Sig1Hunter Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 If your IT guys are leaking or going on about the existence of info your attorney's have decided doesn't have to be disclosed then you s-can him. In the alternative, you agree and discipline or s-can the attorney. But you don't just do nothing. And they sure as hell weren't going to basically admit the prosecution was hiding evidence. But, as state attorneys office you have an ethical obligation to disclose all evidence in your possession - to include exculpatory evidence. The State cannot just say, "ah, forget we saw that and throw it away". And, when someone comes forward and calls you out on your ethical obligation - you cannot s-can him. This whole situation stinks to high heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 But, as state attorneys office you have an ethical obligation to disclose all evidence in your possession - to include exculpatory evidence. The State cannot just say, "ah, forget we saw that and throw it away". And, when someone comes forward and calls you out on your ethical obligation - you cannot s-can him. This whole situation stinks to high heaven. You are responsible for turning over certain information. Not all information. What information needs to go out is a legal call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig1Hunter Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) You are responsible for turning over certain information. Not all information. What information needs to go out is a legal call. You're right. I was assuming that the defense was worth its salt and had filed a demand for evidence in the state's possession that is favorable to their client. IF this demand was filed, they are obligated to turn it over. Hence, the discovery violation. Edited July 13, 2013 by Sig1Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) You're right. I was assuming that the defense was worth its salt and had filed a demand for evidence in the state's possession that is favorable to their client. IF this demand was filed, they are obligated to turn it over. Hence, the discovery violation. I honestly don't even know exactly what the evidence is...something about texts. All I'm saying is, of course they fire this guy. Of course. I don't have the info as to if there was a Brady issue or something similar or if it was just jackassery in discovery that isn't on that level...so I have no opinion. But the firing...standard stuff. Edited July 13, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Some reading while you wait... http://bcclist.com/tag/sanford-florida/page/2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Some reading while you wait... http://bcclist.com/t...florida/page/2/ This is from March. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 This is from March. updated a little but a different view. And something well wrote if still wrong You are responsible for turning over certain information. Not all information. What information needs to go out is a legal call. the information. If I had to bet was on kik or snapchat. Encrypted messengers that kids, mostly, use to keep messages hidden and private. They encrypt files and pics etc. And snap chat, for example, only let's you view it so long before destroying it. Of course, its not destroyed. You can still pull it. Imam just guessing nbut I am betting the prosecution didn't even understand this evidence when the CSI folks presented it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Don't try and use the cleaned-up photos, we all know how slanted the media was about these. Remember, at first they proclaimed that GZ didn't even show any signs of injuries, until after they enhanced the photos. (ie: avoid anything endorsed by Nancy Grace) Here's one of GZ the night of the fight. http://www.11alive.c...Martin-shooting and not of him after he had been treated (and cleaned up by the doctors). Bloody and broken nose; not something you can attribute to a can of iced tea. I'm sure neither of us are going to change our minds but here are pictures from the Blaze http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/05/18/new-bloody-photos-details-more-of-george-zimmermans-injuries/ and a description of the injuries from the ME http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592031-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-jacksonville-medical-examiner-says-zimmermans-injuries-from-altercation-were-insignificant/ after this we are going to have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 go look at the picture of trayvon back down in the grass, though. you can see for yourself where the arms are underneath him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 go look at the picture of trayvon back down in the grass, though. you can see for yourself where the arms are underneath him. yeah even though GZ says he spread TM's arms out to the side while he was on top of TM's back ( my guess is GZ says this to explain what he was actually doing which was looking for a gun on TM in the front of his pants) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 I'm sure neither of us are going to change our minds but here are pictures from the Blaze http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/05/18/new-bloody-photos-details-more-of-george-zimmermans-injuries/ and a description of the injuries from the ME http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57592031-504083/george-zimmerman-trial-jacksonville-medical-examiner-says-zimmermans-injuries-from-altercation-were-insignificant/ after this we are going to have to agree to disagree. I wish people would stop calling a medical examiner that looked at pictures "the medical examiner" "The" implies she was the one to do the actual examination in my head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 I'm sure neither of us are going to change our minds but here are pictures from the Blaze http://www.theblaze....rmans-injuries/ and a description of the injuries from the ME http://www.cbsnews.c...