Rush Reports Zimmerman Arrested again

[jon_berzerk]

and the records sealed.

Again with the sealed records thing.

What are you talking about, Florida has some of the must open Sunshine Laws in the Country and every aspect of the case was placed in the public domain through discovery.

So what are these "sealed records" you speak of that have a bearing on this case?



>>>>

speaking of sealed records

i would imagine if somehow zimmerman did have to go through

a civil court

that martins sealed records would now be open

 

[Katzndogz]

Under Florida law, there is a pretrial motion called an immunity hearing. Zimmerman didn't waive it, he reserved the right to bring it at any time.

yes i agree i am not confusing anything

Yes he did waive it.
You see that word there? pretrial. Think on that.

The whole reason why the Martin parents have not filed the civil suit is because Zimmerman would win an immunity hearing

yes they would instantly lose and be subject to all the defense costs

That's what O'Mara tried to convince people he would do.

What O'Mara didn't say to those who gobbled up his nonsense is that gambit is in uncharted waters.

There doesn't appear to be much in the way of case law of a defendant filing for immunity after a trial and most legal authorities disagree with his contention a pretrial immunity hearing can be filed post trial.

The word immunity, as used in the statute, is immunity from prosecution. GZ's case was prosecuted.

This from a lawyer who was also Assistant Public Defender in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, the circuit governing Sanford:

"The procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under the “Stand Your Ground” law are outlined in Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), a Florida First District Court of Appeal decision.

The Petersen decision definitively established that Section 776.032 was created by the Florida Legislature to establish a “true immunity” and not merely an affirmative defense. The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches. Unlike a motion to dismiss, the trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.


NOTE: In Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456, 460 (Fla. 2010), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the First District decision in Petersen, resolving a previous conflict that existed between the First and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. Petersen is now binding law on all Florida courts.


Thus, under the procedures outlined in Petersen, prosecutorial immunity does not attach under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law by way of mere factual assertion. The issue is raised pre-trial through the filing of a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and/or Dismissal."
​

(Originally posted last year)

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.htm


Also the FL Supreme Court makes it clear that Motion for Declaration of Immunity" must be filed pre-trial. There is also the matter of varying Burden of Proof.

Also, too: O'Mara dropped Zimmerman as a client. He still hasn't paid him. Good luck now to Z in trying to make a case that would require a Hell on Wheels superduper lawyer to thread that pretrial/posttrial/BOP immunity needle.

The criminal trial is over, it is really over. IF the Martin family is so foolish as to file a useless civil case, there would necessarily be pretrial motions upon the filing of the new action, including a pretrial immunity hearing.

Yes PRE trial, as in PRE civil trial.

Otherwise those parents would have filed their action by now. The statute run in February.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Under Florida law, there is a pretrial motion called an immunity hearing. Zimmerman didn't waive it, he reserved the right to bring it at any time.

yes i agree i am not confusing anything

Yes he did waive it.
You see that word there? pretrial. Think on that.

The whole reason why the Martin parents have not filed the civil suit is because Zimmerman would win an immunity hearing

yes they would instantly lose and be subject to all the defense costs

That's what O'Mara tried to convince people he would do.

What O'Mara didn't say to those who gobbled up his nonsense is that gambit is in uncharted waters.

There doesn't appear to be much in the way of case law of a defendant filing for immunity after a trial and most legal authorities disagree with his contention a pretrial immunity hearing can be filed post trial.

The word immunity, as used in the statute, is immunity from prosecution. GZ's case was prosecuted.

This from a lawyer who was also Assistant Public Defender in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, the circuit governing Sanford:

"The procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under the “Stand Your Ground” law are outlined in Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), a Florida First District Court of Appeal decision.

The Petersen decision definitively established that Section 776.032 was created by the Florida Legislature to establish a “true immunity” and not merely an affirmative defense. The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches. Unlike a motion to dismiss, the trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.


NOTE: In Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456, 460 (Fla. 2010), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the First District decision in Petersen, resolving a previous conflict that existed between the First and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. Petersen is now binding law on all Florida courts.


