View Full Version : Zimmerman to be charged!
ghostman1960
04-11-12, 13:13
Fox News just reported that the Washington Post is reporting that the Florida Special Prosecutor will charge George Zimmerman. Exactly what he will be charged with has not been made clear. Second degree murder and manslaughter were mentioned in the report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-law-enforcement-official-says/2012/04/11/gIQAHJ5oAT_print.html
NoveskeFan
04-11-12, 13:42
Saw this coming. We live in a society where if you make enough noise, you get what you want. I'm sure he will get a fair trial :rolleyes:
Seen where Holder has vowed a "full investigation" into the incident...
Jury full of Black Panther members?
QuietShootr
04-11-12, 13:48
**** that shit. I hope he was smart enough to get out of the country while there was nothing pending. That'd be a good charge to be running from. Nobody's coming to get you in LATAM for a stupid state manslaughter charge.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
04-11-12, 14:12
Everyone called him guilty, and you guys said that without knowing the facts, no one should be able to comment on whether or not he is guilty. Now that he is being charged, you guys (without knowing the facts) are all crying innocent? Which one is it?
I think the State will lose the case.
Doc Safari
04-11-12, 14:17
I think the State will lose the case.
So, given our "speedy" justice system--------that pushes the riots back a few months, but they will still happen.
I certainly don't remember "everyone" calling him guilty. So who exactly is everyone?
Everyone called him guilty, and you guys said that without knowing the facts, no one should be able to comment on whether or not he is guilty. Now that he is being charged, you guys (without knowing the facts) are all crying innocent? Which one is it?
Raven Armament
04-11-12, 14:26
Seen where Holder has vowed a "full investigation" into the incident...
To determine if his civil rights were violated.
QuietShootr
04-11-12, 14:32
Everyone called him guilty, and you guys said that without knowing the facts, no one should be able to comment on whether or not he is guilty. Now that he is being charged, you guys (without knowing the facts) are all crying innocent? Which one is it?
What do you mean 'you people'? I never said he was guilty. And now it doesn't matter whether he is or isn't, he's going to get hanged. Being that that is the case, I don't see any reason for him to stick around for a show trial.
kaiservontexas
04-11-12, 14:44
I will be honest with my opinion. He is being railroaded. I have always thought as such the second it hit the news cycle meme and I got notice of it.
Today Holder was praising Sharpton for his work on the Martin case!! He also said that he has his peace keepers in Sanford. What the hell are DOJ Peacekeepers?
QuietShootr
04-11-12, 14:55
I think now would be a fine time to appropriate an irritating-ass old slogan and make it our own.
NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!
Moose-Knuckle
04-11-12, 14:58
To determine if his civil rights were violated.
AG Holder: if evidence in Trayvon Martin case warrants, Justice Department will act
WASHINGTON - Attorney General Eric Holder says the Justice Department will take appropriate action in the Trayvon Martin case if it finds evidence that a federal criminal civil rights crime has been committed.
The attorney general made the comment in an appearance Wednesday before a civil rights organization founded by the Rev. Al Sharpton.
Holder says the department will conduct a thorough and independent review of the evidence in the Martin case.
The attorney general also says one of the department's top priorities is preventing and combating youth violence and victimization.
http://news.yahoo.com/ag-holder-evidence-trayvon-martin-case-warrants-justice-140152112.html
What an absolute pile of horse shit. . .I'm so happy that my tax dollars are being put to good use. :mad:
Why does the AG NOT show the amount of vigor in the prevention of black on black "yute" violence and black on white hate crimes has he does Barry’s “could have been son”????
WAKE UP FOLKS, these are the people that want to take away your 2nd Amendment rights.
At 18:00 hrs EST there should be a press pony show with the FL AG announces the charges for Mr. Zimmerman.
He is taking donations for his legal fund on his offical website (there are a lot of fake ones)
http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/Home_Page.php
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-11-12, 15:03
So, it goes before a judge, and Z-man's lawyer lays out all the evidence that is painfully clear that Z-man is protected by the 'Stand-your-ground" law and the case is thrown out. The prosecutor gets to say that they tried and if not for this evil "shoot minorities law" they would have gotten the death penalty. The 'community disorganizers" like Sharpton will have another battle cry about a racist America for a generation. That and two more black kids will be shot in Sanford tonight and no one will give a shit because it was black-on-black crime.
