Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Jul 5, 2013 15:45:33 GMT -5
And I realized - real-life court is boring as hell. I want some Law & Order theatrics!! Oh, and never broadcast your skype address on live TV. Unless you want a lot of new friends. That has to be the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 5, 2013 15:49:17 GMT -5
LOL - my favorite is where they spend 2 full minutes rifling through a banker's box of paper files, or telling the opposing council and the judge "I'm on page 8,375 - line 12" and everyone else is flipping casually through 3 ring binders the size of a minivan.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Jul 5, 2013 15:51:12 GMT -5
Do you see Sheldon Cooper sitting behind the guy talking? I know it's not him, but damn...looks JUST like him!
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 5, 2013 15:52:22 GMT -5
I haven't watched much of this trial. I only know the whole paper thing from jury duty.
|
|
greeniis10
Well-Known Member
Joined: May 9, 2012 12:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 1,834
|
Post by greeniis10 on Jul 5, 2013 16:07:21 GMT -5
It IS boring in real life, too! I recently attended a hearings motion (to support the family of the accused) and that was indeed the longest four hours of my life! The "crime" was re-hashed by 8 different deputies and state troopers who were interrogated on the stand. The incident happened a year ago so for jeach question they had to re-read through their own report to answer and they were all asked the same questions! We could have all blurted out the answers after the third time, but no, lets all sit and wait for each and every one. I'm pretty sure at any given time looking around the courtroom someone HAD to have been asleep! Snoozefest.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 28,084
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Jul 5, 2013 21:02:27 GMT -5
Best part of trial was the Skype testimony and I missed it.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 11, 2013 10:16:19 GMT -5
Had to revive this thread last night after CNN broadcast them going over the jury instructions this morning. "Judge, should this read 'Now, I instruct the jury' or 'I instruct the jury now'?"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:22:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 12:01:08 GMT -5
I really haven't been following the thing & just know a little about it. I did read a very INTERESTING article on it yesterday (or today). They interviewed the chief of police & he said that there wasn't enough evidence to even arrest the guy (to start with). What there was was a created media frenzy, which caused a public outcry, which caused higher ups to order him arrested & tried. He also said that it was an extremely weak case & shouldn't have gone to trial because most of the facts supported the guy being tried. I found what he said very interesting.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,756
|
Post by souldoubt on Jul 11, 2013 12:32:37 GMT -5
I had the "luxury" of being selected to sit on a case about a month and a half ago. It was a colossal waste of time and roughly 1/3 of the original 70 prospective jurors who got pulled in to go through the selection process claimed they didn't have enough of a grasp of the english language to be jurors. I have no doubts some of them claimed that just to get out of it but the judge questoined how long they had been here and in some cases it was 20+ years. The reactions from the judge were priceless and I'm sure they speak english just fine when they need it.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 11, 2013 12:33:29 GMT -5
I really haven't been following the thing & just know a little about it. I did read a very INTERESTING article on it yesterday (or today). They interviewed the chief of police & he said that there wasn't enough evidence to even arrest the guy (to start with). What there was was a created media frenzy, which caused a public outcry, which caused higher ups to order him arrested & tried. He also said that it was an extremely weak case & shouldn't have gone to trial because most of the facts supported the guy being tried. I found what he said very interesting. Don't really want to get into the whole Zimmerman debate but when an unarmed kid is followed, shot, and killed in a residential neighborhood I am not really sure how there could NOT be a public outcry. Just sayin' ETA: I completely get what your saying about the media frenzy though. It happens with just about everything these days
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:22:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 12:34:41 GMT -5
The Jodi Arias trial was actually interesting to watch. There was always some crazy, random stuff happening.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 11, 2013 12:35:46 GMT -5
I had the "luxury" of being selected to sit on a case about a month and a half ago. It was a colossal waste of time and roughly 1/3 of the original 70 prospective jurors who got pulled in to go through the selection process claimed they didn't have enough of a grasp of the english language to be jurors. I have no doubts some of them claimed that just to get out of it but the judge questoined how long they had been here and in some cases it was 20+ years. The reactions from the judge were priceless and I'm sure they speak english just fine when they need it. Like Samy Sousa when he testified in front of congress?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jul 11, 2013 12:40:39 GMT -5
The decision of whether or not to try a case is up to the prosecutor/grand jury, and the decision of whether the facts support the defendant is for the jury. The chief's opinion on the subject doesn't really matter.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 11, 2013 12:42:35 GMT -5
I got the sense that chief was trying to get his 15 minutes of fame. He doesn't really have anything that constructive to say. Maybe he is trying to defend himself on why the arrest even happened. My impression of the trial (I haven't really watched it) was that defense is winning pretty handily.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Jul 11, 2013 12:49:14 GMT -5
Arias trial was interesting, and she was a nut-bucket! For all the media hype around this case it seems like the trial would be more interesting too. But it's seemed like any other trial I could walk into at the courthouse down the street. Lots of mumbling, saying "um..." every 15 seconds, reading from their books. No one has a very charismatic personality.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jul 11, 2013 12:51:27 GMT -5
My husband asked the Jodi Arias trial went on forever, but this trial seems to be speeding by.