-insignificant/ after this we are going to have to agree to disagree. You're still refusing to see the photos of the night of the fight? This is not disagreeing, it's closing your eyes to only evidence that fits your point of view. What I find interesting is that it always comes down to every single conviction supporter are only willing to look at facts that support their "theory." Does it bother you that the people calling for an acquittal are shouting for you to just read the facts, get informed about the case, or to simply look at the evidence; While the ones who want a conviction have to cherry-pick bits and peices of events together and play the what-if game. (to add: Did GZ keep the gun around his forehead during the struggle? Why did trayvon concentrate on his face and not the gun) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Jury asking for manslaughter instructions again. I'd guess that's final debates between manslaughter and not guilty. Perhaps a few holdouts that they are trying to convince Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Jury asking for manslaughter instructions again. I'd guess that's final debates between manslaughter and not guilty. Perhaps a few holdouts that they are trying to convince In order for the jury to find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder, the prosecution must prove the following three things, beyond a reasonable doubt: Trayvon Martin is dead. The death was caused by the criminal act of George Zimmerman. There was an unlawful killing of Trayvon Martin by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life. Jurors are also asked in the instructions to consider the less included charge of manslaughter. In order for the jurors to return a guilty verdict of manslaughter, the prosecution must prove two things, beyond a reasonable doubt: 1..Trayvon Martin is dead. 2. George Zimmerman intentionally committed an act or acts that caused the death of Trayvon Martin. The instructions say that "a killing that is excusable or was committed by the use of justifiable deadly force is lawful. A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 The fix is in. He'll be found guilty of manslaugter to placate the masses Forward! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 if Tom was on the defense team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 The fix is in. He'll be found guilty of manslaugter to placate the masses Forward! Totally true. That is why they packed the jury with broads; so they can all feel like they "compromised". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Verdict in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 here we go... fasten seatbelts, load the gun, grab the tissues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LancasterSteve Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Verdict in... Not Guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 not guilty. thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Damn Zimmerman must feel great right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 I'm watching MSNBC now. I'm LOVING IT!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Damn Zimmerman must feel great right now. You been watching him? He looks like he eats a Xanax bar with all those Taco Bell trips Nancy dis Grace said he takes. Dude has been empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 I'm watching MSNBC now. I'm LOVING IT!!!!! oh dude good call. i gotta turn on msnbc for a laugh. chris matthews probably lost all feeling in his leg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 You been watching him? He looks like he eats a Xanax bar with all those Taco Bell trips Nancy dis Grace said he takes. Dude has been empty. Barely cracked a smile - if muted I'm not sure I would've known the verdict had been read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 (edited) Watching MSNBC. State Atty up on tv. Barely cracked a smile - if muted I'm not sure I would've known the verdict had been read. It is nice seeing him now. Angela Corey saying she is happy the truth for Trayvon has been found, and that she is happy they tried the case in the court room. Not media. I still find it odd that the Martin family has barely been seen today. Not been in court room. Edited July 14, 2013 by jboyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 MSNBC has already explained it. The jury was not "racially balanced" enough. You see you cannot expect an adult to make a judgement based on facts in liberal-world You have to feel................................ you have to have experienced exactly what the defendant has experienced. That viewpoint shows little respect for humankind IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 What the **** @ this speech. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 What the **** @ this speech. lol Explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 first question: why did you over charge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Explain. This women is a bit much imo right here. I do not see how this prolonged presser is necessary or a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 This women is a bit much imo right here. I do not see how this prolonged presser is necessary or a good idea. I was thinking it was odd she wasnt just giving a brief statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 I am pretty sure Dog was smarter then BDLR. ...and now Angela Corey. Saying I am pretty sure Martin was profiled. Maybe not by race but being a criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 (edited) The State is melting down imo...is this appropriate at this point? After the verdict? Edited July 14, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 This woman is still inciting racism and should be held liable for what she is saying. Still beating the drum of racism when she should have enough common sense to realize this could get very ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 MSNBC has already explained it. The jury was not "racially balanced" enough. You see you cannot expect an adult to make a judgement based on facts in liberal-world You have to feel................................ you have to have experienced exactly what the defendant has experienced. That viewpoint shows little respect for humankind IMO People holding these sorts of view points are much more useful stacked in piles than standing in rooms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 The State is melting down imo...is this appropriate at this point? After the verdict? To ask that question is to answer it S.O. Bills. You and I, and everyone knows that having the prosecuting team on now, essentially running through their whole view on the case right now is not just inappropriate, but dangerous. Why rile up the crowd even more than it is..................who does it help? You'd need a bulldozer to get Corey away from those cameras. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 People holding these sorts of view points are much more useful stacked in piles than standing in rooms. pretty psychopath-type comment right there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts