In Between Trials

[Rat in the Hat]

See what happens when you don't pay your bums??

PASADENA, Calif. (AP) — Police detained three people after a fight erupted outside a Pasadena, Calif., Apple Store where a crowd waited overnight for release of the new iPhone.

Clawson says when the store ran out of the new smartphones, the homeless men didn't get paid and became upset.

Read more: Fight erupts in iPhone line at Calif. Apple store - New York News

 

[jon_berzerk]

I hope Florida televises this trial. I'd love to hear these two justify this crime...

SEPTEMBER 20--A mentally challenged Florida man who had saved up for months to purchase a copy of "Grand Theft Auto V" was robbed of the video game as he left a GameStop store this week, police report.

After buying the game Tuesday afternoon, Rohan Dawkins was approached in a Delray Beach parking lot by a couple who pulled up in a car. After asking Dawkins for the time, Tommy Davis, 27, grabbed the bag containing the best-selling game, which was released this week.

When Dawkins sought to retrieve the item, Adele Jones, 25, allegedly kicked and punched the 21-year-old Dawkins, according to Delray Beach Police Department reports.

Florida Couple Jailed In "Grand Theft" Robbery | The Smoking Gun

Beating someone up over a stupid game??

not only a someone but a mentally handicapped someone

some real winners in this case

 

[testarosa]

[MENTION=23063]Rat in the Hat[/MENTION] Look over here!

Did you see this?

George Zimmerman’s brother demands recusal in domestic incident probe

George Zimmerman’s brother called for Lake Mary police chief Steve Bracknell to recuse himself from an investigation into a domestic disturbance involving the infamous neighborhood watchman after Bracknell agreed Zimmerman could trigger a Sandy Hook-like incident.

“Even a so-called private email to a resident could be viewed as an endorsement of violence toward George or his family,” said Robert Zimmerman Jr., George Zimmerman’s older brother, to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Bracknell’s comments were in response to an email from a California man who laid out a laundry list of complaints about Zimmerman.


Read more: George Zimmerman's brother demands recusal of police chief | The Daily Caller

 

[testarosa]

I think the Breaking News is the part where she said "now you can't hear what Zimmerman says because he's in the drivers seat and the trooper went to the passenger window".

Video Landing Page - FOX 35 News Orlando

 

[testarosa]

The mugshots are worth the link click.

Police say Meloney and Michael Selleneit of Centerville, Utah, had been confronting the man for years over supposed telepathic hostility.

Meloney Selleneit allegedly told her husband that the victim had "telepathically" raped her. Police said she then encouraged her husband to "go for it" and shoot the man.

- See more at: Utah woman asks husband to shoot man 'telepathically raping' her | www.news965.com

 

[jon_berzerk]

Marissa Alexander

gets a new trial


Today, Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeals reversed Alexander’s conviction and ordered that she receive a new trial. The court’s basis for this decision is what they characterize as fundamental error in the jury instructions on self-defense given at trial. See Alexander v. State, 1D12-2469 (FL Ct. App. 2013).

Under Florida law, the defense bears the burden of production on self-defense. That is, there must be some minimal evidence in the record to support a claim of self-defense before the issue may be introduced at trial. Where there is insufficient evidence suggesting self-defense, the defendant will not be permitted to argue self defense.

Importantly, the record must possess this minimal degree of evidence to meet the burden of production on all five of the fundamental principles of the law of self-defense. That is, there must be this minimal degree of evidence showing that the defendant was not the aggressor, that the threat defended against was imminent and otherwise unavoidable, that the degree of force used was proportional to the threat faced, that the defendant violated no duty to retreat, and that the defendant’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

 

[testarosa]

Marissa Alexander

gets a new trial


Today, Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeals reversed Alexander’s conviction and ordered that she receive a new trial. The court’s basis for this decision is what they characterize as fundamental error in the jury instructions on self-defense given at trial. See Alexander v. State, 1D12-2469 (FL Ct. App. 2013).

Under Florida law, the defense bears the burden of production on self-defense. That is, there must be some minimal evidence in the record to support a claim of self-defense before the issue may be introduced at trial. Where there is insufficient evidence suggesting self-defense, the defendant will not be permitted to argue self defense.