Thus, under the procedures outlined in Petersen, prosecutorial immunity does not attach under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law by way of mere factual assertion. The issue is raised pre-trial through the filing of a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and/or Dismissal."
​

(Originally posted last year)

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.htm


Also the FL Supreme Court makes it clear that Motion for Declaration of Immunity" must be filed pre-trial. There is also the matter of varying Burden of Proof.

Also, too: O'Mara dropped Zimmerman as a client. He still hasn't paid him. Good luck now to Z in trying to make a case that would require a Hell on Wheels superduper lawyer to thread that pretrial/posttrial/BOP immunity needle.

The criminal trial is over, it is really over. IF the Martin family is so foolish as to file a useless civil case, there would necessarily be pretrial motions upon the filing of the new action, including a pretrial immunity hearing.

Yes PRE trial, as in PRE civil trial.

Otherwise those parents would have filed their action by now. The statute run in February.

in fact they have not tried so sue anyone over this

crump had plans to sue

zimmerman

the city

the police dept

none of it has materialized

 

[Katzndogz]

This complaint brought by the girlfriend isn't going to go anywhere either. The charges will be dropped. His wife and her mother tried to phony up a case knowing that so many people would be anxious to believe it and that didn't go anywhere. This case is even phonier than that one.

 

[Katzndogz]

Yes he did waive it.
You see that word there? pretrial. Think on that.

That's what O'Mara tried to convince people he would do.

What O'Mara didn't say to those who gobbled up his nonsense is that gambit is in uncharted waters.

There doesn't appear to be much in the way of case law of a defendant filing for immunity after a trial and most legal authorities disagree with his contention a pretrial immunity hearing can be filed post trial.

The word immunity, as used in the statute, is immunity from prosecution. GZ's case was prosecuted.

This from a lawyer who was also Assistant Public Defender in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, the circuit governing Sanford:

"The procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under the “Stand Your Ground” law are outlined in Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), a Florida First District Court of Appeal decision.

The Petersen decision definitively established that Section 776.032 was created by the Florida Legislature to establish a “true immunity” and not merely an affirmative defense. The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches. Unlike a motion to dismiss, the trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.


NOTE: In Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456, 460 (Fla. 2010), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the First District decision in Petersen, resolving a previous conflict that existed between the First and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. Petersen is now binding law on all Florida courts.

Thus, under the procedures outlined in Petersen, prosecutorial immunity does not attach under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law by way of mere factual assertion. The issue is raised pre-trial through the filing of a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and/or Dismissal."
​

(Originally posted last year)

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.htm


Also the FL Supreme Court makes it clear that Motion for Declaration of Immunity" must be filed pre-trial. There is also the matter of varying Burden of Proof.

Also, too: O'Mara dropped Zimmerman as a client. He still hasn't paid him. Good luck now to Z in trying to make a case that would require a Hell on Wheels superduper lawyer to thread that pretrial/posttrial/BOP immunity needle.

The criminal trial is over, it is really over. IF the Martin family is so foolish as to file a useless civil case, there would necessarily be pretrial motions upon the filing of the new action, including a pretrial immunity hearing.

Yes PRE trial, as in PRE civil trial.

Otherwise those parents would have filed their action by now. The statute run in February.

in fact they have not tried so sue anyone over this

crump had plans to sue

zimmerman

the city

the police dept

none of it has materialized

They sued the HOA for the homeowners complex and got a million dollars right away. If they try to sue Zimmerman and he wins his immunity hearing, they will have to pay all Zimmerman's fees and costs. There's no reason why either the City or the Police Department caused their son's death. There's just no way either the City or the Police were at fault.

 

[WorldWatcher]

and the records sealed.

Again with the sealed records thing.

What are you talking about, Florida has some of the must open Sunshine Laws in the Country and every aspect of the case was placed in the public domain through discovery.

So what are these "sealed records" you speak of that have a bearing on this case?



