have just been confirmed. I hope MOM reads this and takes a long hard look in the mirror. George deserves justice. Nothing more, nothing less. I hate feeling this hopeless and all I can do is pray…

    Like

  4. ejarra says:

    After reading what SD wrote this AM and this thread I agree with the those here in support of MOM. I could not imbrace the concept that MOM would be willing to distroy his career to side with the devil. One of the big reasons to get a case like this and act pro-bono is to get large future cases. The only way to do that, is to WIN.

    Now, “the glance”. When one takes a statement out of context, it can be demonstrably different than what is intendend. In this case “the glance” is also. When one watches it in its intirety for the few seconds; it too it changes to “see you in court”, as in I’m gonna win.

    I still believe the problem lies with Lester and his prejudices. I started thinking about whether he reads the Orlando Sentinal and if he had been swayed by the writings of Weiner and Stutzman. There had to be a reason for him to say that the prosecutions evidence is strong at the first bond hearing.

    Like

  5. Jay says:

    I apologize in advance if this has been posted already but I just came across it.

    http://www.folioweekly.com/folio0214wkl007.php

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      Wow. Makes me wonder who might be posting here on behalf of Corey.

      Like

      • Jay says:

        Me too. I have been posting here a few months and have noticed people say that some posters seem to have knowledge about thing before they are public.

        Like

      • Jay says:

        Best way to find out is to study how black sheep posts then pay close attention here. I found a post from Blacksheep unrelated to the TM case. I’m sure there is more out there I’ll keep looking.

        Blacksheep 10/04/11 – 11:13 am 00
        It’s amazing how the haters
        It’s amazing how the haters can twist a story. Too bad defamation of character comes with phony names.
        Donnie D – your comprehension skills are bull crap! No more money has been added to the SAO budget. Corey is doing what everyone has been calling for – instead of filling high salaried positions, she’s spreading the responsibilities and monies to the next level hard working employees – they haven’t had raises in three years.
        Mr. Obveeus – (obviously a former employee who did not make the cut) you can criticize Corey all you want but even her greatest haters cannot deny her intelligence or integrity.
        WRR1 – Angela does not want MORE money. She’s simply redistributing the funds made available through attrition.
        Get your facts straight before you criticize. Cutting library budgets from city funds has nothing to do with SAO’s state provided funding.
        Corey has been in office almost 3 years and has done everything she promised to do during the campaign. Too bad the haters will never admit it.

        Like

    • froggielegs says:

      “Corey’s anger hasn’t all been behind the scenes. In a Jan. 24 phone call to FW editor Anne Schindler, she accused Folio Weekly of libeling her”

      LOL is there anyone she hasn’t accused of libeling her? You would think after one or two people saying things about her that she would look in the mirror and see what is wrong. But then again, she most likely broke all the mirrors by looking in them.

      Like

  6. sybilj says:

    Prediction:

    “Tough prosecutor” Corey was brought in to over-charged GZ (now known as “liar”) with second-degree murder, thus allowing Courthouse Crowd card-carrying member and plea-happy O’Mara to bargain down to manslaughter, (the charge most predicted and the police originally sought.)

    The Scheme Team will “reluctantly” accept the agreement; citing lack of evidence due to shoddy police investigations, “witness tampering, ” and the need to ‘spare the family’ further duress of a trial, … yada, yada, yada. After all, it’s the civil suits the ST is seeking.

    All will harmoniously join hands calling for the repeal of SYG. Scott will sign new “TM” legislation, while negotiating another big, fat payoff to Crump & Co.

    Like

    • sybilj says:

      http://www.downtowncouncil.org/angela-b-corey-bio/

      …(Corey) served on the Transition Teams for both Governor Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi.

      http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/082908/met_324642615.shtml

      August 29, 2008
      …Corey also named felony prosecutors Mark Borello, Bernie de la Rionda and John Guy to her transition team Tuesday. She worked with all three extensively before leaving the office in 2006.

      Like

    • Examiner says:

      Believe it or not, most criminal defendants are guilty. Yes, it’s true.
      I don’t know if Mr. O’Mara is “plea-happy”, but since the clients are usually guilty, it seems that pleas bargains are a way to acheive the best outcome for the defendant/client.
      If he was a go-for-broke type, he would not have much of a future as a defense attorney.

      Like

      • Examiner says:

        I forgot to ask you what is the mechanism where the governor (I guess you mean the state of FL) gives money to Crump as related to this case?

        Like

        • sybilj says:

          Civil rights violations and conspiracy charges against State Attorney’s Office (and Sanford Police).

          See also: Martin Lee Anderson>Crump>Crist, etal=$7.2million

          Like

          • Examiner says:

            If you mean that the state of FL has violated TM’s civil rights, how exactly did that happen?

            Like

            • recoverydotgod says:

              http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-2844182.html

              Crist and several other lawmakers successfully pushed for the settlement this spring despite the Legislature’s general distaste for claims measures.

              The state has already paid Anderson’s parents $200,000, the most allowed by law without legislative approval. The bill signed by Crist pays the remaining $4.8 million.

              “What’s being done here today is the right thing to do,” Crist said just before signing the document. “No dollar amount can bring Martin back. It’s just.”

              Like

            • sybilj says:

              I did NOT mean the State of FL violated TM’s civil rights!! Scheme Team may argue TM’s civil rights were violated under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. (But that’s as far as I go down THAT road. Do your own research.)

              Like

              • Examiner says:

                Ok, but I’m still at a loss as to what hope for a monetary settlement/Award the Trayvon Benjamin Martin Has Been Wronged So Somebody Pay Us Lots of Money Family Enterprises, LLC ® ™ operation has when the only person who they will be allowed to name in any suit is GZ.

                Like

                • stellap says:

                  There are many cases where civil damages are awarded when the criminal case is concluded with a ‘not guilty’ verdict (OJ Simpson is a famous one). As long as Stand Your Ground is not valid, they can sue GZ.

                  Like

                  • Examiner says:

                    Yes, and O.J. was the defendant in that case, nobody else. And in this case, it’s GZ and nobody else. You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip. GZ is tapped out. Civil case yields no money.

                    Like

                • nameofthepen says:

                  @Examiner, who says, : “Ok, but I’m still at a loss as to what hope for a monetary settlement/Award…when the only person who they will be allowed to name in any suit is GZ.”

                  Your Career Aptitude Test got a low score for the category, “Lawyer/Attorney”. ;)

                  Always sniff out the deep pockets. I bet The Retreat at Twin Lakes’ Homeowners Association have a nice fat liability insurance bond…

                  Like

      • Popeye's Spinach says:

        So from MOM’s standpoint when he took on the case …….. Z is guilty, and MOM is doing him a favor buying him a plea bargain.

        Like

        • myopiafree says:

          That seems to be O’mara’s idea. GZ loses big time if he does a “plea deal”. He need a better lawyer – versed in “Stand Your Ground”. O’Mara is not that lawyer.

          Like

    • mwsomerset says:

      Or…once O’Mara got all the facts and evidence in this case and realized that George did have a right to shoot Tray O’Mara hired West to help take this to court instead of plea to manslaughter.

      Like

    • Everyone “BOOK MARK” sibilj’s prediction – IMHO She’s right on the money.

      Like

    • kathy says:

      I think you are absolutely 1000% correct on this. To me, it seems as plain as day. The only hope is that George will stand by his principles and refuse to take the deal. But I couldn’t blame him if he does. This case is the worst travesty I’ve ever seen up close. It makes me ashamed to be a member of the bar and I honestly can’t say I would have blamed George if he HAD taken the money and ran. To honestly believe that with my heart is just so overwhelming :::sigh:::

      Like

  7. Gretchen says:

    New here (to commenting). Just have to say that the glance between MOM and Corey speaks volumes. Think about situations in your own life when you exchanged glances with someone in a similar situation…something secret, something you wanted to keep secret but still wanted to communicate to the other person. The way MOM looks away to deflect from the glance is classic. Corey, however, couldn’t hide her delight. Sickening. Praying for George.

    Like

    • Examiner says:

      I looked at the video. Corey is looking at either O’Mara or GZ, or both. O’Mara picks up on the fact that she is staring.
      If I took notice that someone near me was staring at me, I think I would probably look back for at least the 1/2 second that O’Mara did. And I saw no verticle motion of a nod, so I don’t get where that is coming from.

      Like

    • Cupcakes says:

      Yep. Such looks are typically not exchanged by those who are on opposite teams, but by those who both know what is going on and are on the “same side”.

      Like

    • Welcome Gretchen. Nice to see you.

      Mark O’Mara and Angela Corey are both Romans trying to figure out how to hold down Zimmerman’s feet while someone else does the nailing, yet avoid the ire from the crowd…. Prayers indeed needed.

      Like

      • Walther PPK says:

        SD, about O’Mara and Corey, they are more like pharisees than Romans but yeah that is generally about right what you are saying

        Like

  8. zauber says:

    The self defense law is one thing and ‘stand your ground’ is quite another. You have to spend a lot of time in court to really appreciate the finer distinctions but ‘stand your ground’ gives you more of an affirmative defense when you are trying to defend your client after he’s shot/stabbed/severely beaten a thug who’s tried to mug/batter him. The ‘stand your ground’ laws received a solid thumping at numerous panel discussions during the Essence Fest this week, not self defense but ‘stand your ground’ in particular. There are many out there who do not believe that some solid citizen should be able to defend him/herself against a ‘good asskickin’ from a thug by shooting or otherwise severely injuring the attacker. I’ve watched a number of court trials, civil and criminal, where the defendant has used deadly or potentially deadly force against an attacker and, especially when the attacker’s been a minority and the defendant either white or Asian, the defendant has been fighting for his life with the attacker being presented as the victim. Many blacks see ‘stand your ground’ as a white hunting license for black males with no bag limit . That desire to see the privileged Blue Eyed Devil running in fear rather than standing firm and asserting his right to retain his ill-gotten gains is quite strong in many instances. If both actors in this little drama were either black or white it would have been a non-issue, a blip in the daily reporting on random acts of violence. GZ’s at the eye of a perfect political storm and, for all intents and purposes, his life as he knew it is over regardless of what the trial verdict is. After the criminal trial, if he’s found not guilty and Holden’s still on the throne, the Feds will try to hang him on squishy civil rights charges and the Trayvon Martin Family Investment Co, LLC, will try to vacuum out his monies through. a civil trial . Even if he wins against the Feds and the civil trial he’ll be flat broke. Best he can hope for is to mitigate any potential damages and live whatever life he has left the best he can.

    Like

    • Examiner says:

      While I generally agree, What monies would Martin Family, LLC hope to recover?
      It is widely discussed here that GZ is not going to have a lot of money left over once this shakes out.
      If the Feds were to try and claim a civil rights violation, would that not be counter productive to getting money from GZ? after all, that means more legal fees. Didn’t O.J. move to florida to file bankruptcy since the laws there are faborable to the defendant?
      Some of the logic here doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

      Like

        • Examiner says:

          That dude was in the care, custody and control of the State of Florida. While it does explaing where Crump got his money and some notoriety, it does not track with the facts of this case.

          Like

      • mwsomerset says:

        They will be looking to sue the big pockets….the company that owns the condo complex, city of Sanford and recover any money Zim might make from a book or movie deal.

        Like

        • Examiner says:

          It is a fact that the government has zero duty to protect anyone from harm. This is a USSC ruling. That lets off the City, County and State from any responsibility as to what happened leading to TM’s death.
          If one tries to make the developer of the property responsible, then it is a short jump to include those responsible for TM even being in the area, and that leads us directly back to the parents, he was admittedly unsupervised that night.
          But the property developer cannot be held legally liable for the criminal acts of others. It would be different if someone fell and hurt themselves on a bad sidewalk, porch, etc.

          Like

          • John Galt says:

            Easy enough to come up with enough window dressing to satisfy the incurious masses and carry off the heist: Z was issued a concealed carry permit in spite of prior restraining order and charges for resisting arrested with violence, made numerous prior calls to SPD profiling black males as stated by Serino, SPD knew or should have known Z was carrying a gun in violation of Neighborhood Watch Handbook.

            Won’t take much, the grand jury has already been subverted and the police station surrendered. A few hundred hoodie wearing “No Justice No Peace” chanting Obama’s sons can easily be arranged, if required.

            Like

            • Examiner says:

              Unless you are claiming that GZ’z permit was issued contrary to FL law, There is no way that civil damages can be awarded for the supposed negligence of the state for issuing him one. This is a matter of law and therefore a jury would never ne allowed to consider it as a fact in any lawsuit.

              Like

              • John Galt says:

                There will be no jury. All of the Anderson defendants prevailed at the criminal trial, yet $7,000,000 + was handed over without any civil trial.

                Like

      • zauber says:

        Other than meaning more legal fees a Federal DoJ case against GZ is a criminal filing and, if anything, would be a potential positive for the Martins if they filed a civil suit against GZ. The jury would see the Feds and their traveling maskirovka show shoveling carefully crafted ‘evidence’ to the press, trying to sway the trial before it ever begins. They are masters at this, just ask police officers the Feds have barbeque after local and state courts have absolved them of crimes allegedly committed against Federally Protected Groups. When the Feds want to skewer a defendant a state court has judged ‘not guilty’ the Feds unleash the power of unlimited funds and hoardes of civil service lawyers.