I told him that both trials painfully detailed out every minute of the relationship between the defendant and the person the defendant killed. Jodi Arias's relationship was long and juicy. Zimmerman and Martin has a 3 minute relationship. So, you can only spend so much time breaking that down.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:22:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 13:13:41 GMT -5
The decision of whether or not to try a case is up to the prosecutor/grand jury, and the decision of whether the facts support the defendant is for the jury. The chief's opinion on the subject doesn't really matter. That's an interesting way to look at it MidJD.
|
|
genericname
Established Member
Joined: Jan 31, 2013 11:36:33 GMT -5
Posts: 378
|
Post by genericname on Jul 11, 2013 15:43:22 GMT -5
The decision of whether or not to try a case is up to the prosecutor/grand jury, and the decision of whether the facts support the defendant is for the jury. The chief's opinion on the subject doesn't really matter. That's an interesting way to look at it MidJD. It's not interesting, it's the reality of prosecuting a case in the criminal justice system. There aren't enough prosecutors, courtrooms, judges, and defense attorneys to prosecute every case that comes down the pike. And I've had prosecutors tell me....and I quote.....It's my g*ddamn case to prosecute, not your boss'! This is why (in my experience anyway) questionable cases almost never get prosecuted. Unless you can tie the evidence up with a bow sealed with DNA, an eyewitness with impeccable credentials, and some forensic magic, you are lucky to get a prosecutor onboard to even get your case in front of the grand jury. It's not what you know, it's what you can PROVE
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:22:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2013 18:09:49 GMT -5
That's an interesting way to look at it MidJD. It's not interesting, it's the reality of prosecuting a case in the criminal justice system. There aren't enough prosecutors, courtrooms, judges, and defense attorneys to prosecute every case that comes down the pike. And I've had prosecutors tell me....and I quote.....It's my g*ddamn case to prosecute, not your boss'! This is why (in my experience anyway) questionable cases almost never get prosecuted. Unless you can tie the evidence up with a bow sealed with DNA, an eyewitness with impeccable credentials, and some forensic magic, you are lucky to get a prosecutor onboard to even get your case in front of the grand jury. It's not what you know, it's what you can PROVE Actually I think it's what it's best for them politically. I bet the guy will get off. It sound to me like it should have never hit court in the first place. But we will have to wait & see.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Jul 11, 2013 18:56:44 GMT -5
The case went to a grand jury, they indicted. They have the option of no billing (not indicting). The policy of our DAs office is EVERY shooting gets reviewed by the grand jury. That way they aren't accused of playing politics.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jul 11, 2013 19:37:03 GMT -5
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,490
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 11, 2013 19:40:11 GMT -5
I really haven't been following the thing & just know a little about it. I did read a very INTERESTING article on it yesterday (or today). They interviewed the chief of police & he said that there wasn't enough evidence to even arrest the guy (to start with). What there was was a created media frenzy, which caused a public outcry, which caused higher ups to order him arrested & tried. He also said that it was an extremely weak case & shouldn't have gone to trial because most of the facts supported the guy being tried. I found what he said very interesting. Any idea of the name of the police chief interviewed? I doubt the current chief of police would have made such comments. Maybe he did. But the man who was police chief at the time of Martin's killing, Bill Lee, was terminated June 20, 2012 by the Sanford city manager, Norton Bonaparte. Bonaparte terminated Lee for the way his police department handled the Zimmerman/Martin investigation and that Lee had lost the "trust and respect of the elected officials and the confidence of the entire community," So I imagine Lee has a few sour grapes in his mouth.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Jul 11, 2013 19:40:51 GMT -5
I'm not sure how that happens.... Special prosecutors have to follow the as,e rules as any other prosecutor. ETA: so I just read the article. Florida has some really squirrelly laws.
|
|
Jaguar
Administrator
Fear does not stop death. It stops life.