>>>>

speaking of sealed records

i would imagine if somehow zimmerman did have to go through

a civil court

that martins sealed records would now be open

#1 - What sealed records, Martin had no criminal arrests.

#2 - If you mean things like his High School transcripts and disciplinary record, no they wouldn't unless the respondent could show how such information directly related to the events of this night. Just because it's a civil case, there are still rules of evidence that apply and it's not just throw anything you want against the wall and see if anythings sticks.

#3 - In such a case the respondent would have to be very, VERY careful about that because if Zimmerman argued that Martin's history is applicable to the case, then his history would also be applicable. And believe me, Zimmerman would want to keep charges of felony battery on a police officer, testimony bearing terminated for injuring a guest at a party where he was providing security, Zimmerman showing a tendency to lie to the court. In a case of bringing up "history" Zimmerman would look much worse then Martin.


>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

and the records sealed.

Again with the sealed records thing.

What are you talking about, Florida has some of the must open Sunshine Laws in the Country and every aspect of the case was placed in the public domain through discovery.

So what are these "sealed records" you speak of that have a bearing on this case?



>>>>

Thug Martin's juvenile case history is sealed.

 

[paperview]

Under Florida law, there is a pretrial motion called an immunity hearing. Zimmerman didn't waive it, he reserved the right to bring it at any time.

yes i agree i am not confusing anything

Yes he did waive it.
You see that word there? pretrial. Think on that.

The whole reason why the Martin parents have not filed the civil suit is because Zimmerman would win an immunity hearing

yes they would instantly lose and be subject to all the defense costs

That's what O'Mara tried to convince people he would do.

What O'Mara didn't say to those who gobbled up his nonsense is that gambit is in uncharted waters.

There doesn't appear to be much in the way of case law of a defendant filing for immunity after a trial and most legal authorities disagree with his contention a pretrial immunity hearing can be filed post trial.

The word immunity, as used in the statute, is immunity from prosecution. GZ's case was prosecuted.

This from a lawyer who was also Assistant Public Defender in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, the circuit governing Sanford:

"The procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under the “Stand Your Ground” law are outlined in Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), a Florida First District Court of Appeal decision.

The Petersen decision definitively established that Section 776.032 was created by the Florida Legislature to establish a “true immunity” and not merely an affirmative defense. The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches. Unlike a motion to dismiss, the trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.


NOTE: In Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456, 460 (Fla. 2010), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the First District decision in Petersen, resolving a previous conflict that existed between the First and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. Petersen is now binding law on all Florida courts.


Thus, under the procedures outlined in Petersen, prosecutorial immunity does not attach under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law by way of mere factual assertion. The issue is raised pre-trial through the filing of a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and/or Dismissal."
​

(Originally posted last year)

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.htm


Also the FL Supreme Court makes it clear that Motion for Declaration of Immunity" must be filed pre-trial. There is also the matter of varying Burden of Proof.

Also, too: O'Mara dropped Zimmerman as a client. He still hasn't paid him. Good luck now to Z in trying to make a case that would require a Hell on Wheels superduper lawyer to thread that pretrial/posttrial/BOP immunity needle.

The criminal trial is over, it is really over. IF the Martin family is so foolish as to file a useless civil case, there would necessarily be pretrial motions upon the filing of the new action, including a pretrial immunity hearing.

Yes PRE trial, as in PRE civil trial.

Otherwise those parents would have filed their action by now. The statute run in February.

No. Pre-criminal trial.

See: http://www.usmessageboard.com/8192768-post617.html

He failed to file.

As to why the Martins have not filed yet, it is likely to do with the pending Federal investigation which has not closed yet.

Once that is closed (I am not in favor of a Federal trial) - they will likely file.

It makes sense to wait for the results of that.

 

[Esmeralda]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, everyone is against him. All these bad people are causing him problems. He's a totally innocent, upright citizen, loved and admired by all. Poor guy, just a victim of a whole bunch of looney people. Uh huh..... LMAO

 

[Esmeralda]

Again with the sealed records thing.