        As for tort and bankruptcy the tort action can be used by the Usual Suspect Talking Heads as another venue for punishing GZ and another venue to raise funds for the Martin Family LLC. The Martins could start more fund raising efforts using the lynching of GZ as bait – imagine the aggrieved Usual Suspects lining up to drop lunch money into the plates as they are passed, not to mention urban progressives suffering from Eurocentric guilt. They could ride the donation wave they’ve been surfing for months to come. There would be no shortage of lawyers willing to work the tort case for free for the publicity alone. As far as filing the tort suit all bets are off. Tort law is not cut-and-dried and really good tort lawyers drive really big vars and live in really nice houses. Civil law is Wonderland and I’ve seen many people who’ve walked into civil court with a clear case and have left dressed in a barrel. In a civil trial the responsibility for an act can be spread around and in GZ’s case even if he doesn’t have any personal property to forfeit if the Martins won a suit all the Martin’s lawyer would have to do is convince the jury that some other party had even a miniscule amount of culpability in the shooting and suddenly someone ells is getting their possessions transferred to the ‘injured’ party. Civil trials require the jury believes a preponderance (greater than 50% probability) someone was negligent while a criminal trial requires ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, a very telling difference. A criminal trial requires the state to prove the defendant is guilty while in a civil trial the defendant is frequently stuck trying to prove innocence. You mentioned OJ – Nicole’s parents ran OJ through the wringer, they wanted revenge, not cash. I think that given the right treatment the Martins could get a win-win out of filing a civil wrongful death suit against GZ and I’m betting the strategy for such a filing is being worked out as we speak, so to speak.

        Like

  9. minpin says:

    “it appears that a young black man was shot for seemingly no reason” Mark O’Mara at BET 4/20/12

    For those that still believe that O’Mara is doing a fine job for his client, can you explain what is fine or positive or in O’Mara’s client’s favor with that statement?

    This thread has been a lesson, one that SD has talked about more than once. There are some that lock onto a position, for whatever reason, and even if there are facts and mounds of evidence, they will not unlock their mind’s preconceived notion’s, and reconsider. Not even a tiny bit.

    That O’Mara statement at the top was made by O’Mara long after he took on GZ as his client. Why would he say that TM was shot “for seemingly no reason” when he is representing the person who did the shooting?

    Photobucket

    Yes, yes, a million times yes. Most, not all, but most, of the folks on this page who are defending O’Mara ARE LIBERALLY minded constitutionally incapable progs. Some of them don’t even know it. Their mind is made up and they cannot see anything except what their ideology will allow them to accept. They are done. They are the institutionalized and legacy media indoctrinated.

    I guarantee you those same O’Mara deniers are more apt to have NOT watched the entire 2 videos either. They don’t need to because their mind is made up. This stuff don’t fit their psyche embedded reference so they don’t need to watch it. They just jump to the comment section and begin to tell everyone it is non-sense.

    They will call this Shark Jumping – Yes, yes, yes….. That’s them. The same ones who voted multiple times in favor of Mark O’Mara in the poll. Yes, yes, yes,…. that’s them.

    They, O’Mara-deniers, take this one post highlighting two to three keen aspects of O’Mara’s less than honorable representation and they dissect it as if this is the only time anything has been shared. They disconnect the other 30+, specific and cited reference points that ADD UP to making this a bigger issue.

    They see this, the interview with O’Mara and the video of him and corey, as “static” or existing all on their own. The O’Mara Deniers do not posess the capacity to see this outline as 3 “more” puzzle pieces, so they cannot see the picture. They view this as the “only” 3 puzzle pieces. Instead these are 3 puzzle pieces in a puzzle already containing 30+ others.

    Thank you Minpin for seeing this.

    Yes, you are 100%……………. Sundance

    ps. as a psy-ops exercise always play close attention to any thread where I put the first comment. I don’t do it often, but when I do it it’s done for a very specific reason, and always pay attention to the people who respond to that first comment and how they respond.

    Like

    • myopiafree says:

      I truly have a hard time understanding O’mara. What he should have stated, was that this 17 year-old, came back up the sidewalk, stopped my client, smashed his face with his fist, knocked him down as was in the process of attempting to kill my client – when my client shot him to prevent himself from being killed. (The “reason” TM did that – does not matter in a trial). For O’mara to say, “for no reason”. In a trial, it is not necessary to know WHY TM did what he did, it is only necessary to know WHAT he did to George. At this point, I would find another lawyer who was agressive in stating EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED!!

      That O’Mara statement at the top was made by O’Mara long after he took on GZ as his client. Why would he say that TM was shot “for seemingly no reason” when he is representing the person who did the shooting?

      Like

    • mwsomerset says:

      Taken in context he was saying…..it appears (to the general public) that a young black man was shot seemingly for no reason (we will be showing otherwise). The words in () are mine. That was my take anyway….but then I am not looking to pick apart everything he says to support a conspiracy therory. This will be one of the biggest cases of this decade, O’Mara wants to win it.

      Like

      • I agree. If O’Mara’s statement is put into context, my interpretation is he is simply addressing an audience, stating what he knows them to believe to be true, and suggesting that because there will be a trial, the truth will come out and the mob should stand down. He is clearly – to me – trying to diffuse the situation.

        After his “quote exonerated” statement, he goes on to say very firmly that the SYG law
        says force can be met with force with no duty to retreat.

        Like

      • cuky says:

        I agree

        Like

    • cuky says:

      That statement was given to “BET” and at first look the shooting was “seemingly” for no reason. We now know better and so does OM. He will show the reason for the shooting at the proper time. He is setting himself up as someone that can be listened to and believed. The word “seemingly” was perfect. Everyone thought on first report there was no reason for the shooting of an unarmed teenager. Now, OM can calmly show why it was necessary and be listened to by people that would have tuned him out if he came out on BET attacking TM as a thug on his first interview. Everyone would have thought he is just a defense attorney defending his guilty client. He has already put into court record before a trial in a bond hearing that what happened to TM was caused by TM without appearing as a raving, sleazy defense attorney.

      Like

    • Interested Reader says:

      That one is mindboggling

      Like

  10. JW says:

    I have to say when the issue of MOM not being behind GZ the whole way I was skeptical. I am becoming more convinced that SD is correct. I haven’t completely looked at everything but what has been presented do far is pretty darned convincing.

    Like

  11. cuky says:

    There is nothing in that glance! How fortunate for the scheme team that the focus of the best investigative site on the web in regards the TM shooting is almost entirely spending its time trying to discredit GZ lawyer. I really think you are 100%, totally, way, way off base on the glance and on 80% of the criticisms of OM.

    Like

  12. M4 says:

    I agree with most of what I read on this site, but on this I disagree completely. O’Mara is not delivering Zimmerman to the prosecution, and he has no secret agenda that is contrary to Zimmerman’s interests. His comment about SYG law being absurd makes sense in a legal context — he’s saying that SYG is covered by traditional affirmative defense of self defense.

    There is nothing significant about “the look” other than two colleagues acknowledging each other.

    O’Mara has done a very good job for Zimmerman so far. Zimmerman cooked his own goose by keeping secrets at the bond hearing and not being forthright with his own attorney. O’Mara managed to get him released again, despite Lester being clearly very pissed off at Zimmerman. A SYG hearing is going to be risky because Zimmerman has no credibility with Lester now, and that’s all Zimmerman’s doing. Plus, if he testifies at SYG hearing and loses, it gives the prosecutors a better chance to tailor their case around what they know Zimmerman’s testimony will be.

    Like

  13. minpin says:

    Does anyone have any familiarity with this Fla. law firm-

    http://www.tampaflcriminaldefenselawyers.com/Articles/Self-Defense-and-Floridas-Stand-Your-Ground-Law.aspx

    I would hope that someone from GZ’s family gives them a call and see what they think or can do. No doubt these attys’ are watching the goings on in this case.

    Like

  14. M4 says:

    P.S. There’s not going to be a plea deal in this case. Doubt that a deal would be offered or accepted.

    Like

    • mwsomerset says:

      I would think a plea would be offered….and hopefully not accepted.

      Like

      • mwsomerset says:

        The state of Florida wants this case to go away and go away fast…for many reasons…questioning SYG law, possible rioting if George is acquitted, bad publicity for the state all around.

        Photobucket

        Oh snap, I never thought I would find myself in agreement with a severe progressive. Ever. I stand corrected. I agree 100% with what somerset has said here. It is fact. However, I wish Somerset would carry that same starting point of reference – “Florida want’s this gone” – into other aspects of the case. …./SD

        Like

        • M4 says:

          The State of Florida does not want this case to go away — they want to use it for political purposes and will continue to do so, in my opinion. Prosecutors get elected because they are tough on crime, and it’s rare to see a plea deal in such a high profile case, especially where there’s so much public support for a conviction and long sentence.

          I think the state of Florida will continue to push hard for a conviction. If they wanted the case to go away, they didn’t need to drum up second degree murder charges to begin with. They want a conviction to pacify the black caucus. The jury can consider manslaughter instead of murder2 because it is a lesser included offense, so why would they offer that when they have a shot at murder2 and all the public support that goes along with it?

          In general prosecutors welcome challenges to SYG and would be pleased if it’s repealed.

          Also, Corey doesn’t back down. She tried a 12 year old as an adult on first degree murder charges which at the time carried a mandatory sentence of life without parole. Seeking such a sentence for a 12 year old is the epitome of “tough on crime”, and she persisted despite wide criticism and controversy (As of June 26, however, it’s now unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life without parole — but that as the sentence at the time Corey prosecuted the case).

          Like

      • GBishop says:

        + 1000

        Like

  15. madclown says:

    Whoever convinced GZ to contact Sean Hannity led GZ down a very dangerous path. Did Hannity ultimately direct GZ towards O’Mara? Of course a member of the media is going to do what’s in the interest of ratings. I’m starting to think his original attorneys would have been better suited for a case like this. I could be wrong, and this all could be part of O’Mara’s long term strategy, but I get the inkling this needs to argued with blunt force and an affirmative defense. Yes, the defense is up against a large machine (as highlighted in the various updates here), and the attitude of the public seems to be more sympathetic to the victim’s family, but if someone truly believed in their innocence, wouldn’t said person want the most aggressive defense possible against such a huge monster in the scheme team? Perhaps it’s just too late and the damage has been done publicly with the PR campaign already injected into the narrative and at this point it’s just damage control. I don’t want to sound void of hope, but GZ is really just rolling the dice now. I hope he catches a break.

    Like

    • M4 says:

      I think GZ initially contacted Mark NeJame, but NeJame could not represent him because of a conflict of interest. NeJame referred him to O’Mara.

      Like

      • WRONG !

        Nejame refused to take the case because he wanted to be on CNN, he has a good life, he has two kids (girls), and despite his tendency to be a Roman, he could not bring himself to be the hammer that drove the nails into the feet of Zimmerman. So he handed the hammer and nail to O’Mara and reconciled his own sense of morality allowing him to sleep better.

        Like

      • madclown says:

        Then what was the purpose of GZ contacting Hannity?

        Like

    • minpin says:

      madclown- GZ wound up with O’Mara on the recommendation of Mark NeJame who is doing the legal analysis for this case on CNN. NeJame has some very questionable associations/relationships with some on the Crump team. If GZ is going to have any chance, he needs to get someone that doesn’t practice in that area, and that doesn’t argue cases in that courthouse for a living.

      Like

    • recoverydotgod says:

      “Whoever”….

      http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-17/justice/justice_florida-teen-shooting_1_recksiedler-mark-nejame-news-media-organizations?_s=PM:JUSTICE

      NeJame again said he could not represent Zimmerman and offered the names of five lawyers — topped by O’Mara — who might be considered instead.

      “They said Mark is the one we want, I put them together, and they took it from there,” said NeJame.

      Like

    • Cupcakes says:

      I really doubt Hannity and O’Mara are friends. Just saying!

      Like

    • Cupcakes says:

      Why would Hannity refer George to O’Mara? Is there any proof they are connected? They certainly don’t seem like they would be friends or business associates.

      Like

  16. Rand says:

    I have been waiting for someone to say this and maybe I missed the post. I’m thinking maybe George should have fled the country. It seems like he has missed the only possibility (slim) of getting out of this alive. I support GZ’s innocence if this posts seems to indicate otherwise.

    Like

  17. Jasper says:

    I feel the SYG claim is very important not only bc it allows immunity from civil action but it specifically allows deadly force to be used by someone in fear for their life despite the fact they may have initially been the aggressor. The pros is going to make convincing arguments to a jury that Z followed in his vehicle and then admitted on the NEN call that he was indeed “following” before saying ok and stopping. I am not sure if you can claim traditional self defense if you are determined to be the aggressor initially. Im not sayin he was the aggressor or pursued or that Z wanted to “catch” TM even but i think a jury could come to this conclusion based on what the pros will present.

    Like

    • Kathy says:

      Just want to point out that you only have to fear “great bodily harm.” I think it’s important to keep that part of the law front and center. Especially in this case where people are constantly questioning the severity of George’s injuries. You don’t have to think you’re going to die in order to use deadly force.

      Like

    • RUDY says:

      Read this blog from a Florida defense lawyer on GZ and SYG

      http://blog.richardhornsby.com/

      The problem for GZ is that there is no evidence of who is the First Aggressor (who hit first) and he will have to believed that he was in fear of his life (i.e. he really needs it to be clear that it was him screaming for help). If those are contested by the prosecution then it is unlikely the judge will grant SYG. That is why the state is clinging to DeeDee even though they know she is a weak witness. They need her to bring some doubt that TM hit first and say TM was in fear.

      Like

  18. scubachick75 says:

    I have a bad habit of believing in people. As embarrassing as this is to admit, I actually believed politicians were honest up until I was about 25. As much as I don’t want to believe there is a grand conspiracy against George, I’m starting to see it. Does anyone know of another case or situation where the prosecution and defense were working together?