Importantly, the record must possess this minimal degree of evidence to meet the burden of production on all five of the fundamental principles of the law of self-defense. That is, there must be this minimal degree of evidence showing that the defendant was not the aggressor, that the threat defended against was imminent and otherwise unavoidable, that the degree of force used was proportional to the threat faced, that the defendant violated no duty to retreat, and that the defendant’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

This is a Mandatory Sentence Florida!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Case.

The ding a lings started lumping it into one and the gov probably would have commuted her except for that.

Squeezing, squeezing.

Everyone knows about what Marissa really did right and her previous record? She wasn't supposed to be there.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Marissa Alexander

gets a new trial


Today, Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeals reversed Alexander’s conviction and ordered that she receive a new trial. The court’s basis for this decision is what they characterize as fundamental error in the jury instructions on self-defense given at trial. See Alexander v. State, 1D12-2469 (FL Ct. App. 2013).

Under Florida law, the defense bears the burden of production on self-defense. That is, there must be some minimal evidence in the record to support a claim of self-defense before the issue may be introduced at trial. Where there is insufficient evidence suggesting self-defense, the defendant will not be permitted to argue self defense.

Importantly, the record must possess this minimal degree of evidence to meet the burden of production on all five of the fundamental principles of the law of self-defense. That is, there must be this minimal degree of evidence showing that the defendant was not the aggressor, that the threat defended against was imminent and otherwise unavoidable, that the degree of force used was proportional to the threat faced, that the defendant violated no duty to retreat, and that the defendant’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.

Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

This is a Mandatory Sentence Florida!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Case.

The ding a lings started lumping it into one and the gov probably would have commuted her except for that.

Squeezing, squeezing.

Everyone knows about what Marissa really did right and her previous record? She wasn't supposed to be there.

it will be interesting the 2nd time around

 

[wavingrl]

After last night's discussion of this on CNN I am still not clear about several things--which is probably to be expected?

-The first time--SYG defense was not granted. This time --'SYG can be part of the defense'--perhaps a finely tuned legal point

There were other similar issues--cannot recall at this time. Just listened to another round of 'the government is going to close down' and even if the government doesn't close down next Tuesday --then mark your calendar for Oct. 17th--and more.

As for Shellie Zimmerman's latest interview--as far as I am concerned every time she opens her mouth she digs a deeper hole. As many others have learned--there are times when silence is really golden.

 

[jon_berzerk]

After last night's discussion of this on CNN I am still not clear about several things--which is probably to be expected?

-The first time--SYG defense was not granted. This time --'SYG can be part of the defense'--perhaps a finely tuned legal point

There were other similar issues--cannot recall at this time. Just listened to another round of 'the government is going to close down' and even if the government doesn't close down next Tuesday --then mark your calendar for Oct. 17th--and more.

As for Shellie Zimmerman's latest interview--as far as I am concerned every time she opens her mouth she digs a deeper hole. As many others have learned--there are times when silence is really golden.

The first time--SYG defense was not granted. This time --'SYG can be part of the defense'--perhaps a finely tuned legal point

there are a couple of issues one being the way the jury was instructed

on self defense

 

[wavingrl]

After last night's discussion of this on CNN I am still not clear about several things--which is probably to be expected?

-The first time--SYG defense was not granted. This time --'SYG can be part of the defense'--perhaps a finely tuned legal point

There were other similar issues--cannot recall at this time. Just listened to another round of 'the government is going to close down' and even if the government doesn't close down next Tuesday --then mark your calendar for Oct. 17th--and more.

As for Shellie Zimmerman's latest interview--as far as I am concerned every time she opens her mouth she digs a deeper hole. As many others have learned--there are times when silence is really golden.

The first time--SYG defense was not granted. This time --'SYG can be part of the defense'--perhaps a finely tuned legal point

there are a couple of issues one being the way the jury was instructed

on self defense

I understood the part about the jury instructions--the burden of proof should have been on the prosecution rather than the defense.

The CNNers clarified that 'frequently' in FL the instructions for the way the jury will be charged are not determined until late in the trial--leaving the defense unable to properly respond. This is something I remember from the Zimmerman trial. The moment when it was revealed that he would be charged with child abuse stands out. Then --after legal motions/discussions that was taken out. Elsewhere, it sounded like the instructions to the jury are known from the beginning of the trial.
I understand that she was not allowed to use the SYG defense---allowed to use 'Self-Defense'. I believe it was an editor for the NYTimes that noted this law was institituted primarily to allow battered/abused women some recourse--but notwithstanding--Angela Corey, in her infinite wisdom saw things differently. That was also noted.