What are you talking about, Florida has some of the must open Sunshine Laws in the Country and every aspect of the case was placed in the public domain through discovery.

So what are these "sealed records" you speak of that have a bearing on this case?



>>>>

speaking of sealed records

i would imagine if somehow zimmerman did have to go through

a civil court

that martins sealed records would now be open

#1 - What sealed records, Martin had no criminal arrests.

#2 - If you mean things like his High School transcripts and disciplinary record, now they wouldn't unless the respondent could show how such information directly related to the events of this night. Just because it's a civil case, there are still rules of evidence that apply and it's not just throw anything you want against the wall and see if anythings sticks.

#3 - In such a case the respondent would have to be very, VERY careful about that because if Zimmerman argued that Martin's history is applicable to the case, then his history would also be applicable. And believe me, Zimmerman would want to keep charges of felony battery on a police officer, testimony bearing terminated for injuring a guest at a party where he was providing security, Zimmerman showing a tendency to lie to the court. In a case of bringing up "history" Zimmerman would look much worse then Martin.


>>>>

Excellent post!!

 

[paperview]

Yes he did waive it.
You see that word there? pretrial. Think on that.

That's what O'Mara tried to convince people he would do.

What O'Mara didn't say to those who gobbled up his nonsense is that gambit is in uncharted waters.

There doesn't appear to be much in the way of case law of a defendant filing for immunity after a trial and most legal authorities disagree with his contention a pretrial immunity hearing can be filed post trial.

The word immunity, as used in the statute, is immunity from prosecution. GZ's case was prosecuted.

This from a lawyer who was also Assistant Public Defender in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, the circuit governing Sanford:

"The procedures for asserting prosecutorial immunity under the “Stand Your Ground” law are outlined in Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), a Florida First District Court of Appeal decision.

The Petersen decision definitively established that Section 776.032 was created by the Florida Legislature to establish a “true immunity” and not merely an affirmative defense. The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches. Unlike a motion to dismiss, the trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.


NOTE: In Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456, 460 (Fla. 2010), the Florida Supreme Court adopted the First District decision in Petersen, resolving a previous conflict that existed between the First and Fourth District Courts of Appeal. Petersen is now binding law on all Florida courts.


Thus, under the procedures outlined in Petersen, prosecutorial immunity does not attach under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law by way of mere factual assertion. The issue is raised pre-trial through the filing of a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and/or Dismissal."
​

(Originally posted last year)

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.htm


Also the FL Supreme Court makes it clear that Motion for Declaration of Immunity" must be filed pre-trial. There is also the matter of varying Burden of Proof.

Also, too: O'Mara dropped Zimmerman as a client. He still hasn't paid him. Good luck now to Z in trying to make a case that would require a Hell on Wheels superduper lawyer to thread that pretrial/posttrial/BOP immunity needle.

The criminal trial is over, it is really over. IF the Martin family is so foolish as to file a useless civil case, there would necessarily be pretrial motions upon the filing of the new action, including a pretrial immunity hearing.

Yes PRE trial, as in PRE civil trial.

Otherwise those parents would have filed their action by now. The statute run in February.

in fact they have not tried so sue anyone over this

...

The HOA was successfully settled in excess of a million dollars payable to the Martins.

 

[WorldWatcher]

and the records sealed.

Again with the sealed records thing.

What are you talking about, Florida has some of the must open Sunshine Laws in the Country and every aspect of the case was placed in the public domain through discovery.

So what are these "sealed records" you speak of that have a bearing on this case?



>>>>

Thug Martin's juvenile case history is sealed.

If you mean criminal records are Martin, there are none. There are none, reporters have already checked. The fact that records exist IS NOT SEALED, the contents of those records are what is "sealed". None were found.


>>>>

 

[jon_berzerk]

Again with the sealed records thing.

What are you talking about, Florida has some of the must open Sunshine Laws in the Country and every aspect of the case was placed in the public domain through discovery.

