Jump to content

Bama Panther

Member Since 25 Nov 2008
Last Active Yesterday, 08:20 PM

#3205648 Show some love for the best Rock band since Nirvana

Posted by Bama Panther on 14 January 2015 - 11:58 PM

I was always a fan of Our Lady Peace. I don't think they got nearly the recognition in the U.S. they should have gotten, especially in their early years. Naveed, Clumsy, Happiness ... Is Not a Fish That You Can Catch, Spiritual Machines, and (to some extent) Gravity are all really good albums. I didn't really care for Healthy in Paranoid Times, and I haven't heard any of their last two albums.

As some have said though, music is personal preference and what you connect with. I'm not one to diss anyone's musical choice. I may not like it, but I won't put it down.

#2121282 Peter King MMQB after Super Bowl 38

Posted by Bama Panther on 01 February 2013 - 07:24 PM

Little known fact: the employees had to actually buy the game tickets from the Panthers. The flight, hotel, NFL Experience tickets, and everything else was free to the employees though.

Wrong. I received two tickets for absolutely no charge whatsoever.

#2059743 Peter King shows his colors again

Posted by Bama Panther on 23 December 2012 - 05:28 PM

Who's butthurt exactly? Is it Peter King or all you jokers that feel you need to defend a grown man anytime someone says te slightest thing that goes against that grown man? Ridiculous.

#1776418 Zimmerman/trayvon Evidence Is Coming Out. Zimmerman Broke Nose/black Eyes/cu...

Posted by Bama Panther on 18 May 2012 - 01:49 AM

OK, I want to preface this post by saying I am currently a criminal defense attorney. This followed spending about three years as a prosecutor. I think a lot of you are way off in this case. While you pose good questions, I don't think you truly grasp the arguments that will be made and how the self defense instructions truly work.

First, in any criminal case, as we all know, the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. That means the prosecutor must prove each and every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In the military, our reasonable doubt instruction states, "if there is a real possibility that the accused is not guilty, you must resolve all doubt in his favor and find him not guilty." Self defense cases throw in another wrench.

In self defense cases, the prosecution must not only prove each and every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, they must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person claiming self defense was not acting in self defense. Again, that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so getting the self defense instruction essentially adds another element to the crime.

This notion that Mr. Martin could simply pound on Mr. Zimmerman's face and bash his head into the concrete simply because Mr. Zimmerman was following him is not really supported by the law. In self defense cases, you are truly allowed to respond only with the amount of force needed to end the threat or withdraw from the situation. Whether Mr. Zimmerman was chasing or simply walking after Mr. Martin, it would be hard to prove that Mr. Martin was justified in believing that he needed to beat Mr. Zimmerman in the manner alleged to end the threat or withdraw from it. It must also be noted that the right to self defense is based on how a reasonable man would perceive the threat.

There is a secondary issue to this chase vs. following vs. bashing head into sidewalk thing. If Mr. Zimmerman was the initial provocateur, the law requires that Mr. Martin respond in a reasonable manner. Would most people think it is reasonable to attack a person following/chasing you, take them to the ground, punch him at least a few times (broken nose and two black eyes), and bash his head into the concrete (gashes in head). If that was an unreasonable response by Mr. Martin,  his (Mr. Martin's) right to self defense is extinguished. Mr. Martin then becomes the provocateur, and Mr. Zimmerman then has the right to self defense. There is a caveat here though. Mr. Martin is not required to step back and think about how much force is needed to protect himself, but I think the more reasonable argument is that what is alleged was too much.

Based on Mr. Zimmerman's injuries, and the lack of Mr. Martin's injuries, the argument is that Mr. Zimmerman was in fear of his life. I think anyone would say that being punched in the face and having his/her head bashed into a sidewalk would reasonable elicit a fear of grievous bodily harm (legal term of art). This means that Mr. Zimmerman only had to fear serious bodily injury, including broken bones and deep gashes (both of which Mr. Zimmerman had). At that point, the law says Mr. Zimmerman can respond with deadly force.

Another interesting point is that Mr. Zimmerman's prior assault charges (if they are not actual convictions) will most likely not be able to come in as evidence. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404b, prior crimes, wrongs or bad acts cannot be introduced to prove that a person acted in conformity with those prior acts. Essentially, you can't say I assaulted someone in the past so I must have assaulted this other person. The Rules simply don't allow it, so to you guys harping on Mr. Zimmerman's prior assault "charges," that just doesn't fly in a court of law.

One more evidentiary issue. I don't know that anyone will be able to testify about whose voice is calling for help on the 911 call. If no one can pinpoint, or even say with any certainty, whose voice it is, I think the judge may very well keep that out. It would then be up to the jurors to decide whose voice it is, because the tape itself would not likely be suppressed.

What do I think of this case? As a criminal defense attorney, I would take this case all day, every day and advise my client that he has a great shot at winning. I think the burden, especially the added burden in a self defense case, is too much for the prosecution to overcome in this case. The fact that his alleged version of the events are corroborated by the medical reports is great for the defense.

P.S. I recently got an acquittal in an aggravated assault by means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm case.