It must be 'Something' to wield that sort of power--guess it goes to your head after a while?

I admire this woman's composure.

Not feeling much 'warmth' for government today. Any and all of it.

Before I turned the TV off last night--the image of Newt Gingrich praising Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton was burned into my brain. So happy that all of them admire each other, disagree passionately at times, but really 'just one big happy family'. And if each and every one of us could reach that level of highly evolved enlightenment--how wonderful the world would be? It is gratifying to know that politicians really enjoy their work.

 

[jon_berzerk]

After last night's discussion of this on CNN I am still not clear about several things--which is probably to be expected?

-The first time--SYG defense was not granted. This time --'SYG can be part of the defense'--perhaps a finely tuned legal point

There were other similar issues--cannot recall at this time. Just listened to another round of 'the government is going to close down' and even if the government doesn't close down next Tuesday --then mark your calendar for Oct. 17th--and more.

As for Shellie Zimmerman's latest interview--as far as I am concerned every time she opens her mouth she digs a deeper hole. As many others have learned--there are times when silence is really golden.

The first time--SYG defense was not granted. This time --'SYG can be part of the defense'--perhaps a finely tuned legal point

there are a couple of issues one being the way the jury was instructed

on self defense

I understood the part about the jury instructions--the burden of proof should have been on the prosecution rather than the defense.

The CNNers clarified that 'frequently' in FL the instructions for the way the jury will be charged are not determined until late in the trial--leaving the defense unable to properly respond. This is something I remember from the Zimmerman trial. The moment when it was revealed that he would be charged with child abuse stands out. Then --after legal motions/discussions that was taken out. Elsewhere, it sounded like the instructions to the jury are known from the beginning of the trial.
I understand that she was not allowed to use the SYG defense---allowed to use 'Self-Defense'. I believe it was an editor for the NYTimes that noted this law was institituted primarily to allow battered/abused women some recourse--but notwithstanding--Angela Corey, in her infinite wisdom saw things differently. That was also noted.

It must be 'Something' to wield that sort of power--guess it goes to your head after a while?

I admire this woman's composure.

Not feeling much 'warmth' for government today. Any and all of it.

Before I turned the TV off last night--the image of Newt Gingrich praising Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton was burned into my brain. So happy that all of them admire each other, disagree passionately at times, but really 'just one big happy family'. And if each and every one of us could reach that level of highly evolved enlightenment--how wonderful the world would be? It is gratifying to know that politicians really enjoy their work.

it will be interesting how this new trial plays out

her self defense claim was on shaky ground from the beginning


however the instructions according to the appeals court was wrong

it suggested that she needed to be physically attacked in order

to use self defense which is totally false

and perhaps why the jury returned a verdict in less then a 1/2 hour

 

[jon_berzerk]

one of her hanging points

is that she left the house and went into the garage

she could have merely walked away from the situation

but she said the garage door didnt work

so she had to go back into the house

the state said the door worked the day before

and the day after

i believe her that the door did not operate at that point in time

maybe she needs a better defense team

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The first time--SYG defense was not granted. This time --'SYG can be part of the defense'--perhaps a finely tuned legal point

there are a couple of issues one being the way the jury was instructed

on self defense

I understood the part about the jury instructions--the burden of proof should have been on the prosecution rather than the defense.

The CNNers clarified that 'frequently' in FL the instructions for the way the jury will be charged are not determined until late in the trial--leaving the defense unable to properly respond. This is something I remember from the Zimmerman trial. The moment when it was revealed that he would be charged with child abuse stands out. Then --after legal motions/discussions that was taken out. Elsewhere, it sounded like the instructions to the jury are known from the beginning of the trial.
I understand that she was not allowed to use the SYG defense---allowed to use 'Self-Defense'. I believe it was an editor for the NYTimes that noted this law was institituted primarily to allow battered/abused women some recourse--but notwithstanding--Angela Corey, in her infinite wisdom saw things differently. That was also noted.

It must be 'Something' to wield that sort of power--guess it goes to your head after a while?

I admire this woman's composure.

Not feeling much 'warmth' for government today. Any and all of it.