    Like

  19. sandy says:

    I have been following this blog for several months but have rarely commented. Being a conservative independent residing in an extremely liberal state (Massachusetts) the TH was the only place where I could find facts and evidence without bias. The comments were well thought out and informative. Today, unfortunately, truth, facts, and evidence seem to be lacking. We accuse the TM side of lies, distortions, and manipulations. How is this O’Mara post any different. Most of the people commenting are quite willing to ruin the reputation of this man because of a split second glance shared with Corey at a hearing. How is that evidence or fact that he is willing to throw his client under the bus? O’Mara has defended GZ rather well in my estimation. Yes, he has stated that GZ misled the court. To my knowledge he has never used the word “lie”. GZ did indeed mislead the court indirectly. If he had spun it, GZ would have looked even more foolish. If you’re caught with your hand in the cookie jar, far better to come clean than try to lie your way out of it. A few posts have said that O”Mara made the “at first glance” comment long after he began representing GZ. Total spin – the comment was made exactly nine days later. Good Lord, someone is even checking out new lawyers for Zimmerman. I could be wrong but isn’t that a right reserved only for the defendant?

    Last but not lest, why in the world is Dedicated Dad on the moderation list? He is one of the most fervent defenders on the side of Zimmerman and the truth. Did aliens invade this site or what? I hope by tomorrow everything is back to normal and Truth is once again the only agenda.

    Like

    • DD is on the list because he loses control of his language when he gets worked up on meds. He curses and spews vulgarity constantly and needs to be held down so he doesn’t attack. That’s why.

      Regarding everything else you just wrote….. it ain’t about the glance, it’s about the couple hundred documented moments before and after than glance that tell you what is going on. The glance just helps with the timeline.

      Like

      • sandy says:

        Thank you for responding. I will reserve judgment on the O’Mara situation until there are more facts published. So far, you have been accurate on everything you have stated and have completely documented it. As to DD, I hope he is let back in soon – I enjoy his posts and hope everything is ok with him.

        Like

      • Walther PPK says:

        Exactly. It was the same Kodak kind of moment in that picture of Lee and Serino, making us curious what are these people thinking and what explains the odd expressions where subtle body language is telling secrets is what is occurring if you can read it.

        Like

      • Jasper says:

        That glance was a “ok now remember everything we have been discussing the past few days” glance (as MOM seemed to replaying it in his mind but quickly looks away bc he realizes he is obvious) and Corey’s look almost seems to be checking for affirmation from MOM(bc she stares a lomg damn time) and then a giddiness when she realizes she has it and everything is going as planned!

        Like

      • DiwataMan says:

        “it ain’t about the glance”

        I agree there. People seemed to have forgotten everything else you have said in regards to O’Mara and have made your position as thought it’s based solely on the glance. It becomes a strawman at that point, clearly your position goes well beyond the glance.

        Like

        • Jasper says:

          Absolutely- that whole four or five days before the hearing where the first two attys said they couldnt contact GZ and then the cancelling of the GJ and then GZ had been in touch with Corey- all strange and i have a feeling that Sundance is tying it all together for us with more to come soon. Also Lester has to be scared to death after seeing Serino and Lee’s careers deteriorate instantly even though Serinos was mostly his own doing- Lester has to have thought he could be next if he were to get in the way of the freight train.

          Like

    • ctdar says:

      It wasn’t just a glance, OMara & Corey locked eyes on each other than he immediately adverted his eyes to the left (guilty like) and she smiled as she turned her face forward (one in the driver seat). I’ve seen that look before, like you’re looking at something you know you shouldn’t be looking at, get caught and advert hoping no one else caught that exchange.
      Which begs the question why would a defense lawyer even look over at the prosecutor unless has a need to speak directly to them. All parties I would think should have been soley focused on judge. When I’m annoyed, disappointed in, or mad at someone I can’t even bring myself to look at them; really po’d I don’t even speak to the person.

      Like

      • Examiner says:

        It seems that withing the Seminole County Law Profession, experienced attorneys are going to know each other. It also seems like they can, as professionals be expected to seperate business from socializing. The Judge is married to a prosecutor, the defense lawyer was a prosecutor, etc. I think this is standard practice. I remeber the same stuff during O.J.’s trial.

        Like

      • Walther PPK says:

        Almost reminds you of Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski innocently exchanging glances in public, everybody just pleeeeease move along, there’s nothing to see here ……riiiiiight.

        Like

      • GBishop says:

        The “glance” was the precursor to rulings on SYG and guns, keeping the race baiters happy and riots at a minimum. Om making friends in the black community for more business later, not to mention diversion away from a strong SYG immunity ruling with:

        bond revocation
        35 days in jail for being a potted plant
        divide and conquer with wife’s perjury charge
        $1 million bond
        ludicrous restrictions
        nonsensible opinions by a ruling judge
        destroyed credibility of defendant

        Like

  20. Walther PPK says:

    It may be business as usual for a public defender to be a public pretender but for a hired private attorney when that sort of conciliatory concessional garbage arises as has arisen here involving the PR style of MOM it is doubly a case of professional malpractice. Public pretenders are paid by the state and are de facto agents of the state because of who pays their salary, and it is a legal fiction manufactured to honor the requirement of Gideo v Wainright which was a Florida case that is the reason public defenders are provided to indigent accused so thay can “call it having a lawyer” for appearances that a fair adverarial process is occurring. A criminal defense attorney is supposed to be a zealous advocate for their client not an ambassador for gamesmanship at duplicity serving a states efforts to placate a racist mob by serving up his client on a platter, and by a failure at due diligence in preparation for a bond hearing and ambigious questioning concerning assets which he knew existed, to fail to provide the accounting which would protect his client from any failure to disclose. MOM has demonstrated incompetence by a failure at due diligence and then demonstrated further incompetence by not owning up to his own failure, but instead by throwing his client under the bus and exposing both his client and clients wife to liability, and that constitutes professional malpractice and a breach of fiduciary duty for which MOM could not only be sued but disbarred. This is not trivial. This is huge.

    Like

    • Walther PPK says:

      Somebody needs to check also to see if O’Mara was on the list for qualified “conflict counsel” appointments scheduled on the calendar during the time when MOM came on board as “pro bono” and “for costs” representation for GZ, because it is possible that MOM could have been “next in line” as a court appointed “independent” counsel for GZ if the Court estimated or the PD office estimated that the controversial nature of the case and circumstances were such that the PD office could provide no attorney really qualified to supply “effective counself” for an indigent GZ. It is possible that MOM may have become the court appointed counsel for GZ anyway, if he had not “volunteered” for the job. So the altruism of MOM may not be what it appears.

      Like

  21. Rum says:

    Not many people will allow themselves to be killed because taking adequate measures to save their lives would get them in trouble afterwards. Self defense is a given. The only question is whether the cops take the side of the perps or the innocent civilians. Since there are so few cops- and in most places their budgets are shrinking and will continue to shrink- they ought to carefully consider the long term implications of their choice.

    Like

  22. Brahms says:

    O’Mara wanted this to go to trial way back in April?! Did he misspeak or is he implying that he will not be putting much effort into a pre-trial dismissal? If he believes it should go to trial then he believes that the evidence supporting George is not strong – which it obviously is. I see problems. The most obvious problem is that SYG is not even needed to win a dismissal – just simple self-defense – and yet, O’Mara was already planning on using SYG while planning on a trial. O’mara knew of the injuries and the eyewitnesses – I can’t make sense of it – injury to client and a SYG defense should be mutually exclusive.

    Perhaps someone can educate me – what does O’Mara mean when he says “when stand your ground is the only law” – is the video edited to make it sound like O’mara really does beleive SYG is George’s only defense – do I not understand Florida law – what about simple self defense?

    Like

    • howie says:

      I do not think losing a SYG hearing preclude Self-Defense at trial. It is a Pre-Trial hearing. Gives the D the chance to avoid trial and civil liability. A win and case closed. A loss…proceed to trial. At least that is what I think.

      Like

      • Examiner says:

        Even if the Judge decides to allow the case to continue to a trial, the defense will certainly appeal Lester’s decision before any trial takes place. If Lester can’t grow a pair and end this farce, then the appeals court/District court will be the next stop.
        A plain language read of the SYG statute says this thing should end at the SYG hearing.

        Like

    • John Galt says:

      “what does O’Mara mean when he says “when stand your ground is the only law”

      I never know what people are talking about when they say “SYG law.”

      Are they talking about the extension of the Castle Doctrine outside a person’s dwelling such that they have no duty to retreat before using lethal force to defend themselves?

      Are they talking about the requirement that police can not arrest a person unless they have probable cause to establish that a homicide was not done in self-defense?

      Are they talking about civil immunity?

      Are they talking about a hearing on a motion to dismiss pursuant to standards not spelled out in the statute?

      AFAIK, this is the bill that Florida enacted in 2005 which passed 39 to 0 in the Florida Senate and 92 to 20 in the Florida House:

      http://laws.flrules.org/2005/27

      This is the Florida Supreme Court opinion regarding so-called SYG hearings:

      http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2010/sc09-941.pdf

      Like

      • Brahms says:

        Ok, SYG is just an addendum to the overall self defense law – as is the Castle Doctrine. Where did the term “SYG hearing” come from? Why not “self-dense hearing” or “motion to dismiss hearing”? Sounds like someone is pushing that GZ’s defense be based on the SYG portion of the self defense law. I initially thought that all the talk about SYG applying to this case was just ignorance but I now believe its nefarious – they are attacking SYG by associating it with this case and O’Mara seems to be just fine with that. If O’mara uses SYG it will be very telling because that is paramount to calling George a liar – the claim is that he was punched while unawares (he had no opportunity to retreat) – SYG cannot be germane.

        Like

      • Examiner says:

        “Likewise, we hold that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pretrial and, when such a claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity attaches”

        Preponderance of the evidence. FL supreme court ruling. Is it more likely than not that GZ, version of what happened is true?

        Like

  23. If you are unwilling to call Mark O’Mara to task with the same veracity you have approached Benjamin Crump, I have only FIVE words. A simple request.

    PLEASE LEAVE THIS SITE NOW !

    Sanford, Fla. City Manager Norton Bonaparte, Jr., left, speaks to Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla., and Sanford, Fla. Mayor Jeff Triplett, and Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., before a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 20, 2012, to talk about the shooting of Trayvon Martin. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

    Thank you for your prior contributions and I wish you following seas. God Bless.

    Like

    • MikadoCat says:

      I don’t and I don’t plan to.

      Crump is what you are wishing for GZ. He is a zealous advocate for his client constantly pushing the envelope, and applying every resource he can. Crump is not someone that anyone sane would chose to make an enemy, and every lawyer in FL knows it.

      I have a lot of concern for GZ, not just MOM or Lester, but the whole process is full of inherent danger. I’m still not making any judgement calls, picking away at facts suits me fine.

      Like

  24. Walther PPK says:

    It is suspicious also that the Court and the assemblage of courtiers as an “amen crew” hold O’Mara in such high esteem and compliment MOM publicly in proceedings being so deferential to the “gentleman scholar” colleague who is representing the accused in order to further the illusion for public consumption that GZ has effective representation. Why would there be such adoration for the lawyer for the accused who has provided abysmal representation and public commentary, except as a deception and misdirection of everyone that MOM is actually on the opposition “team” and they all have a shared common mutual interest not in impartial justice for real, but a shared interest agenda in “justice for Trayvon” ? We have been conned. But it’s over now for that con, it is dragged out in the sunshine now where it is being purified by the light of day.

    Like

  25. Examiner says:

    […] A young black male was shot seemingly without reason….
    WOW! sounds really powerful. When taken out of the contextof the question, sounds bad.
    BUT when putting this seemingly damaging statement into the context of the question, it was O’Mara describing the frustration of the Black community. He then goes on to say that there will be a trial and the facts will come out.

    Like

  26. Kathy says:

    @minpin…I see your post to me above about the SYG firm and their commentary, but there’s no place to click to reply to that post??? Maybe it’s just my screen, idk? Anyway, I don’t know that firm (I wouldn’t expect to since I’m not in Fla), but their commentary is spot on as far as it goes. Three observations, (1) I believe that there was a relatively recent clarification that the defendant is absolutely entitled to a preliminary hearing on the SY because it’s an immunity statute. But you might expect them to have updated their page about it, so I’m going to go back and check; (2) the person “not engaged in unlawful activity” is a part of the SYG some have latched onto, and it certainly appears that this was the reason for all the “profiling”, “following,” “stalking,” etc. references by the prosecution and their minions, and also the reason why who initiated the physical confrontation is important, so that has to be taken into account; and (3) so does the force meets force element. But I don’t thing that’s a problem in this case, assuming that everything we believe about who was on the bottom getting pouded MMA-style and who was yelling for help is true.
    As I mentioned, the question in my mind now is how Trayvon’s age could impact this. Apparently, the Judge think’s it’s relevant. I know it is to the charge, in general, but I don’t know the answer wrt to the SYG.

    ps….why would I smack you?!

    Like

    • Brahms says:

      The only way to get immunity is to argue on the basis of SYG? Isn’t SYG just one of several self defense possibilities when the act happens outside the home? George had no opportunity to retreat so how is SYG germane? Can immunity not be achieved through the Castle Doctrine (not in this case of course) or through basic “self defense” (getting head repeatedly smashed and having attacker go for your gun)?
      Or, has SYG morphed into referring to self-defense law (776.013, F.S) in its entirety?
      Can anyone clear this up?

      Like

      • kathy says:

        SYG is an immunity statute. Self-defense is an entirely different animal — a defense only, as it’s name suggests. SYG can be used stand alone or with standard self-defense if the case goes to trial, but only the SYG can be asserted as a basis for walking free on a Judge’s ruling at the preliminary hearing. That hearing also reverses the BoP and places it on the defense by a prepoderence. And, no, you don’t get immunity other than under the SYG. That’s why LE was so careful to run his arrest by the prosecutor first, imo. If George were to win on SYG ground, either at the prelim, or at trial, he is immune from civil prosecution AND HE has a cause of action to recover attorneys’ fees, etc. Even arresting him can trigger the immunity. I’m no expert on that particular law. Just basing my opinion on the commentary and cases I’ve read. But I’m pretty confident on this score.

