17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[Bond 281]

That video was great

Agreed. He stated why the evidence available supports Zimmerman very well.

 

[griffin]

Now that he has been arrested it opened the door for a civil suit no matter the outcome of guilt or innocence.

Nope.

"...not only will he be forever immune from facing criminal charges for shooting the 17-year-old Martin — even if new evidence or witnesses surface — he could not even be sued for civil damages by Martin’s family for wrongfully causing his death."

TriValley Central > Front > 'Stand your ground' law gives Zimmerman extra chances

Here's a few other recent Florida SYG outcomes:

Last month, a Miami-Dade County judge ruled that Greyston Garcia was immune under the law even though he chased down a suspected car stereo thief and stabbed him to death, then went home and went to sleep. The judge ruled Garcia used justifiable force because the thief swung a bag of radios at him that could “lead to serious bodily injury or death.”

In Tampa last year, investigators decided not to file charges against 62-year-old Alcisviados Polanco, who used an ice pick to fatally stab 20-year-old Wathson Adelson following a road rage confrontation. Authorities said there was no evidence to disprove Polanco’s claim of self-defense.

Two years ago in Miami, a pair of Florida Power & Light workers were accosted by a mobile home resident armed with a rifle. The resident, Ernesto Che Vino, struck one utility worker on the head and fired shots in the air as they fled to their vehicle. A judge ruled that Vino’s actions were justified because he was in fear for his life.

So...doesn't the Zimmerman case sound 10x more legitimate than any of those?

 

[Bunnykid68]

It seems everyone knows what was gleaned from the interrogation. Just wondering where they got their intel. Would the prosecutor have access to the full interrogation videos?

Was it recorded?

 

[hornadylnl]

Was it recorded?

I would hope.

 

[figley]

The "shocking new video released by Frontsite", is nothing new. I remember watching online, as that was live, about the middle of last week. Uhrig basically gave an account of what anyone who had been paying attention, had already determined.

Remember, Uhrig was speaking as an un-interested private citizen. He and Sonner, at the time of the presser, had no ties to Zimmerman. They had never been his attorneys, but only his legal advisers.

 

[griffin]

The "shocking new video released by Frontsite", is nothing new.

It's not a shocking new video...but you didn't see it on CBS/NBC/ABC/PBS/CNN/MSNBC did you?

 

[Fargo]

The "shocking new video released by Frontsite", is nothing new. I remember watching online, as that was live, about the middle of last week. Uhrig basically gave an account of what anyone who had been paying attention, had already determined.

Remember, Uhrig was speaking as an un-interested private citizen. He and Sonner, at the time of the presser, had no ties to Zimmerman. They had never been his attorneys, but only his legal advisers.

You don't seem to have any idea of what constitutes an attorney/client relationship. Uhrig was absolutely Z's attorney and absolutely in no way speaking as a private citizen.

You make a distinction that does not exist. If a person has retained a lawyer for legal advice, they are that person's lawyer and are bound by all the duties of the attorney client relationship.

Uhrig's video was a pretty decent closing argument presented to the press pre-charging, knowing that the prosecutor generally could not respond because of the special duties of prosecutors in the rules of professional conduct. It was not some sort of objective recitation of the evidence, it was advocacy for his client as he was obliged to do by his oath as an attorney and by the rules of professional conduct.

Pretending otherwise is to ignore the fundamental purpose of the attorney/client relationship and the obligations it imposes. Even if Uhrig personally believed Z was guilty as sin, he would still have the same obligation to make the same arguments he did.

Joe

 

[rambone]

This thread sucks

 

[figley]

You don't seem to have any idea of what constitutes an attorney/client relationship. Uhrig was absolutely Z's attorney and absolutely in no way speaking as a private citizen.

You make a distinction that does not exist. If a person has retained a lawyer for legal advice, they are that person's lawyer and are bound by all the duties of the attorney client relationship.

Do you know that in the minutes preceding the beginning of this video, Uhrig and Sonner stated unequivocally that they had severed their ties to Zimmerman? He had quit communicating with them, and had called Corey's office, and informed her staff that he was not ever officially represented by them, that they had just been his legal advisers.

They expressed their willingness to represent him, but that it would be necessary for him to contact them, to re-establish the relationship. They had agreed to advise him, pro bono, until charges were filed, at which time they would work out payment arrangements.

I will allow that I am not sure of any responsibilities they may still have had, either legal or ethical. However, I am certain they were not speaking as his attorneys.

 

[jamil]

You don't seem to have any idea of what constitutes an attorney/client relationship. Uhrig was absolutely Z's attorney and absolutely in no way speaking as a private citizen.

You make a distinction that does not exist. If a person has retained a lawyer for legal advice, they are that person's lawyer and are bound by all the duties of the attorney client relationship.

Uhrig's video was a pretty decent closing argument presented to the press pre-charging, knowing that the prosecutor generally could not respond because of the special duties of prosecutors in the rules of professional conduct. It was not some sort of objective recitation of the evidence, it was advocacy for his client as he was obliged to do by his oath as an attorney and by the rules of professional conduct.

Pretending otherwise is to ignore the fundamental purpose of the attorney/client relationship and the obligations it imposes. Even if Uhrig personally believed Z was guilty as sin, he would still have the same obligation to make the same arguments he did.