CarlosDJackal
04-11-12, 15:08
Everyone called him guilty, and you guys said that without knowing the facts, no one should be able to comment on whether or not he is guilty. Now that he is being charged, you guys (without knowing the facts) are all crying innocent? Which one is it?
And just who the hell are you referring to?
I personally was not surprised by this. When they appoint a "Special Prosecutor" and the Attorney General of the US (who happens to be the same race as the "poor, innocent victim"); this is like two kids from New York who gets accused of shooting a Good Ol' boy while in Ala-f***ing-bama. It WILL go to trial!!
I smell a conviction ala rodney king Defendants (who were found not guilty on the first trial but guilty after the riots). Nothing more than a race-based trial in which the non african-American Defendant has absolutely no snowball's chance in hell of getting out unscathed.
But if he is found innocent, I hope he sues the pants of all those who pushed for this trial to include DOJ, the applicable Senators and Congressmen, the racist reverends, and the press who started this fire by publishing half-truths and lies. JM2CW.
CarlosDJackal
04-11-12, 15:09
Today Holder was praising Sharpton for his work on the Martin case!! He also said that he has his peace keepers in Sanford. What the hell are DOJ Peacekeepers?
black panthers?
black panthers?
That was a thought that came to mind. Holder is in bed with them
God help me...I got sucked in and made the mistake of commenting on an article about this on Yahoo. The responses to my post truly make me weep for this country.
It seems at least 90% of the population has bought the MEDIA's version of this story hook, line and sinker. This guy doesn't stand a chance regardless of the actual facts of the case.
Maybe he truly is guilty, none of us have the real facts to determine that, but what ever happened to INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. The MEDIA's portrayal of the events is NOT evidence of proof of anything other than their own one sided agenda of tearing this country apart.
Mark my words, there will be no justice in this case. The lynch mob has already spoken. There is NOTHING for the Dept. of Just Us to investigate, unless they'd like to see if anyone has violated Zimmerman's civil rights.
Doc Safari
04-11-12, 15:45
The sad thing is, that this is "at best" a local news story. But because of the Main Slime Media it has become almost the equal of something from the Civil War era.
I knew this guy was ****ed the minute I heard the President say "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon"
I have no idea if he's guilty of anything or not, but that won't get in the way of extracting maximum political capital out of this.
Never let a good crisis go to waste & all.
Moose-Knuckle
04-11-12, 16:04
For all of you, who have followed this case, let this be a lesson to have an attorney on retainer who specializes in self-defense cases for if you happen to be white and or Latino and your attacker happens to be a poor disenfranchised black "youth" and you are forced to defend yourself you will be CRUCIFIED in this country.
Let me see if I can wrap my head around this. . .
So the feds convicted the LAPD cops when the "have not’s" didn't like the state trial verdict, so O.J. was given a free pass at murdering two white people because the establishment was afraid of the "have not’s" getting mad and throwing their toys, and now we have Mr. Zimmerman being railroaded, you guessed it, once again to appease the "have not’s".
So when are the "haves" going to take a stand and say enough is enough?
For all of you, who have followed this case, let this be a lesson to have an attorney on retainer who specializes in self-defense cases for if you happen to be white and or Latino and your attacker happens to be a poor disenfranchised black "youth" and you are forced to defend yourself you will be CRUCIFIED in this country.
+1. I was going to post a similar point earlier.. I guess if I were to get into a similar situation, I'll keep it holstered and take the beating I deserve.
Allow me to make a correction. Most blacks cared less for O.J. He was acquitted because of silly mistakes made on behalf of the LAPD and prosecutors office. I remember the trial fairly well and read a few of the books that were written.
Of course, it didn't hurt that he had a lot of money.
For all of you, who have followed this case, let this be a lesson to have an attorney on retainer who specializes in self-defense cases for if you happen to be white and or Latino and your attacker happens to be a poor disenfranchised black "youth" and you are forced to defend yourself you will be CRUCIFIED in this country.