        Like

        • Brahms says:

          Do you disagree with this statement?
          “According to one side, Mr. Zimmerman was the criminal aggressor. Thus, he would have no self-defense rights at all. According to the other side, Trayvon attacked Mr. Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, got on top of him and continued the attack. So Mr. Zimmerman would have had no ability to retreat. Either way, the retreat rules for lawful defenders have nothing to do with this case.”

          http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/debunking-the-stand-your-ground-myth/

          It is not logical that the only way to get a dismissal is to use SYG – are you sure about this? Prior to this statute, did all cases of self-defense killing go to trial (no dismissals?)
          What about states that have CC but no SYG?

          Like

          • kathy says:

            Apologies in advance for length, and this is just my opinion, but maybe this is the confusion.

            The first part of the statute applies to folks wherever they are and permits the use of deadly force without a duty to retreat, so long as they fear death or great bodily harm to themselves or somone else, or to prevent an imminent forcible felony. The second part creates a presumption that such fear is automatically present when you use such force against someone who breaks into their home, etc (stated generally). That is in addition to the no duty to retreat that now applies everywhere in Florida if the requirements of the first part of the statute (fear of death or great bodily harm) are met.

            So, the main points (actually the only points) of the statute are to confer self-defense rights in public and at home, with no duty to retreat anywhere, and to create a presumption that you fear for your life or great injury if you are attacked in your “castle.” Creating a presumption isn’t altering the state’s prima facie case in home situations, just altering the defendant’s burden of proof on defense – he no longer has to prove fear of life and limb. It is presumed, subject to couple of exceptions.

            Under the statute, you are now immune in EITHER of those situations, but the home situation doesn’t apply here.

            So, here, the only way George is immune is if the first part of the statute applies…this part:

            A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

            (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;***

            Notice that a person is justified in the use of deadly force AND does not have a duty to retreat. Whether you may have had opportunity to retreat is irrelevant. What the statute says is that, even if you did, you don’t have to use it.

            Basic self defense is different outside of the home because there you DO have a duty to retreat. So the analysis outside of the quoted part of the SYG statute would be different as applied in this case. I honeslty don’t know if a case has been “dismissed” on basic self-defense grounds before. However, even if there were, the SYG is a completely different animal. The Florida Supreme Court has specifically ruled that BECAUSE the SYG is an immunity statute, you are entitled to a ruling on the merits at the preliminary hearing stage if you can prove an SYG defense by a preponderence. I linked an article about that case, and I think John Galt may have linked the actual case. The cases to which the SYG (the first part of the law) and the second part, creating the presumption when you’re in your “castle” — are the only two types of cases that get immunity. Not “self-defense”, i.e., in public where you have a duty to retreat.

            Like

        • John Galt says:

          “SYG is an immunity statute. Self-defense is an entirely different animal — a defense only, as it’s name suggests.”

          “but only the SYG can be asserted as a basis for walking free on a Judge’s ruling at the preliminary hearing.”

          Statutory immunity pursuant to 776.032 can be asserted in a so-called SYG hearing based on 776.012; 776.013; or 776.031 which include both traditional self-defense and so-called SYG (no duty to retreat) aspects. Note that 776.041 (use of force by aggressor) is not available in a 776.032 SYG hearing.

          There is no separate self-defense statute (or animal). The pertinent statutes are found in Chapert 776 – Justifiable Use of Force. See Standard Jury Instruction 3.6(f) on self-defense.

          Of interest: Post trial motion for immunity granted:

          http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/files/34726-32374/JarkasOrder1.pdf

          Like

          • kathy says:

            Thanks, John Galt. I can’t open a pdf from where I am right now, but I appreciate the link. When I said a different “animal,” I was referring to common law or another Florida statute. So, if there isn’t one, you’re saying that all of self defense is now subsumed under the various laws referenced and that the only time immunity does not apply is in cases where the “shooter” was the aggressor, and even then, only at the SYG hearing? If that’s the case, I’m very happy to be wrong :)

            Like

        • James Crawford says:

          You are obviously an attorney. Can you practice in Florida? If so, you should be George’s new attorney.

          Like

  27. I must agree with those who are saying “I’m just not seeing it.”

    As others have said, MOM’s look to corey was the same look I give when I meet someone’s eyes in everyday life – a small smile in acknowledgement, then look away. Whatever it may be, it’s not automatically a sign of collusion or even friendliness – for me it’s just HABIT!

    As to why MOM would admit to the media that JZ/SZ had lied about the money… Well…

    That’s bothered me too, especially because I just don’t see the evidence for perjury. I believe all the persecution’s evidence thereof has perfectly understandable explanations that don’t include an attempt to mislead the court – and I’d ordinarily expect the Defense to be listing them at every opportunity…

    BUT…

    Those who are lawyers, or related to one, would you please chime in here and agree or disagree?

    An attorney may not present argument or evidence they know is false – at a minimum that would be suborning perjury! If an attorney KNOWS his client is guilty – because the client confessed to the attorney – they may still put on a defense based on attacking the state’s evidence, based on some other aspect of law, etc. They may even put on an “insanity” defense, or a “justifiable…” defense, and so on…

    They can NOT however put on a “Factual Innocence” (“my client is innocent because he was 500 miles away at his grandmother’s house when it happened”) defense, presenting witnesses and evidence that they know to be false!

    This is why some (most?) criminal attorneys will say “If you did it, I don’t want to know! !!

    I’ve tried in my life to ALWAYS be the first one to point out when I’ve done wrong, made a mistake, etc. – ESPECIALLY in my career – because having established a reputation for owning my screwups then it gives my denials in other situations total credibility!

    As others have stated in the past, *NO* attorney would go on TV and say the things that MOM has said without the approval of his client – JZ. If he did, that’s clear malpractice and a violation of his code of ethics and his contract with his client. Further, it would be grounds for an appeals-court to throw out any verdict and order a new trial!

    Absent evidence to the contrary, I must therefore assume that JZ approved what MOM said.

    Further, I must also acknowledge the fact that to date we’ve seen NOTHING from Jorge or Shellie denying the allegations – not in the media, in court, nor in any filings.

    We haven’t even seen any member of either of their family step forward to contradict the accusations, where they were all over the place proclaiming his innocence of the murder charge…

    Therefore, it seems to me that there are two possible explanations for this:
    (1) Strategy – for some reason they believe it’s better to let the accusation stand for now, perhaps planning to challenge it later…
    or
    (2) Jorge and Shellie really did try to hide the money. G*d knows I hope this isn’t true, but…

    The only people who know for sure are them, and they’re not talking – but their hired “mouthpiece” is basically saying that they did.

    This seems to me to be the only real option for them if the accusation is true: Admit that you screwed up, and accept the consequences! Where appropriate, try to help people understand WHY you did what you did, but never waiver from saying “mea culpa!”

    As much as it pains me to say it, I’m honestly leaning more and more to #2.

    They’re human. They’ve GOT to be overwhelmed, and anyone could certainly see why an innocent man in Jorge’s shoes would at least try to preserve an option to run rather than be imprisoned for LIFE for what you KNOW was self-defense!

    *IF* that’s truly what happened – if they really did try to hide the money – then the best possible way to handle it would be:
    (1) Own up ASAP – which seems to be what they did by having MOM file papers with the court disclosing the money within a day or 2 of the hearing, well before the persecution even got wind of it.
    (2) Accept the consequences, so as to show that you’re the type of person who admits when they’ve made a mistake and thus minimize the overall damage to your credibility that could – in THIS case – make or break the rest of his life!

    I’ve made a few bad judegments in my career – one of the worst was when I violated “change control” procedures and installed an update on a system – the end result had the potential to cost my employer several million dollars, and could have not only cost me my job but done serious damage to my future career!

    I could have tried to bury it, and odds are good that I’d have gotten away with it – but if I’d been discovered then it would DEFINITELY have been the end of my employment there and seriously harmed my future!

    I did the only thing I believed I could do = I “confessed.” I admitted that I’d broken the rules, and said that I deserved whatever consequence the committee deemed appropriate. I DID promise that I’d never let it happen again, and asked that they please take my up-to-then-perfect record into account when deciding what the consequence would be, though reiterating that I had no excuse for breaking the rules.

    In the end, the “verdict” was much more lenient than anyone expected – they said that I’d shown admirable initiative, however the violation of procedures was a perfect example of why the procedures were so important. They ultimately decided that the lesson had been learned, and no punishment was warranted – and they closed by remarking on and expressing great respect for my unwavering integrity!

    In short, by IMMEDIATELY exclaiming “Mea culpa!” instead of trying to defend, I beat my detractors to the punch and turned a negative into a net positive.

    Under all the circumstances, I’m coming to believe that MOM’s attempting to do the same here. “They were scared, they felt the system had let them down, and they panicked. They admitted their mistake and made things right, but the prosecution decided to try to punish them anyway. George realizes he’s harmed his credibility, and he’s going to have to work to rebuild that trust.

    *IF* that’s really true, given the restrictions he’s operating under, what else could MOM say that would be better than this?

    Like

    • Walther PPK says:

      Even when an attorney is involved in a real estate transaction mortgage application or any other business where a finacial statement is needed with regards to transactions involving significant sums, bank statements and income tax returns are pretty minimal documentation. O’Mara knew aboiut the paypal account and getting bank statements as due diligence would have preempted any diclosure omissions of any substantive assets.
      No matter how you try to slice it, O’Mara owns a screwup for which he has done CYA by throwing his clients under the bus for his own failure to do due diligence. The Court absolving O’Mara from sin jsut shows that the Court is protecting its boy, protecting its agent, in a situation where the liability fro the omission is absolutely owned by O’Mara.
      Defending the integrity and skills of O’Mara here is just incredible because it is implausible that O’Mara did his job. O’Mara blew it and blew it bad. And O’Mara double the mistake by blaming his clients. Even if the clients were inclined or did lie to O’Mara, it was O’Mara’s job to reveiew the associated verification statements and documents to confirm the accuracy of what would be presented to the court. It was never a “trust me” situation for this type transaction it was a “show me” situation that has been corrupted into a confidence game. Good lawyering does not even allow for this kind of nosnense to occur where it is part of the lawyers job to keep people honest. O’Mara failed to do that.
      And now his client is paying the price. You can’t keep giving a lawyer a pass on sophomoric screwups, involving huge sums of money and other substantive matters like life and freedom. O’Mara is a debacle, a fiasco in progress. Now aint that progressive, just like a good prog should be.

      Like

    • chopp says:

      This is the People v. George Zimmerman case — not the People v. Dedicated Dad. It’s not about you.

      Like

      • Walther PPK says:

        Dedicated Dad wants to see the best in people and be affable and understanding, go along to get along, but progs are predatory and exploit that to the hilt. You can’t play nice with progs, they play by their own rules that they make up as they go along. Get in a scrap with a prog don’t expect an magnanimity when they prevail, make it an unecessary false hope to have by fighting to win and getting that done decisively. The last man standing will say how it is going to be.

        Like

  28. Rum says:

    Kathy
    Trayvons age is only relevant because his side wants it to be. Not so long ago, 17 year olds could be full members of the US Marine Corp. Now they have to 18.
    TM s age would only matter if he were the one charged.

    Like

    • Chuck says:

      Corey and the scheme team keep portraying Trayvon as an innocent, harmless little boy because of his age, then how is it Corey feels 13 year old Christian Fernandez deserves to be tried as an adult for his crimes?

      Christian Fernandez is half the size of Trayvon, and four years younger. How is it that he is potentially dangerous but Trayvon lacked the potential?

      Like

      • minpin says:

        Bingo Chuck. Thank you for bringing that up yet again. I am at a loss to believe that Corey would think that TM was a juvy, yet a 12 year old knew exactly what he was doing and committed pre-meditated murder. Corey is trying to have it both ways. Unless the parents come up with some kind of medical reports or evaluations of TM, determining that he was mentally deficient in some way, medically not drug wise, she has no rationality for her decision making. No one ever accused her of being rational in the first place, I know.

        Like

    • James Crawford says:

      Two years ago, a Sanford Police officer who was responding to a complaint about an intruder at an apartment complex was ambushed and shot. The perp missed with the first round, then hit with the second and third rounds that penetrated through the arm hole of his ballistic vest. The perp then tried to finish off the wounded officer by firing two more rounds as he stood over his helpless victim. This cop shooter was only 16 and was a dead ringer for TM.

      Like

    • kathy says:

      As far as I’m concerned, he’s as good as an adult. Especially from the perspective of this SP who has charged a 12 yo as an adult. I believe that’s a record. That said, I think the law does take his age into account if he is the “victim.” It’s apparent that the Judge is taking both his age and his “victim” status into account and I’m guessing that’s based on his knowledge of the impact of those factors in some regard. When this case first happened, I did read about it briefly. My recollection is that it had to do with the penalty, though, and not the burden of proof. However, I could be wrong about that as it was long enough ago that I can’t recall for sure.

      Like

      • James Crawford says:

        I can find info on the shooting, the arrest of the shooter, and the legal complucations resulting from the shooter’s age. However; I can find nothing on the disposition of the case. Who was the lead detective in this cop shootin? Was Chris Serino the detective? Did the shooter go free because Chris Serino screwed the case up?

        I think there is some connection that explains Serino’s hostility towards a citizen that he should have been sympathetic too.