Before I turned the TV off last night--the image of Newt Gingrich praising Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton was burned into my brain. So happy that all of them admire each other, disagree passionately at times, but really 'just one big happy family'. And if each and every one of us could reach that level of highly evolved enlightenment--how wonderful the world would be? It is gratifying to know that politicians really enjoy their work.

it will be interesting how this new trial plays out

her self defense claim was on shaky ground from the beginning


however the instructions according to the appeals court was wrong

it suggested that she needed to be physically attacked in order

to use self defense which is totally false

and perhaps why the jury returned a verdict in less then a 1/2 hour

I don't think she'll win on self defense in the second trial either. She left the house, got the gun from her car, then came back in and fired the shot. By leaving the house, she removed herself from the danger. She could have simply gotten in the car and drove away. Or run to a neighbor's house and called the cops.

By returning and firing the gun, she became the aggressor. She's just lucky her husband didn't have a gun and stand his ground.

 

[wavingrl]

.

it will be interesting how this new trial plays out

her self defense claim was on shaky ground from the beginning


however the instructions according to the appeals court was wrong

it suggested that she needed to be physically attacked in order

to use self defense which is totally false

and perhaps why the jury returned a verdict in less then a 1/2 hour

I don't think she'll win on self defense in the second trial either. She left the house, got the gun from her car, then came back in and fired the shot. By leaving the house, she removed herself from the danger. She could have simply gotten in the car and drove away. Or run to a neighbor's house and called the cops.

By returning and firing the gun, she became the aggressor. She's just lucky her husband didn't have a gun and stand his ground.

I can only hope that there is another Mark O'Mara who can strategize and come up with 'something'. Somewhere in the vast wilderness of --'self defense'/your life is in mortal danger--he tried to strangle her and shoved her with force.

And on the other end of the spectrum--? not certain which state--the guy who raped a 14 yr old student has been released after serving 30 days in jail. Neither sentence was just.

What should I learn from these legal examples? If you are in mortal danger--call 911--if LE cannot respond in time --then that is that. Another reason that I would be reluctant to own and use a gun.

I need more coffee--during the Zimmerman trial--many of the same points were raised--in my fog I remember them vaguely. GZ was the aggressor, then Trayvon was the aggressor--in the heat of the moment roles changed. Just too befuddled to get past the point that her husband strangled her--stimulating the response to 'mortal danger'--seems like a skilled attorney could explore that more fully. In the same situation what would I do--he had the children with him--would I think running out of the house to save myself was the right thing to do? Would I have worried about the kids? Doubtful that I would be thinking very clearly.

 

[testarosa]

Also the restraining orders. She couldn't stay away from him.

She was still on a previous domestic.

I'll have to pull up the details.

Good golly! Will they stream it?!!

Yay!

 

[Rat in the Hat]

it will be interesting how this new trial plays out

her self defense claim was on shaky ground from the beginning


however the instructions according to the appeals court was wrong

it suggested that she needed to be physically attacked in order

to use self defense which is totally false

and perhaps why the jury returned a verdict in less then a 1/2 hour

I don't think she'll win on self defense in the second trial either. She left the house, got the gun from her car, then came back in and fired the shot. By leaving the house, she removed herself from the danger. She could have simply gotten in the car and drove away. Or run to a neighbor's house and called the cops.

By returning and firing the gun, she became the aggressor. She's just lucky her husband didn't have a gun and stand his ground.

I can only hope that there is another Mark O'Mara who can strategize and come up with 'something'. Somewhere in the vast wilderness of --'self defense'/your life is in mortal danger--he tried to strangle her and shoved her with force.

And on the other end of the spectrum--? not certain which state--the guy who raped a 14 yr old student has been released after serving 30 days in jail. Neither sentence was just.

What should I learn from these legal examples? If you are in mortal danger--call 911--if LE cannot respond in time --then that is that. Another reason that I would be reluctant to own and use a gun.

I need more coffee--during the Zimmerman trial--many of the same points were raised--in my fog I remember them vaguely. GZ was the aggressor, then Trayvon was the aggressor--in the heat of the moment roles changed. Just too befuddled to get past the point that her husband strangled her--stimulating the response to 'mortal danger'--seems like a skilled attorney could explore that more fully. In the same situation what would I do--he had the children with him--would I think running out of the house to save myself was the right thing to do? Would I have worried about the kids? Doubtful that I would be thinking very clearly.

There really is no room for any attorney to claim she was in mortal danger. The second she walked out the door, that argument was nullified. If she was worried about the kids, a call to the local cop shop will get her the help she needed to rescue the kids in a legal manner. Instead, she decided to go to the car, acquire a gun, and go back inside to 'teach him a lesson'.