So what are these "sealed records" you speak of that have a bearing on this case?



>>>>

speaking of sealed records

i would imagine if somehow zimmerman did have to go through

a civil court

that martins sealed records would now be open

#1 - What sealed records, Martin had no criminal arrests.

#2 - If you mean things like his High School transcripts and disciplinary record, now they wouldn't unless the respondent could show how such information directly related to the events of this night. Just because it's a civil case, there are still rules of evidence that apply and it's not just throw anything you want against the wall and see if anythings sticks.

#3 - In such a case the respondent would have to be very, VERY careful about that because if Zimmerman argued that Martin's history is applicable to the case, then his history would also be applicable. And believe me, Zimmerman would want to keep charges of felony battery on a police officer, testimony bearing terminated for injuring a guest at a party where he was providing security, Zimmerman showing a tendency to lie to the court. In a case of bringing up "history" Zimmerman would look much worse then Martin.


>>>>

What sealed records, Martin had no criminal arrests.

he had plenty of run ins with the law

in fact there is an investigation currently happening

on the cover up not only of martin but other kids

of wrong actions taken by the school dist police

however i meant evidence not allowed at trial

would be open this time around

 

[jon_berzerk]

The criminal trial is over, it is really over. IF the Martin family is so foolish as to file a useless civil case, there would necessarily be pretrial motions upon the filing of the new action, including a pretrial immunity hearing.

Yes PRE trial, as in PRE civil trial.

Otherwise those parents would have filed their action by now. The statute run in February.

in fact they have not tried so sue anyone over this

...

The HOA was successfully settled in excess of a million dollars payable to the Martins.

yeah on fraudulent evidence

 

[Katzndogz]

Again with the sealed records thing.

What are you talking about, Florida has some of the must open Sunshine Laws in the Country and every aspect of the case was placed in the public domain through discovery.

So what are these "sealed records" you speak of that have a bearing on this case?



>>>>

speaking of sealed records

i would imagine if somehow zimmerman did have to go through

a civil court

that martins sealed records would now be open

#1 - What sealed records, Martin had no criminal arrests.

#2 - If you mean things like his High School transcripts and disciplinary record, now they wouldn't unless the respondent could show how such information directly related to the events of this night. Just because it's a civil case, there are still rules of evidence that apply and it's not just throw anything you want against the wall and see if anythings sticks.

#3 - In such a case the respondent would have to be very, VERY careful about that because if Zimmerman argued that Martin's history is applicable to the case, then his history would also be applicable. And believe me, Zimmerman would want to keep charges of felony battery on a police officer, testimony bearing terminated for injuring a guest at a party where he was providing security, Zimmerman showing a tendency to lie to the court. In a case of bringing up "history" Zimmerman would look much worse then Martin.


>>>>

Only convictions would be admissible. Every prior charge has been dropped. They are unsubstantiated complaints, hearsay. The guest at the party would have to testify, the police officer would have to testify. The court is VERY careful to not allow in evidence of prior bad acts unless the defendant opens the door (By saying he would never under any circumstances commit the act in which he is charged). Naturally if the plaintiff opens that door (that Trayvon Martin would never, under any circumstances attack another person), then evidence that he had committed similar acts in the future would be admitted.

Zimmerman didn't lie in court. His wife did, he didn't, he didn't testify either.

What YOU think of in "opening the door" isn't. You can't open the door to what the defendant may have done in the past by claiming the plaintiff did something bad in the past. The door can only be opened by making a claim contrary to what you are saying. Zimmerman's door could only be opened if he said "I would NEVER shoot anyone. I am a peaceful person that has never had a violent confrontation in the past." NOW the door is open.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

and the records sealed.

Again with the sealed records thing.

What are you talking about, Florida has some of the must open Sunshine Laws in the Country and every aspect of the case was placed in the public domain through discovery.

So what are these "sealed records" you speak of that have a bearing on this case?



>>>>

If only you had access to the internet, you'd be able to look it up.