        Like

  29. Jamie O'Connor says:

    Watch the video and at the 7:54 mark you will clearly see how Mark O’Mara and Angela Corey look at each other.
    ——————–
    This is exactly what I tried to explain to ItsMIchaelnotMike when he kept saying, “where’s the proof”. This picture and these looks between O’Mara and Corey is the proof. No, I can’t provide a contract between the two but this is all it the proof I need. You can’t convince me that there is no hidden agenda between the two. There (absolutely is an agenda) between Corey and O’Mara as anyone with an open mind can clearly see by simply watching this video. Then consider everything else. Nothing has gone in Zimmerman’s favor.

    Even the fact that O’Mara made sure that Zimmerman was released within 24 hours speaks loudly of O’Mara’s intentions. There is no way to appeal the judges ruling now, because O’Mara made sure Zimmerman was released within 24 hours of the bond being set. O’Mara was basically affirming that the judge made a reasonable decision when setting the bond in the amount of $1,000,000. The timing, making sure Zimmerman was out within 24 hours, would confirm to an appellate court that Judge Lester set the bond at a reasonable amount. There will be no appeal on anything having to do with the bond order.

    Like

    • chopp says:

      Stop making stuff up! The conditions he imposed on GZ are appealable.

      Like

      • minpin says:

        chopp- The conditions the judge placed on GZ’s family that they are not allowed to comment on the case is a very blatant violation of the family’s constitutional right to free speech. So if one of the family members, and who knows how large GZ’s family is, GZ goes back to jail because of something someone had the first amendment right to say. This is so fu–ed up it is getting laughable, but GZ is going to pay a very big price in the name of “please don’t riot in my state.”

        BTW, Jamie has always been a double agent on this site. Call him out on it, and he will remember your name forever. That means you are over the target.

        If you have the time, go back to the top of this thread and look at those that are calling O’Mara the next GZ messiah. It is very enlightening. Many are admitted liberals who have gone both ways in this case.

        Example, “well maybe at that last moment TM was sitting up because he was going to end the beat down. Gz might have shot him a little too soon.”

        Like

        • chopp says:

          I don’t see how Lester has jurisdiction over the family to impose any conditions. If he did impose those conditions, MOM should appeal them. Hell, the whole thing needs to be appealed.

          Like

      • Jamie O'Connor says:

        chopp says:
        July 8, 2012 at 6:22 pm

        Stop making stuff up! The conditions he imposed on GZ are appealable.
        ——————————–
        Which ones chopp, and how are they appealable?

        Like

    • Walther PPK says:

      If there is fundamental error in the finding opinion of the bond order that is improperly prejudicial to GZ or to his wife SZ, (and there is improper prejudicial language) you bet it is appealable. Florida circuit judges have broad authority, but that does not include judicial indiscretion involving use of prejudicial language to compromise and subvert due process which entitles any accused or their wife to a fair and impartial trial concerning criminal allegations which are in dispute. No one has gven Lester jurisdiction to excercise authority to subvert the constitution of the United States, and Lester has no such authority to publish findings of facts that are improper to publish in a bond order related to an accused and the wife of an accused involved in ongoing litigation where such facts as Lester would make improper finding or opinion have not yet been deceided by a jury and in fact may never go before a jury. Lester has usurped and presumed authority beyond what authority the Court lawfully has by his expanding a 2 page proper bond order which should have been narrowly focused, limited, brief, and concise into an 8 page prejudicial political propaganda leaflet.

      Like

      • howie says:

        :)

        Like

      • M4 says:

        There is no appealable issue in the bond order. You can’t appeal a finding unless it results in an improper conclusion, which it didn’t in this case. There is nothing unreasonable about the amount or conditions of bond. Nothing in the bond order can be used at trial in any event.

        Like

      • Jamie O'Connor says:

        Walther PPK says:
        July 8, 2012 at 6:36 pm
        If there is fundamental error in the finding opinion of the bond order that is improperly prejudicial to GZ or to his wife SZ, (and there is improper prejudicial language) you bet it is appealable.
        ————————-
        I agree Walther PPK, but there are NO fundamental errors in the finding opinion of the bond order that are (improperly) prejudicial to GZ or SZ, according to the judge. Judge Lester seemed to justify every finding with a conclusion and I’m sure he had plenty of help doing it. We’ll see what O’Mara does, but my guess is he does nothing (as usual).

        Do you see any fundamental errors in the bond order that you believe could be overturned on appeal?

        The constitutional issues minpin talked about are a non-issue. The judge can do whatever he wants. He can even issue a gag order.

        Like

        • Walther PPK says:

          The only gag order needed is for Lester the jester to gag himself before making a two page proper bond order into an eight page improperly prejudicial propaganda rag using improper legal terminology and wording for conclusory allegations beyond the scope of a proper bond order which is definitely appealable based upon good grounds found in its content and language while simultaneously being good and sufficient grounds that Lester the jester should either recuse himself voluntarily or be removed for cause by the chief judge for the circuit and replaced by a judge who is competent.

          Like

  30. Shari says:

    Here is a SYG case that ruled in favor of the defendant. He must of had on hell of an attorney because unlike GZ who was attacked and his life threatened, this guy actually CHASED the man with a knife and stabbed him. Case was thrown out and ruled justified via SYG. Happened in Miami.

    http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html

    Like

    • Shari says:

      I just want to add, where are the marches and protests concerning this case, maybe it’s because the victim wasn’t black and/or because it didn’t involve a GUN. The race baitors made a big enough stink for the woman who is serving 20 year because SYG didn’t cover her, as it shouldn’t have. If any case questions the SYG defense it is the one posted above. GZ is a perfect example of when SYG should be used.

      Like

      • Brahms says:

        Could you explain why SYG applies to this case? Are you implying that GZ had the opportunity to avoid the confrontation?

        Like

        • kathy says:

          SYG can be applied whether or not you had an opportunity to retreat. It just changes the requirement that you *must* retreat and extends the “castle doctrine” to any place where you lawfully happen to be.

          Like

        • minpin says:

          Apparently Brahms you don’t understand the SYG law, or are loath to admit to the provisions in the statute. That is being dishonest and more than a little propagandist.

          Like

          • Brahms says:

            No I don’t understand it, thank you. But neither does the Washington Times. What happens in states that have CC but no SYG? Never a chance of dismissal?

            Like

            • Shari says:

              It would be self defense, This is why all states need and should have the SYG law in place. Why should criminals have the upper hand. Much safer with the law than without.

              Like

              • Brahms says:

                I fully support SYG.
                So a proper self-defense shooting, outside the home, is always defended under SYG; SYG encompasses all legal self defense shootings outside the home. Even though the provision of not having to retreat is not needed for GZ’s defense, SYG is still the name of the law by which the shooting is exonerated.
                Forgive the improper legal terms.

                Like

        • Shari says:

          I’m not implying anything, GZ was attacked and had every right to defend himself. As I’ve said hundreds of times, GZ did nothing wrong, he saved his own life.

          Like

  31. kathy says:

    @minpin…here’s a link to an article referencing a 2010 Florida Supreme Court ruling confirming that the SYG prelim is mandatory. I haven’t re-read the case, but that’s consistent with my recollection. It resolved the split in the lower courts and would have been after the 2009 cases cited on the firm’s page that you linked

    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-11/news/os-george-zimmerman-stand-your-ground-hearings-20120411_1_eric-sandhaus-craig-sandhaus-milton-torres

    Like

    • kathy says:

      I should have said mandatory “if the defense requests it.” I can’t function without an edit option :/

      Like

      • minpin says:

        Thank you kathy. I appreciate your replies to me. I was not aware that one had to have a conceled carry permit to carry a particular size knife. Ya learn something new every day. As to smacking me, for whatever reason I thought you were a Fla. stty, and I didn’t want to insult with bringing up the competitions names. Ha, I see you are not like that at all. Thank you for your support of the SYG laws. I believe something like 21 states have SYG laws on the books. It appears that Fla. wants to be the blueprint for ridding states of those necessary laws.

        Like

        • kathy says:

          My pleasure. And no, I’m not “like that” at all, and wouldn’t be even if I practiced in Fla. Funny thing is, I’m a pretty non-confrontational person and I don’t even own a gun. But the idea that someone should have to “run away” from a criminal attack rather than defend themselves is just mind blowing to me. How do we expect to discourage criminal behavior if the criminal has all the rights and the “victim” needs to leave the situation. In every case, the crime’ll be worth a try, no? Oh…wait…

          Like

  32. Brahms says:

    “According to one side, Mr. Zimmerman was the criminal aggressor. Thus, he would have no self-defense rights at all. According to the other side, Trayvon attacked Mr. Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, got on top of him and continued the attack. So Mr. Zimmerman would have had no ability to retreat. Either way, the retreat rules for lawful defenders have nothing to do with this case.”

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/debunking-the-stand-your-ground-myth/

    SYG does not apply.

    Like

    • minpin says:

      Yes of course SYG would not apply if you are willing to by into the prosecutions arguments. Who is their only witness that can prove anything even close to what they are arguing, DeeDee. Good luck with that Brahms. You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your owns facts, and either is the prosecution. But carry on, it is just another window into the liberal mind set, which actually wouldn’t know a fact if it bit them in the arse.

      Like

      • mwsomerset says:

        I think DeeDee might actually make a good witness….if she is coached properly. If she gets a difficult question…just say….”I don’t remember”…..and keep saying, “all I do know is Trayvon said that scary, creepy man was following him and he was scared and running for his life.” Maybe throw in a few tears. This girl seemed so ignorant and simple minded….that if the defense started beating up on her the jury would take pity on her and see her as a young, frighten girl who heard Trayvon’s final words.

        Like

        • Jay says:

          “he was scared and running for his life” But she said TM wasn’t gonna run. I hope she is called as a witness. She won’t do to good coach her all you want. Remember the OJ trial Kato he was coached didn’t help though. Sometimes you just can’t fix stupid.

          Like

        • chopp says:

          If she says she doesn’t remember, they will refresh her recollection with her prior statements. Also, she can not testify as to hearsay. What TM allegedly said is an out of court statement offered to prove the matter asserted – it is inadmissible. I can think of no exception that would allow it in. Yeah, she was so frighten she did nothing. LOL! A decent aggressive atty would have a field day with her.

          Like

          • mwsomerset says:

            If her testimony is considered hearsay then why was it referenced in the probable cause affidavit? Is that even a legal thing to do? I can’t recall if Alan Dershowitz addressed that or not. Surely they aren’t going to use her testimony that she “heard” Zim push Tray and then she heard grass. I agree the defense would tear her apart…especially because she did not contact anyone that Tray was scared and running for his life.

            Like

            • howie says:

              As you say, they already did.

              Like

            • chopp says:

              Because it bolstered their case and no one objected. It does not qualify as an excited utterance and it is not admissible. It’s hard to litigate these issues when the defense does not have all the discovery at the time. You seem to want it both ways – first she is a good wit and will be sympathetic and now you imply that she is not. Make up your mind…

              Like

              • mwsomerset says:

                My own opinion about Deedee and her “account” is one thing….my opinion about whether she could be coached to be a good witness is another. First, she is going to be questioned by the prosecutor who will be asking her rehearsed questions in such a manner that the jury will be able to follow what she is saying. It’s not like Deedee is going to be asked an open ended question….”Tell us what happened that night.” You can bet that there will be a plausible explanation as to why she didn’t contact the police if she thought Tray’s life was in danger. Once the narrative is out there to the jury, O’mara will attempt to pick the account apart based on her taped interview. If she sits there and starts crying and saying she is confused and doesn’t understand the Qs or doesn’t specifically recall some detail and O’Mara starts beating up on her it could very well backfire on the defense. That is all I am saying. However, if she can’t testify to anything Tray said to her and only what she heard during the altercation then saying….I heard Zim push Tray and then the grass, then she will indeed be a poor witness.

                Like

            • Jasper says:

              Heard the grass! What a crock! It is so obviously contrived to match up with crime sene photo of the phone in the grass

              Like

              • Jello333 says:

                Dee Dee LaCrump, starring in the new crime series, “The Grass Whisperer”… premiering this Fall on MSNBC.

                Like

                • Jasper says:

                  Followed by her hit series “Run from da back”!

                  Like

                  • Jello333 says:

                    Season 1, Episode 1: “So He Put His Hoodie On”

                    Season 1, Episode 2: “It Was a Little Bit Drippin’ Water”

                    Season 1, Episode 3: “You Want That Too?!”

                    Season 1, Ep…………

                    Like

            • Jamie O'Connor says:

              mwsomerset says:
              July 8, 2012 at 8:27 pm
              Surely they aren’t going to use her testimony that she “heard” Zim push Tray and then she heard grass.
              —————————–
              This may be allowed in mwsomerset – Dee Dee’s claims of hearing what she believed to be Trayvon being pushed or falling to the ground is not much different than the dispatcher asking GZ if he was following based on the sounds he heard in the background. GZ said those sounds were the wind.

              Regardless of the accuracy, people do make assumptions about actions based on sound all the time and sometimes those assumptions are accurate or even logical.

              If they didn’t allow Dee Dee to testify to the sounds she heard, then it would be unlikely the other witnesses would be able to testify that they “heard” a scuffle for a while, indicating the fight started at one location near the Tee and ending where it did. They too are basing actions according to sound.

              Like

          • nameofthepen says:

            Hi, chopp. Regarding DeeDee’s statement, and hearsay, it just *might* be admissible.

            Here’s where my love of Judge Judy pays off, lol. I remember her mentioning once that an “excited utterance” is the exception of the hearsay rule.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_utterance

            Like

      • Brahms says:

        mimipin – what are you babbling about?

        The quoted sentences do not imply any allegiance – how did you surmise mine? The quote was an opinion on the aptness of applying SYG in this case. I beleive GZ is innocent – clear?