Joined: Dec 20, 2011 6:07:45 GMT -5
Posts: 50,108
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IZlZ65.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Text Color: 290066
|
Post by Jaguar on Jul 11, 2013 21:07:06 GMT -5
I'm not sure how that happens.... Special prosecutors have to follow the as,e rules as any other prosecutor. ETA: so I just read the article. Florida has some really squirrelly laws.
There's multiple threads over on EE showing us this fact.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:22:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 6:30:35 GMT -5
I really haven't been following the thing & just know a little about it. I did read a very INTERESTING article on it yesterday (or today). They interviewed the chief of police & he said that there wasn't enough evidence to even arrest the guy (to start with). What there was was a created media frenzy, which caused a public outcry, which caused higher ups to order him arrested & tried. He also said that it was an extremely weak case & shouldn't have gone to trial because most of the facts supported the guy being tried. I found what he said very interesting. Any idea of the name of the police chief interviewed? I doubt the current chief of police would have made such comments. Maybe he did. But the man who was police chief at the time of Martin's killing, Bill Lee, was terminated June 20, 2012 by the Sanford city manager, Norton Bonaparte. Bonaparte terminated Lee for the way his police department handled the Zimmerman/Martin investigation and that Lee had lost the "trust and respect of the elected officials and the confidence of the entire community," So I imagine Lee has a few sour grapes in his mouth. I bet he does! And your right in that he could be saying that to get back at the system that he doesn't work for any more. On the other hand being free to say what he thinks (cause he doesn't work there anymore) could also be why he said it. Like I said I haven't followed it closely. The one part that I heard was about someone that saw the dead guy on top of him & he had grass stains on the back of his shirt, plus some damage to the back of his head. To me that logically kind of tells me that he just might have been in fear of his life. I would think that with those points (if I saw them correctly) it would be hard to prosecute. Of course we only have 1 side of the story of what lead into this. What happened before all of this came down could be important.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jul 12, 2013 7:58:44 GMT -5
So you admit you haven't followed it closely, don't know many of the facts, but still feel it shouldn't have been prosecuted based on a single piece of evidence and an article by the ex-police chief?
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jul 12, 2013 9:07:15 GMT -5
I have a question. I have tried to not follow it but thruthfully even trying to see the nightly weather report gets you a snyopsis on the case. What does it mean to be "the agressor" in this case? I'm not kidding. Is it the person on top right before the gun was fired? Is it the person who threw the first punch? is it the person who got in the others face? Is it the person who followed the other. Is it the person who got out of their car to follow the other person scaring them to death?
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jul 12, 2013 9:33:34 GMT -5
Under Florida law, I'm not sure... not familiar with the "stand your ground" doctrine.
Around here, the aggressor is the person who begins an altercation - usually the person who throws the first punch. But the aggressor can also be the victim, if the non-aggressor responds with unreasonable force (A pushes B, B stabs A in neck - B will be prosecuted).
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,385
|
Post by movingforward on Jul 12, 2013 9:47:03 GMT -5
I have tried to not watch this trial mainly because it is such a sad case to me. It is a situation that should have never happened to begin with. A young kid is dead and a man (who is probably not a terrible person) is on trial. The whole thing makes me kind of sick to my stomach. Thank goodness not everyone decides to follow people around with a gun because they "look suspicious." Just such a sad chain of events that occurred...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 16:22:30 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2013 9:52:58 GMT -5
So you admit you haven't followed it closely, don't know many of the facts, but still feel it shouldn't have been prosecuted based on a single piece of evidence and an article by the ex-police chief? Yes MidJD I do admit that. But I would also add that from what I see of the media every time a new fact comes out they write an article with the new fact & ALL OF THE OLD FACTS. So not following it closely just means that as facts break I don't learn about them one at a time (just all at once). Now I did hear about this "racial" attack where a white person killed a black person when it happened. Then about a HUGE amount of coverage someone finally pointed out that maybe the murdering dog that killed that child "might" not have been white. Oh & just today I saw that the "child" that was killed was something like 5 inches taller that the mad dog killer. OH & I also saw where they estimated that MDK (mad dog killer's) head had been driven into the ground (or some other object) 6 times.
|
|