Before he killed Trayvon, his father the supreme court magistrate called in some favors (didn't hurt that his mommy is a retired court clerk) and had his records sealed. They were unsealed during the trial.

If you ever get access to, oh, say, google dot com, you could ... Oh never mind.

As for, "... have a bearing on this case", according to rw's nothing gz does or has done, has bearing on any of his violence against women and children. OTOH, those same people have tried and convicted the kid he killed and the women he has battered.

From a practical pov, when gz does finally blow and kills someone else, his own actions will make it impossible for him to hide. He's done all of this to himself and there will come a day when he will have to take responsibility for that fact.

 

[Katzndogz]

speaking of sealed records

i would imagine if somehow zimmerman did have to go through

a civil court

that martins sealed records would now be open

#1 - What sealed records, Martin had no criminal arrests.

#2 - If you mean things like his High School transcripts and disciplinary record, now they wouldn't unless the respondent could show how such information directly related to the events of this night. Just because it's a civil case, there are still rules of evidence that apply and it's not just throw anything you want against the wall and see if anythings sticks.

#3 - In such a case the respondent would have to be very, VERY careful about that because if Zimmerman argued that Martin's history is applicable to the case, then his history would also be applicable. And believe me, Zimmerman would want to keep charges of felony battery on a police officer, testimony bearing terminated for injuring a guest at a party where he was providing security, Zimmerman showing a tendency to lie to the court. In a case of bringing up "history" Zimmerman would look much worse then Martin.


>>>>

What sealed records, Martin had no criminal arrests.

he had plenty of run ins with the law

in fact there is an investigation currently happening

on the cover up not only of martin but other kids

of wrong actions taken by the school dist police

however i meant evidence not allowed at trial

would be open this time around

There sure is an investigation as to school cover up.

How a Miami School Crime Cover-Up Policy Led to Trayvon Martin's Death | The American Spectator


The February 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martion might never have happened if school officials in Miami-Dade County had not instituted an unofficial policy of treating crimes as school disciplinary infractions. Revelations that emerged from an internal affairs investigation explain why Martin was not arrested when caught at school with stolen jewelry in October 2011 or with marijuana in February 2012. Instead, the teenager was suspended from school, the last time just days before he was shot dead by George Zimmerman.

Both of Trayvon's suspensions during his junior year at Krop High involved crimes that could have led to his prosecution as a juvenile offender. However, Chief Charles Hurley of the Miami-Dade School Police Department (MDSPD) in 2010 had implemented a policy that reduced the number of criiminal reports, manipulating statistics to create the appearance of a reduction in crime within the school system. Less than two weeks before Martin's death, the school system commended Chief Hurley for "decreasing school-related juvenile delinquency by an impressive 60 percent for the last six months of 2011." What was actually happening was that crimes were not being reported as crimes, but instead treated as disciplinary infractions.

In October 2011, after a video surveillance camera caught Martin writing graffiti on a door, MDSPD Office Darryl Dunn searched Martin's backpack, looking for the marker he had used. Officer Dunn found 12 pieces of women's jewelry and a man's watch, along with a flathead screwdriver the officer described as a "burglary tool." The jewelry and watch, which Martin claimed he had gotten from a friend he refused to name, matched a description of items stolen during the October 2011 burglary of a house on 204th Terrace, about a half-mile from the school. However, because of Chief Hurley's policy "to lower the arrest rates," as one MDSPD sergeant said in an internal investigation, the stolen jewerly was instead listed as "found property" and was never reported to Miami-Dade Police who were investigating the burglary. Similarly, in February 2012 when an MDSPD officer caught Martin with a small plastic bag containing marijuana residue, as well as a marijuana pipe, this was not treated as a crime, and instead Martin was suspended from school.

Trayvon Martin was on his way to a being a career criminal.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

speaking of sealed records

i would imagine if somehow zimmerman did have to go through

a civil court

that martins sealed records would now be open

No need. rw's already tried and convicted him even though his crime that night was to try to get away from an armed stalker.