        Like

    • Walther PPK says:

      The non-trivial issue with theories that GZ was the criminal aggressor is that is conjecture and speculation for which no evidence exists to support such theory. It requires more than just theory to constitute probable cause and it takes way more than probable cause to honestly secure a criminal conviction based upon facts and evidence which are not just conjecture, speculation, and theory. You can’t just propose some “alternative plausible scenario” and call it probable cause, and that is what has been done with the criminal allegations against GZ. The prosecution case is a theory and it isn’t even a good theory because it doesn’t square with the facts and evidence.
      It would be hard to call it an SYG case since it would be difficult to SYG while flat on your back getting your brains beat out by an attacker. The only aspect of SYG that would seem pertinent is the associated immunity statute for self defense, and the SYG issue is basically a red herring that is brought in as an attempeted justification for the battery of GZ by TM who is speculated and theorized to have been standing HIS ground against GZ, in response to some again theoretical aggression by GZ. The problem is there is no evidence to support that theory so you can have a theory all day with no evidence and it has no legal weight or meaning, it is conjecture and speculation. On the other hand there is evidence to support a self defense claim by GZ in this situation where other scenarios which may be plausible have no supporting evidence at all. The trayvon apologists don’t seem to understand that there is a weight of evidence and witnesses which supports the account of GZ and even the deposition of DeeDee supports the account of GZ which is ironic if DeeDee is somehow the “star witness” for the prosecution. So the prosecution has nothing, a big fat zero. That is exactly why there never should have been an arrest, much less a trial. No man should be tried on the basis of other people’s unsubstantiated theories supported by no evidence whatever, when all the evidence shows self-defense is what occurred.

      Like

      • Sharon says:

        The exposure of the 90% of this iceberg that they never thought would see the light of day is what has the racialists so freaked out. They’ve been playing their victim game for decades at an ever-accelerated pace. They were probably fairly sure of their momentum against the quiet/silent/normal Americans of all races who just kept doing their duty from day to day re jobs, family, paying their bills, etc. They overplayed their hand on this one for the simple reason that they had become very, very accustomed to no one daring to put what they were doing under the microscope and then dragging it into the sunlight.

        The tip of the iceberg is Trayvon Martin’s personal stupidity and his resulting death but it was not the visible ice that sank the Titanic–it was the invisible ice. And the invisible part of this is the presumption of their social engineering, their endless victimhood, their willing mauling of the American justice system for their own purposes, their deliberate designing and building of one cash cow after another based on their phony sympathy and phony advocacy for the “disadvantaged”–that invisible part of this is what has been eating away at the United States of America for decades. And finally. Finally. Finally. They are being called on it.

        That’s why the gloves have come off with the first half black POTUS. The issues that have presented themselves in this mess and which are being deconstructed by Sundance existed before GZ left for the store that night, and they will still be working against the United States after this mess is over. This is no more “just about George Zimmerman” than obama forcing hundreds of auto dealerships out of business was just about “streamlining the automobile business.” Sundance’s work and the research of y’all is a high tide of sorts that working, working, working and undermining their house built on sand.

        This particular situation played into their hands (they thought) and they overplayed it.. They have been so cozy in their “one hand washing the other” world of race-based legal reparations and political payoffs for so long

        I can’t keep track of the details of this whole mess–at all–but wanted to try to say these things because I think I noticed some commenters sort of implying, “Well, so what if MoM is screwing up in this specific way…..” He’s a symptom. He’s not the disease. Maybe they weren’t even saying exactly that–just seemed like to me in a couple of places.

        Like

      • Jasper says:

        The pros might be able to prove he followed in his truck which wouldnt make a leap to continued to follow really that far of a leap in a jurors mind which is why SYG is very important here bc it basically takes the whole who was the aggressor thing out of the equation. This is my understanding of SYG as it pertains to the aggressor issue- am i wrong though?

        Like

    • ejarra says:

      Question: If someone breaks in your house and finds you hiding in a closet from which there is NO ESCAPE; while “fearing for your life” you end up shooting that person, can you use SYG to defend yourself?

      Like

      • ejarra says:

        BTW, I see the answer the same as Georgie’s situation at the time when he shot Mr. Martin.

        Like

      • Jay says:

        I don’t think you would even need SYG. When it comes to your home there is no where else to retreat. Shoot to kill and if he moves shoot again.

        Like

      • kathy says:

        yes, imo, you would be entitled to immunity under the SYG and the PRESUMPTION that you were in fear of your life even if you weren’t. Subject to exceptions in the statute. The way I read it, it’s not even a rebuttable presumption.

        Like

      • ctdar says:

        Years ago our house alarm malfunctioned one early morning, police came out, searched house but after my husband joked that he always kept a baseball bat by side of the bed for self defense. the officer said that only helps you if the intruder is inside, if anything was to happen outside the house drag the person inside than call them.

        Like

        • Shari says:

          In the state of Florida we have the Castle Doctrine. If someone breaks into your home and you feel your life and or family lifes in danger, you are allowed to use deadly force. You cannot shoot someone who is leaving.

          Like

  33. caruhsel says:

    With the utterance of Barack Obama “If I had a son, he might look just like Trayvon Martin, his edict went out to the least factor in this equation… “Make this go away.” and that is exactly what has happened, and to hell with the collateral damage.
    It is going to go away.

    Like

    • mwsomerset says:

      Why would President Obama want this case to go away if….as indicated previously… this case is going to help him get reelected?

      Like

      • minpin says:

        Because the Zimmerman case is one of the vehicles, currently a loud vehicle for the Marxist to further his goals of class warfare. Get “his people” all riled up, and they will come out in droves to vote for the first black president yet again. Make those on the planatation, of the left’s making keep the victimology alive and well, and continue the welfare poverty status of the blacks the ongoing mantra and they will all come out to support their government welfare checks. Problem is, the black population is now lower than the hispanic population, and registers at something like 14%. The Marxist xcan’t win with even 100% of the black population. Heck, he even lost alot of that demographic when he “evolved” on the gay marriage issue, and then he signed millions of hispanics onto the welfare roles. Oh Lordy, those hispanics aren’t elegible for our reparations. What a mess the Marxist has created for himself, all in the name of being a “citizen of the world.” Trying to be everything to everyone, makes you nothing to no one, that is unless your are a die hard liberal. Then you will vote for anything but an evil Republican who wants you to breathe dirt air, drink dirty water, and wants grandma over that cliff yesterday. Try as you may somerset, you will never destroy my country, never. We outnumber you.

        Like

    • vonjames says:

      If Obama is smart enough to realize it, he won’t let this dispute go to waste. He’ll capitalize on it. Even if it’s just a drive-by rhetorical reference in some speech, he’ll play the race card or invoke emotional responses to this episode. As a politician, his interest lies in promoting conflicts amongst citizens so that he, or the government, can jump in and save the day, right the wrong and attempt to justify his position in order to acquire wealth or additional power.

      If Obama lets this “go away” he’ll regret it.

      Like

      • minpin says:

        That is one of the most disgusting racist rants I’ve read here ever. Take your “crisis too good to waste” theory, and put it where…………………

        How did you ever get through the filters here?

        Like

        • vonjames says:

          If you read my post carefully, you’ll see that I do not tie anything I’ve said to the race of anyone. And is it really too fantastic to believe that maybe, just maybe, politicians seek power and wealth? That even politicians are selfish?

          I mean, it’s not like I’m bringing up the ‘planatation’ or that I’m talking about ‘the welfare poverty status of the blacks’ or making claims that ‘they [‘the blacks’] will all come out to support their government welfare checks’ like another poster here. That would be pretty racist.

          Like

        • Brahms says:

          Where is the racism?

          Like

      • caruhsel says:

        Apologies, i wasn’t clear with my thoughts.
        This will most assuredly be used by Obama until November to keep a portion of his constituency riled up, registered and voting ready.
        I should have said until its most immediate usefulness has played out.

        Obama used the same strategy before his first term with the Jena6 Tear Down /constant CNN coverage/Al S & Jessie J/ NAACP/Black Panther Raysust Recipe… that recipe inspired The “Get Out The Registration and Vote Movement and that faded quietly away after the election.
        Obama doesn’t mind creating the racial divisiveness when it proves useful.

        Like

  34. DiwataMan says:

    Regarding the gunshot wound and it’s range I think what people should understand about that, and about all forensics really, is that so much of it, all of it really aside from DNA, is subjective and not scientifically proven. This even goes for fingerprints; see video series below. One thing to really take away from that series is the study they did by sending fingerprint experts samples to be identified. They found that when information about the case was sent, along with the fingerprints, bias would play a role. That bias does not have to be a conscious one and is exactly why information, other than what is absolutely necessary in regards to a case, should never be sent to any forensics person or medical examiner.

    To understand why the ME used the term “intermediate range” you would have to literally contact that ME and ask. That or at least find out what standard they use to determine that language and what distance in inches falls under the various terms and why. THERE IS NO INDUSTRY STANDARD.

    Here is what’s in the reports, that we have available to us at this point, regarding gunshot distance, if there is something else in the reports that I have missed please let me know.

    ME Report Page 127
    Consists of a 3/8 inch diameter round entrance defect with soot, ring abrasion, and a 2×2 inch area of stippling. This wound is consistent with a wound of entrance of intermediate range.

    Nearly everybody forgets the Lab report which states “contact shot”;

    Lab Report pages 122-3
    One light grey Nike sweatshirt
    One dark grey Fruit of the Loom hooded sweatshirt.

    Results:
    The sweatshirts each display a hole located in the upper left chest area. The areas around these hole were microscopically examined and chemically processed for the presence of gunshot residues, Both holes display residues and physical effects consistent with a contact shot.

    Remarks:
    Distance tests were conducted using fabric cut from the back of each of the sweatshirts, as well as the Exhibit TS-1 pistol(George’s gun), magazine and one of the TS-1 cartridges from Submission 1.

    So we have to ask ourselves why is it that many people focus on what the ME said and omit what the Lab Report said. I think there are two answers. One is people have simply missed it. The other is more nefarious; they do it to support the false narrative. The term “intermediate range” gives the impression, let me repeat that, GIVES THE IMPRESSION, that Trayvon was at a distance far enough away to where George should not have been in fear for his life as he now had control over the situation and ended the assault, if that assault had in fact occurred, I say if it occurred because many out there as we know say George was never really assaulted. In other words he committed murder(because Trayvon wore a hoodie, lolz).

    In my opinion Trayvon was shot while he was still on top of George. W6 John supports that. The 911 call with the yells support that. The Lab Report supports that. And even the ME report supports that.

    Like

  35. txantimedia says:

    I’ve been reading this increasingly intensive attack on MOM and frankly I’m not buying it. The man has 28 years of experience and is board certified in criminal law. He took the case assuming that his client was indigent and he would be paid the state rate for his work. Furthermore, MOM has said different things about SYG to different audiences.

    In this interview with the detestable Piers Morgan, he responds to Piers’ question does he think the case rests on who started the fight by saying, “I think that a lot of people believe that, but I think the analysis of the law is a little bit different than that.”

    MOM has defended clients in SYG cases, so I would need a lot more context before deciding the meaning on the quote given. Furthermore, I agree with MOM that Zimmerman has a perfectly good defense under traditional self defense law and does not need to claim SYG.

    He is quoted in this article: http://fcnews.tv/HuehdP “That statute has some troublesome spots, for sure, and I think we are now going to have some conversations as a state,” said O’Mara.

    I agree with that. The SYG cases that have been in the news have included some that were quite absurd. One guy pursued a thief for several blocks before confronting him and then stabbing him to death with a knife. Does that sound like legitimate self defense to you?

    Here’s an interview where MOM addresses SYG and explains its problems very well. http://bit.ly/MbcalG

    The bottom line is, this is a very experienced and competent criminal trial lawyer who was willing to take the case when he knew the client had no money. Now you want us to believe that he’s somehow in cohoots with the prosecution (which is a serious breach of ethics and a disbarrable offense) to get Zimmerman convicted. AFAICT, it’s because you object to his style, the substance of some of his comments and the fact that he has cordial relations with the other lawyers in the case. As President of the Seminole County Bar Association, one would expect him to know most, if not all, of the local lawyers and have good relations with them.

    In my opinion, the jury is still out and will remain so until a lot more solid evidence than the innuendo served up here. (And yes, I’ve read all the other posts as well.)

    Like

    • What is the difference between using a traditional Self-Defense route, or using Stand Your ground. The answers you seek are within that question?

      Open your eyes and mind.

      Now you want us to believe that he’s somehow in cohoots with the prosecution (which is a serious breach of ethics and a disbarrable offense) to get Zimmerman convicted.

      It is NOT, I repeat NOT, about a conviction. I never said it was, not do I anticipate Zimmerman losing at trial, though there is an increasing risk. This is about O’Mara delivering a trial.

      And feel free to leave at any time. Thanks.

      Like

      • txantimedia says:

        I’m afraid I’m not following you. What do you mean by “O’Mara delivering a trial.”

        AFA your closing comment, I thought this was a blog were discussion was allowed. If was going to leave, I wouldn’t announce it like some baby. I’d simply leave and not come back. I post because I *thought* you wanted discussion. If what you really want is for everyone to agree with you, then I’m not your boy.

        Like

        • If you don’t understand what delivering a trial means…. well, at this point, it’s hopeless.

          Delivering a trial means GETTING Zimmerman TO TRIAL.

          Defeat any opportunity he has to avoid trial, eliminate his credibility, eliminate his capacity to win immunity at SYG, and get him in front of a jury. that’s what it means.

          Like

          • txantimedia says:

            Why do you feel the need to insult your opponents?

            I thought of that after I posted. Still, you’re implying that MOM is attempting to help Crump succeed in civil trial by refusing to attempt to get him released before trial in an immunity hearing. Again, you have a high hurdle to overcome to convince me that a man with MOM’s reputation is suddenly colluding with his opponents to deliver results counter to his client’s best interests.