She was in the wrong, pure and simple. And she will have to pay for what she alone decided to do.

 

[wavingrl]

I don't think she'll win on self defense in the second trial either. She left the house, got the gun from her car, then came back in and fired the shot. By leaving the house, she removed herself from the danger. She could have simply gotten in the car and drove away. Or run to a neighbor's house and called the cops.

By returning and firing the gun, she became the aggressor. She's just lucky her husband didn't have a gun and stand his ground.

I can only hope that there is another Mark O'Mara who can strategize and come up with 'something'. Somewhere in the vast wilderness of --'self defense'/your life is in mortal danger--he tried to strangle her and shoved her with force.

And on the other end of the spectrum--? not certain which state--the guy who raped a 14 yr old student has been released after serving 30 days in jail. Neither sentence was just.

What should I learn from these legal examples? If you are in mortal danger--call 911--if LE cannot respond in time --then that is that. Another reason that I would be reluctant to own and use a gun.

I need more coffee--during the Zimmerman trial--many of the same points were raised--in my fog I remember them vaguely. GZ was the aggressor, then Trayvon was the aggressor--in the heat of the moment roles changed. Just too befuddled to get past the point that her husband strangled her--stimulating the response to 'mortal danger'--seems like a skilled attorney could explore that more fully. In the same situation what would I do--he had the children with him--would I think running out of the house to save myself was the right thing to do? Would I have worried about the kids? Doubtful that I would be thinking very clearly.

There really is no room for any attorney to claim she was in mortal danger. The second she walked out the door, that argument was nullified. If she was worried about the kids, a call to the local cop shop will get her the help she needed to rescue the kids in a legal manner. Instead, she decided to go to the car, acquire a gun, and go back inside to 'teach him a lesson'.

She was in the wrong, pure and simple. And she will have to pay for what she alone decided to do.

well- that settles the matter.

Sounds like she will pay dearly. Not so certain I agree--and that is of no importance.

Thank God her poor husband is healthy and able to live his life fully. The State certainly stood its ground...

 

[jon_berzerk]

I understood the part about the jury instructions--the burden of proof should have been on the prosecution rather than the defense.

The CNNers clarified that 'frequently' in FL the instructions for the way the jury will be charged are not determined until late in the trial--leaving the defense unable to properly respond. This is something I remember from the Zimmerman trial. The moment when it was revealed that he would be charged with child abuse stands out. Then --after legal motions/discussions that was taken out. Elsewhere, it sounded like the instructions to the jury are known from the beginning of the trial.
I understand that she was not allowed to use the SYG defense---allowed to use 'Self-Defense'. I believe it was an editor for the NYTimes that noted this law was institituted primarily to allow battered/abused women some recourse--but notwithstanding--Angela Corey, in her infinite wisdom saw things differently. That was also noted.

It must be 'Something' to wield that sort of power--guess it goes to your head after a while?

I admire this woman's composure.

Not feeling much 'warmth' for government today. Any and all of it.

Before I turned the TV off last night--the image of Newt Gingrich praising Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton was burned into my brain. So happy that all of them admire each other, disagree passionately at times, but really 'just one big happy family'. And if each and every one of us could reach that level of highly evolved enlightenment--how wonderful the world would be? It is gratifying to know that politicians really enjoy their work.

it will be interesting how this new trial plays out

her self defense claim was on shaky ground from the beginning


however the instructions according to the appeals court was wrong

it suggested that she needed to be physically attacked in order

to use self defense which is totally false

and perhaps why the jury returned a verdict in less then a 1/2 hour

I don't think she'll win on self defense in the second trial either. She left the house, got the gun from her car, then came back in and fired the shot. By leaving the house, she removed herself from the danger. She could have simply gotten in the car and drove away. Or run to a neighbor's house and called the cops.

By returning and firing the gun, she became the aggressor. She's just lucky her husband didn't have a gun and stand his ground.

true

however she said she had to return through the house to leave

because the garage door didnt work

it is possible that an abusive mate unplugged the garage door opener

rendering the door in operable

 

[jon_berzerk]

Also the restraining orders. She couldn't stay away from him.

She was still on a previous domestic.

I'll have to pull up the details.

Good golly! Will they stream it?!!

Yay!

She was still on a previous domestic.

did she had a current restraining order against her