Seriously, read the posts here. They didn't want gz's violent records to be opened and used against him but they wanted Trayvon killed for carrying skittles, wearing a hoodie and running away from an armed stalker.

Neither had been convicted of a prior crime and yet, Trayvon was ASSSumed guilty.

 

[WorldWatcher]

speaking of sealed records

i would imagine if somehow zimmerman did have to go through

a civil court

that martins sealed records would now be open

#1 - What sealed records, Martin had no criminal arrests.

#2 - If you mean things like his High School transcripts and disciplinary record, now they wouldn't unless the respondent could show how such information directly related to the events of this night. Just because it's a civil case, there are still rules of evidence that apply and it's not just throw anything you want against the wall and see if anythings sticks.

#3 - In such a case the respondent would have to be very, VERY careful about that because if Zimmerman argued that Martin's history is applicable to the case, then his history would also be applicable. And believe me, Zimmerman would want to keep charges of felony battery on a police officer, testimony bearing terminated for injuring a guest at a party where he was providing security, Zimmerman showing a tendency to lie to the court. In a case of bringing up "history" Zimmerman would look much worse then Martin.


>>>>

What sealed records, Martin had no criminal arrests.

he had plenty of run ins with the law

in fact there is an investigation currently happening

on the cover up not only of martin but other kids

of wrong actions taken by the school dist police

however i meant evidence not allowed at trial

would be open this time around

What evidence "not allowed at trial" pertinent to the events that night were not allowed?


Zimmerman's prior arrest record, injunction to remain away from his girlfriend, and his possible injuring a patron at a party he was working as security are irrelevant to the events of that night.

Now if you think a civil trial means "anything goes" then you are mistaken, there are still rules of evidence and if the respondent (Zimmerman) wants to bring in past conduct of Martin - then that means his past conduct would also come in.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

speaking of sealed records

i would imagine if somehow zimmerman did have to go through

a civil court

that martins sealed records would now be open

#1 - What sealed records, Martin had no criminal arrests.

#2 - If you mean things like his High School transcripts and disciplinary record, now they wouldn't unless the respondent could show how such information directly related to the events of this night. Just because it's a civil case, there are still rules of evidence that apply and it's not just throw anything you want against the wall and see if anythings sticks.

#3 - In such a case the respondent would have to be very, VERY careful about that because if Zimmerman argued that Martin's history is applicable to the case, then his history would also be applicable. And believe me, Zimmerman would want to keep charges of felony battery on a police officer, testimony bearing terminated for injuring a guest at a party where he was providing security, Zimmerman showing a tendency to lie to the court. In a case of bringing up "history" Zimmerman would look much worse then Martin.


>>>>

Only convictions would be admissible.

And that would apply to both. However if the respondent opens the door then then it all comes in.

They are unsubstantiated complaints, hearsay. The guest at the party would have to testify, the police officer would have to testify.

At which point their testimony is not "hearsay" it is direct testimony. "Hearsay" is when someone else says someone else told them something about a 3rd party. When someone say "this is what Zimmerman did in my presence" that is no longer "hearsay" and then Zimmerman gets to respond (i.e. present a rebuttal).

Zimmerman didn't lie in court. His wife did, he didn't, he didn't testify either.

False, Zimmerman petitioned the court for indigent status. Under Florida statute he is required to disclose all financial assets as part of the bail process so he lied in two ways: (1) he failed to disclose cash available on his bail request, and (2) he conspired with his wife to hide those assests from the court.

I didn't say he "lied in court" (although he did with a lie of omission), I said he lied to the court. And in reality he did lie in court because he sat there and did not consult with his attorney (O'Mara), who acting as his representative, told the judge to his face that Zimmerman had no assets to be used to set bail.


When the prosecution petitioned the court to revoke his bond for lying to the court they should have also filed perjury charges which would have existed as a charge one degree below the primary charge. In this case Murder 2 being a class 2 felony, they could have charged him with a class 3 felony. Such a charge would have been handled in a separate trial after the Murder change.


>>>>