Joe

So what you're saying is that the truth of what happened lies somewhere between. Not much more than that could anyone factually say except Z. But at this point, Z's version sounds a bit more plausible than that he hunted M down and shot him in the street like a dog.

 

[cobber]

Do you know that in the minutes preceding the beginning of this video, Uhrig and Sonner stated unequivocally that they had severed their ties to Zimmerman? He had quit communicating with them, and had called Corey's office, and informed her staff that he was not ever officially represented by them, that they had just been his legal advisers.

They expressed their willingness to represent him, but that it would be necessary for him to contact them, to re-establish the relationship. They had agreed to advise him, pro bono, until charges were filed, at which time they would work out payment arrangements.

I will allow that I am not sure of any responsibilities they may still have had, either legal or ethical. However, I am certain they were not speaking as his attorneys.

Once his attorney, always his attorney.

 

[Fargo]

I will allow that I am not sure of any responsibilities they may still have had, either legal or ethical. However, I am certain they were not speaking as his attorneys.

Cobber described it pretty well. Your duties to a client, other than to continue working on his case, mostly all continue even after you have withdrawn.

If Uhrig gave that tirade without Z's consent, he should be very concerned about a disciplinary proceeding. Attorneys don't get to make public statements about things they have learned in the course of representation of prior clients.

Indiana's rule is below:

Rule 1.6. Confidentiality of Information
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).
(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:
(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or from committing fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services;
(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services;
(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer's compliance with these Rules;
(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client; or
(6) to comply with other law or a court order.
(c) In the event of a lawyer's physical or mental disability or the appointment of a guardian or conservator of an attorney's client files, disclosure of a client's names and files is authorized to the extent necessary to carry out the duties of the person managing the lawyer's files.

It doesn't matter if you claim to have never "officially represented" him. At the point you agree to provide legal advice, even on a pro bono basis, you create an attorney client relationship with all the obligations and duties that entails.

Best,

Joe

 

[griffin]

Task force to consider 'stand your ground' after Trayvon Martin death - CNN.com

 

[cobber]

It doesn't matter if you claim to have never "officially represented" him. At the point you agree to provide legal advice, even on a pro bono basis, you create an attorney client relationship with all the obligations and duties that entails.

Best,

Joe

So if you're planning a particularly nasty lawsuit, consult as many attorneys as possible to conflict them all out!

Task force to consider 'stand your ground' after Trayvon Martin death - CNN.com

Bad cases make bad laws. IF the Martin incident was truly a Perfect Storm of profiling/racism/vigilantism/stupidity, then it makes no sense to penalize all other law abiding gun owners.

If there are thousands of these cases in Florida a year, then maybe they ought to revisit the law. But we already know that's not true.

I guess the Governor couldn't resist getting in on the Al and Jesse gravy train, wanted to get a little PR for himself.

Maybe they need to wait to see how the legal process re Zimmerman turns out first.

 

[Roadie]

So if you're planning a particularly nasty lawsuit, consult as many attorneys as possible to conflict them all out!


Bad cases make bad laws. IF the Martin incident was truly a Perfect Storm of profiling/racism/vigilantism/stupidity, then it makes no sense to penalize all other law abiding gun owners.

If there are thousands of these cases in Florida a year, then maybe they ought to revisit the law. But we already know that's not true.

I guess the Governor couldn't resist getting in on the Al and Jesse gravy train, wanted to get a little PR for himself.

Maybe they need to wait to see how the legal process re Zimmerman turns out first.

Exactly. Using the death of a teen as a catalyst for changes in gun laws is not only illogical, it is downright disgusting.

But hey, Brady and Regan getting shot with a .22 led to assault rifle and high mag bans, so logic apparently isn't an consideration...

 

[dross]

Task force to consider 'stand your ground' after Trayvon Martin death - CNN.com

Flaws

1. We don't even know what happened in the Zimmerman/Martin situation, so why does that call the law into question?
2. No scenario I've heard about the case has anything to do with the elements of the stand your ground law.
3. The only people on the task force are people who indicated an interest, which means it will be weighted with people who are against the law. You don't get activist about the status quo, the people motivated to do something are the people against it.

Political theater, that will likely harm freedom.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Flaws

1. We don't even know what happened in the Zimmerman/Martin situation, so why does that call the law into question?
2. No scenario I've heard about the case has anything to do with the elements of the stand your ground law.
3. The only people on the task force are people who indicated an interest, which means it will be weighted with people who are against the law. You don't get activist about the status quo, the people motivated to do something are the people against it.

Political theater, that will likely harm freedom.

Sounds (unfortunately) like a pretty good summary to me.

 

[bobzilla]

Apparently this is supposed to have been taken 3 minutes after the shooting. Looks like a little more than falling and hitting your head on the ground to me.

 

[Fargo]

Apparently this is supposed to have been taken 3 minutes after the shooting. Looks like a little more than falling and hitting your head on the ground to me.

Here is a slightly better view of the picture:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg

Rinse the blood off and we will see. Even the most superficial scalp cut bleeds like hell in my experience. I'm not saying there is nothing there, but it certainly cannot be determined what type of wound is there until it is cleaned up.

Best,

Joe

 

[bobzilla]

there are at least two wounds there. That's more than falling and hitting your head, unless you bounced a time or two.