Jump to content


Bama Panther

Member Since 25 Nov 2008
Offline Last Active Today, 04:46 PM
-----

#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.


#1381174 What's Everyone's Careers up in herree?

Posted by Bama Panther on 09 September 2011 - 11:22 AM

I got my Bachelor's in Sport Management and then went to law school.

I'm currently an Area Defense Counsel (criminal defense attorney) in the Air Force. It's a great job and has a direct impact on my clients' lives.

After I retire, I would like to be a teacher/sports coach.


#1260456 FREE CASEY ANTHONY!!...Really..

Posted by Bama Panther on 08 July 2011 - 10:52 AM

Jurors were/are idiots... but I guess you could say a jury of Casey's peers.

http://hotair.com/ar...-convicted-her/

Wow.


After watching that video of Juror #3, which was the second one I've seen of her, I have no doubt in my mind that those jurors had no idea what they were doing.

"The prosecution left us to connect the dots, and we could not do that." WRONG!!! That's what a jury does. Your job is to connect the dots with all the pieces of evidence. If one piece of evidence is missing, you can look at the rest of the evidence to determine what reasonably happened. As Jeff Ashton said, "You don't make an accidental death look like a murder."

"We didn't really believe Krystal Holloway's testimony, because it was based on pure speculation and opinion." Are you effing kidding me? It was direct testimony. Granted, Judge Perry limited its use to impeachment, but direct testimony is not speculation or opinion. Even so, it seems the jury used it for more than impeachment by buying into the idea that the death was accidental. There was no other evidencd of an accidental death.

Sad that such idiots sit on juries to decide such cases.


#1210661 Obama demanding Israel to withdraw to 1967 borders.

Posted by Bama Panther on 24 May 2011 - 07:29 AM

i think his point was that using religion as justification for foreign policy is p stupid.


Don't think so. The quotes he commented had nothing to do with foreign policy. They dealt with Christian beliefs that the fall/dividing of Israel is one of the events leading to the second coming of Jesus. Besides, what we see in this thread is rodeo's modus operandi.


#1210474 Obama demanding Israel to withdraw to 1967 borders.

Posted by Bama Panther on 23 May 2011 - 11:16 PM

Do you guys realize you sound like absolute idiots? Every bit as retarded as the May 21 people.


Do you realize you still, after all these years, sound like an arrogant prick? We get it. You think all people that have faith in a religion are, somehow, intellectually inferior. Funny though that they never call you names simply based on your beliefs, as you continually do.


#1190027 Moving to Hawai'i

Posted by Bama Panther on 07 May 2011 - 07:13 AM

Thanks to Uncle Sam, my family and I will be moving to Hawai'i in about seven weeks. It all started with the following question: "Will you go to Korea for a year without your family?" Mind you, we have a 21 month old and 7 week old. After mcuh discussion with my wife and our families, we told the Air Force, "Yes."

About three weeks later, I learned that I was penciled in for Korea starting in July 2011. However, when the folks at the Pentagon called with my official assignment, they asked me, "How would you like to go to Hawai'i instead?" I answered by saying, "Oh, please no. I would hate to spend a couple years in Hawai'i with my family." So, here we are. Moving in seven weeks. It should be a great three years.


#1078793 Pfc. Manning could face the death penalty

Posted by Bama Panther on 05 March 2011 - 10:35 AM

I would certainly hope so. But tell me something, there are no outside media cameras or outside reporters, are there?


The media is most definitely welcome to sit in a courtroom since it is an open forum. It is only closed if classified information is discussed or if the defense requests it. Every court-martial that occurs on my base has between 10-20 people not involved with the court at all sitting in watching.

Additionally, AF Times, and any other media outlet, can request copies of the charge sheet under the Freedom of Information Act. Other than Personally Identifying Information (SSN, Address, etc.), they will get that information in advance of the court-martial.

Lots of misinformation here.

One, he will get a fair trial with representation. He can have a military lawyer or hire a civilian one. He can also request that the jury be made up of enlisted members, it does not necessarily have to be officers. The military provides for a fair trial, just as much as civilian courts do.


Partially right. His panel (jury) cannot be only enlisted members. He may ask for enlisted members as part of the pool for selection. The only way to have an only enlisted panel would be to disqualify all officers, which isn't going to happen . . . ever.

Really?

Very interesting


It's the truth. I am the trial counsel on a huge sexual assault case involving five victims, two obstructions of justice, two failures to obey an order, and AWOL. In reviewing the pretrial agreement submitted by the defense, I researched the sentences in similar cases across the Air Force over the past few years. The sentences were on the very light side. One Senior Noncommissioned Officer got 30 months for molesting his daughter over a period of years.

It's different in the military, you sign away your rights when you sign up.


Wrong. You have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever. The only thing different in the military is the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is our criminal code. Like I said earlier, it is extremely geared towards the Accused.

Since you obviously don't know, the Constitution is not thrown out of the window where military members are concerned. It applies for us just as much as it applies for civilians. In fact, the right to a speedy trial is guaranteed to a civilian only by the Sixth Amendment. A military member is guaranteed that right by the Sixth Amendment and two other statutory laws (Rule for Court-Martial 707 and Article 10, UCMJ).

Whereas a civilian has a right to a speedy trial with no specific time period specified, military members must be brought to court within 120 days of being charged or being placed in pretrial confinement. There are exenuating circumstances, but that's where Article 10 steps in (The government must make reasonable progress towards taking the Accused to trial).

The fact is the Gov is not allowed to withhold information from the public under the constitution. They will still say he violated something because it was declared classified and not for public view. The fact is the Gov violated the constitution, but he will pay with his life for upholding it.


He knew the rules. He took the oath of enlistment. He broke them. Oh well.

If a civilian awaiting trial was pranced around naked everynight his case would be thrown out probably.

The article states this is normal for the brig though


Wrong again. While PFC Manning's case will not be thrown out if there was some kind of illegal pretrial punishment, he will get confinement credit for it. The military judge can give any amount of credit he feels is necessary. I've seen judges award 10-to-1 credit for pretrial confinement/punishment (10 days credit for each day of confinement served pretrial).

It is amazing how people actually know nothing about a system and get on here and spew garbage like crazy. Not you necessarily, Happy Panther, just the totality of the posts.


#1076514 Pfc. Manning could face the death penalty

Posted by Bama Panther on 03 March 2011 - 10:59 PM

I don't know how much you all actually know about the workings of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Military Justice system, but it is typically viewed as providing the Accused much more in the way of rights than civilian court systems.

The Government is held to the same standard (beyond a reasonable doubt), but the panel (military term for jury) is much more educated than anything a defendant would face in the civilian world. The panel for a court-martial starts out full of officers (college grads) unless the Accused chooses enlisted members. Still, the panel can be up to 2/3 officer. Many of those officers, at least in the Air Force, are some sort of engineer or scientist. I have seen it firsthand. Those officers hold the Government to a very high standard, and once someone is proven guilty, severe punishments are rarely handed down.

Point: The UCMJ is not slanted to nail an Accused to the wall. In fact, the military justice system is just the opposite.


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com