            I understand your disappointment in MOM. You’ve articulated it well. You’re entitled to call him anything you want. But if you want others to believe you, your case needs to be much more convincing and solid than it is now.

            If you don’t want criticism, please say so. I’ll shut up then and let you say whatever you want without opposition.

            Like

            • LOL….. Proving my point that some people don’t even recognize they are ideologically entrenched. You say:

              Why do you feel the need to insult your opponents?

              Um,err, well, why do you feel the need to consider me your opponent? Your slip is showing…

              Like

    • Walther PPK says:

      inuendo ? hilarious really

      Like

      • txantimedia says:

        I’m sorry you find it hilarious that equating a glance toward another attorney as some sort of earth shattering revelation might be interpreted by someone as innuendo. Either this blog wants honest discussion or it doesn’t. Which is it?

        I’ve followed the discussion about the Zimmerman case for quite some time. I think this blog has done yeoman work at uncovering what really happened, particularly the work regarding Martin’s trip to the 7-11 and its implications for what occurred that night. In fact it was that work that inspired me to blog about the case finally making sense. (One of the biggest questions I had was why Martin attacked Zimmerman.) http://txantimedia.com/2012/05/24/the-pieces-come-together-in-the-trayvon-martin-case/

        But on this particular subject, as I said, I remain unconvinced. I will remain so until I see some evidence (you know, like 7-11 tapes) that support the allegations against MOM. He has a sterling reputation as a criminal defense attorney, yet this blog is accusing him of having an unethical hidden agenda. That’s a high hurdle to overcome, and will take more than quotes about SYG and innuendo about looks between lawyers to convince me that a man known for his professionalism and ethics has all of a sudden become a nefarious character set to undermine Zimmerman’s defense.

        Like

        • Now I’m asking you to leave because you will become an annoying gnat and distract the discussion. This is not about censorship – this is about stopping you from trolling on, and, on, because discussion does not fit your mindset.

          Most, not all, but most, of the folks on this page who are defending O’Mara ARE LIBERALLY minded constitutionally incapable progs. Some of them don’t even know it. Their mind is made up and they cannot see anything except what their ideology will allow them to accept. They are done. They are the institutionalized and legacy media indoctrinated.

          I guarantee you those same O’Mara deniers are more apt to have NOT watched the entire 2 videos either. They don’t need to because their mind is made up. This stuff don’t fit their psyche embedded reference so they don’t need to watch it. They just jump to the comment section and begin to tell everyone it is non-sense.

          They will call this Shark Jumping – Yes, yes, yes….. That’s them. The same ones who voted multiple times in favor of Mark O’Mara in the poll. Yes, yes, yes,…. that’s them.

          They, O’Mara-deniers, take this one post highlighting two to three keen aspects of O’Mara’s less than honorable representation and they dissect it as if this is the only time anything has been shared. They disconnect the other 30+, specific and cited reference points that ADD UP to making this a bigger issue.

          They see this, the interview with O’Mara and the video of him and corey, as “static” or existing all on their own. The O’Mara Deniers do not posess the capacity to see this outline as 3 “more” puzzle pieces, so they cannot see the picture. They view this as the “only” 3 puzzle pieces. Instead these are 3 puzzle pieces in a puzzle already containing 30+ others.

          Ask youself – Did I actually watch all of those two videos?

          Good bye

          Like

          • txantimedia says:

            Judge, jury and executioner, huh? Well, it is your blog, and you’re entitled to shut off discussion when you don’t like it.

            Like

              • txantimedia says:

                Sigh. Make up your mind. You want me gone or not? Now I have to give you my bona fides?

                OK, fine. I watch EVERY video posted on this site about Zimmerman – many of them multiple times. I’ve read EVERY post related to Zimmerman on this site – some of them 10 or 20 times. I’ve read ALL the posts about MOM and the deteriorating opinions about him. I’ve listened to ALL the 911 calls multiple times. I’ve listened to George’s non-emergency call multiple times. I watched and listened to every witness interview, including “Dede” (which I think is one of the highlights of this blog.) I watched and listened to ALL of George’s interviews and his walk through several times. I’ve pored over all the released evidence multiple times. I’ve read the autopsy report. I’ve read all the evidence submitted to FDLE for analysis. I’ve blogged several times about the case.

                I’m a veteran of the Vietnam era. (No, I never saw combat.) I’m a Texan and a CHL holder. I’ve been a staunch conservative all my life. I hate liberals. I hate “progressives”. I hate communists. I hate what they’ve done to America. I want my country back. And NO ONE will take my guns away from me until after they have killed me. (And I won’t be the only one dying.)

                What else do you need to know? Oh, and I still disagree with your analysis of MOM. Sorry if that gets under your skin (which it clearly does.)

                Now, I’ve answered your question and shown you that I am not who you thought I might be. Do you still want me to go? It’s your blog. I’ll respect your wishes.

                Like

        • garnette says:

          Very simply, the man didn’t do his homework to know about how much money was in the accounts prior to the first bond hearing. He has said he knew that they existed but assumed that they had small balances in them so he didn’t think it was necessary to look to see what the balances are. Then, when he got caught in that basic mistake, he blamed it on a man who had been in jail for two weeks. You know what they say about assuming something, and I think MOM has proven that statement is true.

          Like

          • Cyrano says:

            Precisely, Garnette! He did not know enough about the accounts to be allowing Shellie to be testifying about them. This worse case scenario happened on his watch. He claims the Zimmermans deceived him. Is this his first case ever? How many clients do you think have lied to him over the years? Is he suppose to just take their word for it? What in the world was he thinking be letting Shellie testify at all? Couldn’t he foresee a situation like this? I could. I remember thinking to myself when I heard that she had testified, “I sure hope she doesn’t say anything that could be used against George”. Why couldn’t they have submitted a written report as to their finances? Didn’t it occur to this experienced attorney that she might say something improper, because she desperately wanted him out of jail?

            Like

  36. 2ntense says:

    Other than the money for the Martins and the IPA, this isn’t about George Zimmerman at all. He’s just an easy target, a means to an end. The purpose of this entire case is to undermine and begin to repeal all Stand Your Ground/ Castle Doctrine laws in the US. After that rid the Constitution of the 2nd Amendment. Do you think it is an accident it happened in Florida? Look back over the last 12-15ish years about the things making national headlines then think again.

    Like

    • txantimedia says:

      Look, the forces of evil are *always* trying to destroy freedom. This is nothing new. Because, Obama’s trying to get the UN Treaty on gun control signed, so why should they care about SYG? They’re after much bigger fish. It’s up to us patriots to stop them in their tracks.

      The Zimmerman case is one small part of a much bigger strategy that’s been going on for 80 years or more. They’ve been losing ground over the past 15 to 20 years, and they’re irritated about that. But we don’t win this fight by fighting them. We win it by getting the public to understand why self defense is important and what happens when governments confiscate guns.

      Like

    • Jasper says:

      It seems that allowing a SYG dismissal would create more outrage over SYG leading to a demand for its repeal if thats what the end goal is here. A trial seems to be the true goal of the State.

      Like

      • txantimedia says:

        That should never be the defense counsel’s consideration when deciding strategy. It may well be the state’s motivation, but I think Corey’s is more evil. If you look at the Marissa Alexander case, this is a woman who devoutly hates self defense claims.

        Like

  37. Gretchen says:

    Some here are willingly blinded by the luminescence of a “very experienced and competent criminal trial lawyer…” — a constant refrain among those who defend MOM.

    MOM’s manifold errors have been exposed and blogged about here, in detail I might add, yet do not seem to make an impression. One must not look at the growing mountain of FACTS, but must seek to fixate on one thing or another that bolsters a particular viewpoint, apparently.

    Interesting that many comments insist that it was only right and proper that George was called to account for his supposed mistakes, but that MOM must not be called to account for his missteps.

    It is either the basest kind of snobbery, or their ‘truth’ has some kind of agenda. Methinks there is a great deal of gnashing of teeth behind some of these comments. Horns are showing. :-)

    Like

    • txantimedia says:

      Facts? All I’ve seen are opinions. MOM should be this. He shouldn’t have said that. He need to be this. He shouldn’t be that. ALL of that is opinion, not fact. Please point to the facts you refer to.

      Like

        • txantimedia says:

          OK, let’s discuss one tape. (I’ve read that post several times already. I just went back and read it again. My opinion about it still has not changed.)

          You took issue with the fact that he didn’t say it was his client screaming for help on the 911 tape. Yet you completely ignored or deliberately chose not to mention the fact that he closed the interview with this (exact quote taken from the tape) “The attacks on Mr. Zimmerman’s credibilities are going to pale in comparison to the undeniable objective evidence.”

          Does that sound like a lawyer who doesn’t believe in his client?

          I get that you don’t like MOM. I get that you would have handled many things differently than he has. I get that this is your blog and you’re entitled to your opinion and to claim that it’s fact. I get that you wish George had a lawyer who bit off the head of every person who said something bad about George and fought with the judge every inch of the way. (A Wolverine, if you will.)

          Those are all still opinions.

          I get that you’ve invested untold unrecoverable hours in investigating the case and you’ve had some really remarkable insights. Why do you think I bother to argue about this? I respect your work and what you’ve done. I just think the attack on MOM is detracting from the great work that’s been done, and it’s not based on the same level of factual research that other work has been based on (which is why the other work is so convincing.)

          But again, it’s your blog. You want me to shut up, I’ll shut up.

          Like

          • boricuafudd says:

            One question why hasn’t MOM asked for a SYG hearing, I realize that at this point it be pointless but before? If YOU believed your client and you had a means to end this quickly (SYG) why wait? To see what the prosecution had? If you have a strong case as everyone believed, there is nothing to be gained by waiting but, giving your opposition more time to find something anything to use against you. From his 1st interview he said that it was a long road ahead until the trial. I’m looking for the exact quote and will post it when I find it, the impression was that he was preparing for trial from the get go. I will not go as far as claim collusion between Corey and MOM but it does gives the allusion that a trial was always on his mind IMHO.

            Like

            • M4 says:

              I think strategically it would have been foolish to rush into a SYG hearing when O’Mara had not received all of the discovery, especially when Zimmerman was out of jail on bond. Now the SYG issue is compromised because Zimmerman’s credibility is severely compromised with Lester, who will hear and decide the SYG issue. Lester has a great deal of discretion as the trier of fact to judge credibility — I don’t see Zimmerman winning a SYG hearing right now. Lester is pissed at Zimmerman for the “potted plant” deception. Zimmerman is out on bond, and there is no rush to proceed with a SYG hearing so soon after Lester issued ripped Zimmerman.

              Like

              • Jello333 says:

                Lester will not be the judge at the SYG hearing. Well, at least not if O’Mara does his job. (Yeah I know that’s very debatable right now.) Lester has made several extremely prejudicial statements (both verbal and written) against George…. PLENTY to have him removed from the case. Now it’s just up to MOM and West to DO it. The other day, West said they might consider that. We’ll see…

                Like

                • M4 says:

                  Can you give examples of “prejudicial” statements Lester has made that would rise to the level of showing bias sufficient to sustain a motion to recuse? Also didn’t see where West said they would consider that, but I’ll see if I can find that.

                  Like

                  • Cyrano says:

                    If I may jump in here….At the June 1st hearing Judge Lester said to the prosecution “I’m surprised you haven’t brought charges against her”. “Her” being the wife of the man who’s case he is presiding over. The judge has certain powers to sanction people who appear in his courtroom, and I presume those who testify over the phone, but I don’t think he is suppose to be making suggestions to the prosecution as to bringing charges. Very important charges in this case…charges which were, in fact, brought just a few days later, and affect the case which he is presiding over. It appears to me that he was way, way out of line there.

                    Like

                  • John Galt says:

                    @ Cyrano

                    “At the June 1st hearing Judge Lester said to the prosecution “I’m surprised you haven’t brought charges against her”

                    Do you have a link to a transcript or a video (with minute/second mark) for that? I recall that Lester said something like that, but I can’t recall exactly what he said and I am wondering if he was inviting a motion for contempt sanctions rather than criminal charges.

                    Like

                  • Cyrano says:

                    John Galt, I am not good with hyoerlinks, but I googled “Zimmerman bond revoked” and found a link from the LA times with the video. His statement is at the very beginning of it.

                    Like

                  • John Galt says:

                    @ Cyrano

                    OK, found it. Lester does not specify “charges” and was probably thinking of contempt sanctions because he appears to reference something that he had expected to be filed for him to consider. The State likely did not seek contempt sanctions against SZ because they intended to file perjury charges and didn’t want to have to worry about (1) Lester screwing up the record or (2) double jeopardy concerns.

                    http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-judge-revokes-george-zimmerman-bond-20120601,0,4612322.story

                    Texas case, discussing double jeopardy related to contempt and perjury.

                    http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/third-court-of-appeals/1996/1136.html

                    Like

                  • Cyrano says:

                    @John Galt
                    Regardless of what charges he was referring to, is it his place to suggest them to the prosecution?

                    Like

                  • John Galt says:

                    @ Cyrano

                    Seems like Lester is kind of piling on by suggesting a motion to seek sanctions. On the other hand, in other jurisdictions (I assume that Florida law is similar), appeals courts have held that contempt power is inherent with the trial court (subject to appropriate due process considerations: notice and hearing) and the judge has the power to find contempt sua sponte (on its own motion).

                    Like

        • Chirality says:

          I have noted that same thing you point out that O’Mara has an unusual way of speaking about his client. A tentativeness if you will. For example he’ll say, “My client was being accused of a crime he didn’t think he committed” rather than “My client was being accused of a crime he didn’t commit.” What do you or your sources say about his previous cases. Did he talk about them the same way? What is his track record? If you can show that his commitment level is different that in previous cases you would be making a better case for your position.

          Like

          • howie says:

            I always thought a defense lawyer should never have the trial theory that the defendant is guilty. But he just did not know he was guilty. I must just be too old to understand how it works in the modern system. Is there a new plea?….I don’t know? Your Honor, I plead I don’t know.

            Like

      • Gretchen says:

        There you go again….horns.

        Like

    • jsjavascript says:

      I think George fell victim to hindsight bias is defined as a tendency to change an opinion from an original thought to something different because of newly provided information, (ie. Investigator Chris Sarino) and adapt his story , there has been a focus on two main explanations of the bias, distorted event probabilities and distorted memory for judgments of factual knowledge. In tests for hindsight bias a person is asked to remember a specific event from the past or recall some descriptive information that they had been tested on earlier. In between the first test and final test they are given the correct information about the event or knowledge. At the final test he or she will report that they knew the answer all along when they truly have changed their answer to fit with the correct information they were given after the initial test. Hindsight bias has been found to take place in both memory for experienced situations (events that the person is familiar with) and hypothetical situations (made up events where the person must imagine being involved). More recently it has been found that hindsight bias also exists in recall with visual material. When tested on initially blurry images the subjects learn what the true image was after the fact and they would then remember a clear recognizable picture.
      Funny maybe I am a victim too, because I have been doing that Monday morning quarterback thing too. with regard to Attorney O’Mara, don’t you methinks the lot of us have? and thanks to sundancecracker for bringing this to my attention

      Like

  38. Chirality says:

    In the final analysis Sundance don’t have to convince us….you have to convince George Zimmerman.

    Like

    • “convince” ! Yikes – that word is toxic to my psyche. It implies intention to move mindset.

      Not me. My goal is to rip the blinders off and allow people to see what they do not wish to observe.

      Like

      • Kyozokuninja says:

        But…the light…it BURNS!!!!!

        Like

      • jsjavascript says:

        I’m going to show these people what you don’t want them to see. I’m going to … You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. … You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. …. Morpheus: I imagine that right now, you’re feeling a bit like Alice

        Like

  39. IamTheTool says:

    All these statements that the Florida SYG statute does not apply if there is no retreat possible are, in my estimation, wrong.

    The statute simply states that, for a person using this defense, “a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat”. It doesn’t mean that a retreat must be available. It means that the person using this defense is not required to retreat, i.e., you can “Stand Your Ground” even if a retreat is possible. This is Florida’s basic self defense statute – 776.012.

    The immunity aspect is addressed in a following statute – 776.032.

    And, the justification described in these statutes may be available even to an initial aggressor under certain conditions – 776.041.

    For all of the above, see:

    2011 Florida Statutes- CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

    http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter0776/All

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      “All these statements that the Florida SYG statute does not apply if there is no retreat possible are, in my estimation, wrong.”

      I have seen two types of accurate statements that fall into the foregoing category:

      1. SYG (duty of retreat) does not apply because no retreat was possible, meaning that Z would be entitled to acquittal based on self-defense even in jurisdictions that provide for a duty of retreat outside one’s home.

      2. No retreat is required pursuant to 776.041(use of force by aggressor) because no retreat was possible.

      I believe that both types of statements are accurate.

      Further, there is no single “SYG statute”. Rather, there is a package of new statutes and amendments to existing statutes that was enacted in 2005 (2005-27 which created 776.013 and 776.032 and amended 776.012 and 776.031) that are confusingly (sometimes because of ignorance, but often with the intent to cause confusion) lumped together as the “SYG law”.

      http://laws.flrules.org/2005/27

      Like

  40. Disgusted With Julison says:

    MOM seems like a likeable guy. I think the facts don’t look good for him in this. Remember:

    1) MOM is an officer of the court. He is obligated to the court first….then GZ.
    2) Florida Courts are legendary for their judges who serve up ‘home cooking’ (as a FL attorney described it to me once in the past).
    3) Where I come from, the District Plaintiffs Bar Association holds many schmoozing cocktail hours for all litigators to hang out with all of the judges. They are all buddies.
    4) While the system is supposed to be adversarial….these guys all play racketball and golf together….the adversarial stuff is a show for clients.
    5) MOM can get away with any bad behavior around this case. Collusion with prosecution (check), defending in an incompetent way that forces a trial (check). The Florida Bar acts as an ‘attorney protection society’. They have one of the worst report cards in the country when it comes to handling disciplinary matters. Certainly, in this case with everyone fawning over how brilliant MOM is, he could buy a few yachts (with office space of course!) with GZ’s defense money and no one would touch him!

    In the end, and through personal experience, MOM has hit his ceiling on this. This is a national case with local actors (judge, prosecutor, attorneys). The local actors will do what’s best for them. MOM needs to act like, or hire a national attorney that could care less about a judge talking to them at the next cocktail soiree. Let’s see how he proceeds this week.

    Like

  41. Brahms says:

    According to Talk Left:

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/12/194725/132

    Only through the SYG or Castle Docrine statute can a person gain immunity to further legal action. States without this provision do not offer immunity.
    Immunity to civil trial is just a piece of the SYG or Castle Doctrine and applies to all proper self defense shootings.

    Immunity can be achieved pre-trial or during trial. During trial – is that true? If so, then Crump can still find himself out of luck. Thoughts?

    A DA cannot bypass a Grand Jury if charging First Degree Murder – that was interesting and probably already mentioned here.

    A pre-trial immunity hearing is won through a “preponderance of the evidence” – it appears easy for a judge to avoid being the cause of riots, racial murder, and looting by claimng the evidence is “equipoise” – equivocal. There is no evidence concerning who initiated the confrontation – it seems easy for the judge to say the evidence is equipoise. No witness to Trayvon going for gun. No determination of who was yelling for help (John recanted that portion). We do have evidence that Trayvon was on top and George was defending himself but no evidence that George didn’t start the confrontation.

    During trial, the defendent’s guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt – no problem there, assuming the jury has one decent juror, but the pre-trial immunity portion looks difficult. Depressing.

    You guys may have already gone over this but here’s a Dan Abrams article from May 18th on Z’s defense. I wonder who the “well respected attorney” was who emailed Abrams.

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/05/trayvon-martin-case-does-zimmermans-self-defense-claim-depend-on-who-started-the-fight/

    Like

    • IamTheTool says:

      My understanding is:

      The Florida “Stand Your Ground” (self defense) statute is 776.012 – Use of force in defense of person.

      The Florida “Castle Doctrine” statute is 776.013 – Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.

      The Florida “Immunity” statute is 776.032 - Immunity from CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND civil action for justifiable use of force – as permitted by the above two statutes.

      See:

      2011 Florida Statutes- CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

      http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Chapter0776/All

      Like

      • Brahms says:

        That sounds right to me. Do you know if immunity can be achieved during trial or can it only happen in the pre-trial immunity hearing?

        Like

        • deep_enough says:

          Either. This was previously posted some months ago:

          http://www.scribd.com/doc/92659740/Florida-Trial-Court-s-2012-Ruling-On-The-Stand-Your-Ground-Law-Same-Law-As-In-Zimmerman-Case

          See last two pages (15 & 16) in particular, especially footnote 21 (there is a editing error in it, one sentence is repeated, ignore second occurance).

          Note how decision SYG can essentially be used in two ways at trial, which may seen a little confusing (only the second can be considered at pre-trial hearing, about which this decision is clear):

          [1] SYG can be used as an affirmative defense (a glorified self-defense claim).
          [2] SYG can be asserted as immunity from prosecution (and consequent civil action).

          The confusion derives from the burdens of proof required. For [1], jury need only find that it MIGHT have been SYG (prosecutor must prove it WAS NOT SYG beyond a reasonable doubt). For [2], jury must find that it PROBABLY was SYG ( and the burden of proof is on the defendant).

          But this point is clear:
          [1] Failure of a pre-trial SYG Immunity claim (before a judge) cannot block a SYG immunity claim at trial (to jury or just judge if jury trial waived).

          Like

    • Examiner says:

      Here is what I see as overlooked in the articles analysis of who may have started an altercation:
      GZ was on the phone with the non-911 dispatcher. TM was gone from sight of GZ. After the call ended, TM re-appears at or very near the T intersection of the sidewalks.
      There is no reason for that, other than TM making an approach to GZ’s position.
      After that, all we have left is the story by GZ, which is backed up pretty much by the John guy.
      I think one could look at this differently if the altercation happened right outside TM’s destination (the townhouse), but since it is back up at the T, it looks like. more likely htan not, TM returned to GZ’s position.

      Like

    • Juan says:

      There is evidence if you consider Dee Dee’s statement as evidence. It was Martin that initiated the confrontation according to her. John may have somewhat recanted his assertion it was George yelling for help, but still explains why he thinks it was from the person on the bottom. He couldn’t see his mouth, but the sound was clear as George was facing him. TM had his back to him which blocked his vision of George & had it been him yelling it would not have been as clear & without echo according to John.There is sufficient evidence George suffered injuries consistent with a life threatening violent encounter according to former lead Detective Serino. No doubt medical experts would back him up. There is no evidence George did start the confrontation either & it really doesn’t affect his case for SYG.

      Unfortunately, I don’t think Judge Lester has the nerve to view what IS a preponderance of the evidence to grant immunity. If that’s the case then SYG along with traditional self defense can be raised at a trial. Then the prosecution must prove beyond any & all reasonable doubt it was not self defense. With what they have shown as evidence thus far, they’re not even close to doing that. I doubt if they can or will prevail unless Crump selects the jury.

      Like

    • John Galt says:

      “Immunity can be achieved pre-trial or during trial. During trial – is that true? If so, then Crump can still find himself out of luck. Thoughts?”

      Immunity can even be obtained after trial pursuant to 776.032. However, in all instances, the burden will be on the defendant to establish immunity by a preponderance of the evidence. Further, the judge will decide all such motions, regardless of when they are made. Rotsa Ruck trying to sail the good ship Immunity past Lester reef.

      Like

      • Brahms says:

        Oh, that’s not good at all. Seems this charade has been planned out quite nicely. He will be found innocent but then civil suits will begin. But who will be sued? Where is the big money going to come from?

        Like

  42. John McLachlan says:

    Regarding the analysis of Corey and the Witness’s mother both indicating duping delight, suggesting that they were being untruthful, is anyone aware of similar analysis being conducted upon the Martin family and their legal/public relations team, when they make statements regarding the physical evidence and witnesses of the case.

    I suggest that if someone who was properly qualified to evaluate the videos of them when they make their allegations, it may be possible to make inferences about the sincerity of their claim about the evidence and its supposed substantiation of the narrative of the guilt of George Zimmerman.

    In particular, examination of the videos of Traci Martin, Sybrina Fulton and Benjamen Crump, when they presented “DeeDee” as the witness, who “Connected all the dots” and who was negligently ignored by the police, may reveal to what degree they regarded her testimony as truthful and the sincerity of their allegation of impropriety or negligence by the police.

    Like

  43. MikadoCat says:

    The only way GZ will ever have any assets that Crump could go after in a civil suit is if GZ is successful in civil suits of his own against news agencies etc. If Crump brings a wrongful death suit that will open the door wide to a full examination of Trayvon’s past as a central element his biological parent sue for are losses from Trayvon’s expected future life. With that in mind I don’t see immunity as of great benefit to GZ, and it would not AFAIK block DOJ from proceeding against him.

    Without a trial and the presentation of all evidence in open court where it can be challenged and vetted, how is GZ ever to recover his reputation and his life?

    Like

  44. MikadoCat says:

    I firmly believe the second amendment is under attack, and the method is erosion of gun ownership. Chipping away at all aspects of gun ownership, fewer places to shoot, no shooting due to forest fires, more expensive ammo, more regulations, all of it boils down to fewer gun owners by percent in each generation until there are too few of us left for political impact.

    SYG scares the juice out of the anti gun crowd because it makes urban gun ownership practical, it protects honest citizens, in theory, from unfair prosecution by anti gun locals. Gun owners need to see that SYG is an important line in the sand, anti gun people certainly see it that way.

    What I think needs pounding on in the GZ case is that “probable cause” is still extremely weak, Sybrina claiming the screams are from Trayvon, and DeeDee claiming she heard Trayvon being pushed. Neither of these I think rise to the level of probable cause, not in the face of hard evidence to the contrary. SYG was too weak to save GZ from the overzealousness of Corey and needs to be strengthened so others don’t have their lives destroyed when there is no hard evidence to support a conviction.

    Like

  45. archer52 says:

    The smartest thing Zimmerman can do is push his attorney to the side and get out of town (as in out of state) help. They all know each other in Florida. They can be friends, relatives college buddies or enemies. It is a fairly tight knit group inside certain regions.

    Do they know each other and have conversations off the books ABSOLUTELY!!! I’ve been there when it has happened between SAO attorneys and defense attorneys. That is how it works. My guy (the SAO attorney) calls the defense attorney and tell them just how screwed they are. Then the deals start getting cut.

    The State has unlimited resources, Zimmerman can go broke and not be able to mount a defense.

    BUT the risk for Corey is that a trial, with a decent jury, will kick Zimmerman lose quickly and she knows it.

    So the real challenge for both sides is to find a way both win. I believe keeping George in jail until trial was a “win” for Corey and she’s been thwarted twice now.

    The key is what was Corey’s marching orders given her by Scott? Was it to stir up enough dust to keep the race baiters happy and then drop the charges or lose the case at trial? Was it to actually fraudulently convict Zimmerman to make blacks happy and Scott’s life easier? (My current theory). Whatever it is, she is green-lighted to do it until it gets so bad she gets thrown under the bus when the politics get too hot.

    This is a sad day for us in Florida and Rick Scott owns it.

    Like

  46. Cyrano says:

    George could represent himself and win this case.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s