Let me see if I can wrap my head around this. . .
So the feds convicted the LAPD cops when the "have not’s" didn't like the state trial verdict, so O.J. was given a free pass at murdering two white people because the establishment was afraid of the "have not’s" getting mad and throwing their toys, and now we have Mr. Zimmerman being railroaded, you guessed it, once again to appease the "have not’s".
So when are the "haves" going to take a stand and say enough is enough?
Where is the Hispanic community in all of this?
Where is the Hispanic community in all of this?
Happy that we've stopped talking about Fast and Furious and Mexico.
Allow me to make a correction. Most blacks cared less for O.J. He was acquitted because of silly mistakes made on behalf of the LAPD and prosecutors office. I remember the trial fairly well and read a few of the books that were written.
Of course, it didn't hurt that he had a lot of money.
Several jury members came out almost immediately after the trial and stated that they believed Simpson to be guilty but they went along with a "not guilty" because they were afraid there would be riots otherwise.
All of the footage of crowds of blacks whooping and hollering after the release of the verdict implies to me that the "black community" was pretty invested in the case. Whether they would have rioted if he had been convicted is another matter.
So, it goes before a judge, and Z-man's lawyer lays out all the evidence that is painfully clear that Z-man is protected by the 'Stand-your-ground" law and the case is thrown out. The prosecutor gets to say that they tried and if not for this evil "shoot minorities law" they would have gotten the death penalty. The 'community disorganizers" like Sharpton will have another battle cry about a racist America for a generation. That and two more black kids will be shot in Sanford tonight and no one will give a shit because it was black-on-black crime.
Slam dunk.
Eurodriver
04-11-12, 17:05
2nd degree murder? whattt?
Mark my words, there will be no justice in this case. The lynch mob has already spoken.
Like Casey Anthony? The lynch mob was barking there too.
Zimmerman is at least guilty of being an idiot. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Nice knowing you Florida.
Regardless of the outcome, sadly, I think Florida is gonna burn.
Stay safe Floridians.
Moose-Knuckle
04-11-12, 17:59
Like Casey Anthony? The lynch mob was barking there too.
To date I don't recall a riot in this country being ignited by the white populace after a highly publicized trial ended in an undesirable verdict.
Zimmerman is at least guilty of being an idiot. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Sorry this does not compute. I fail to see how a home owner in his own neighborhood is an idiot for defending himself after he was assaulted and had his head slammed into a concrete sidewalk repeatedly for doing absolutely nothing to the aggressor. Unless of course the aggressor felt somehow “dissed” by said home owner. . .:rolleyes:
...never let a good crisis go to waste.
just sayin...sigh.
Regardless of what happens to Zimmerman, and trust me I do wish him the best...(although, I believe he'll hang regardless of the facts just to appease the mob)...this will turn out to be just another way for the liberals to try to attack the Second Ammendment.
.
What's really crummy is the media has been swaying the jury for weeks by continuous showing this guy's "mug shot" in the orange jumpsuit. I did a search today and found him looking like a normal person instead of like some derelict thug.
That image will be hard to remove from some people's mind and I believe it is playing a big part in public opinion, especially for the "easily influenced, lesser informed and lower IQ'd"....you know...Democrats.
On another note, I wouldn't want to be on the rioting side in Florida. :(
Florida lead the nation with CCW. Rioters might need to stay in Cal., Ill., NY, etc. where the populace is disarmed before pulling some of their stunts.
But maybe it's just me...
.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-11-12, 18:13
Why have a trial, just lynch him.
I wonder if this is all going to hinge on that it was not a public street but rather a private area.
The lesson is clear. Keep your head down and don't try to protect your neighborhood or keep others safe. Safety is the govt job and if actually try to do anything, the weight of the govt will come down on you like a ton of bricks.
To date I don't recall a riot in this country being ignited by the white populace after a highly publicized trial ended in an undesirable verdict.
Sorry this does not compute. I fail to see how a home owner in his own neighborhood is an idiot for defending himself after he was assaulted and had his head slammed into a concrete sidewalk repeatedly for doing absolutely nothing to the aggressor. Unless of course the aggressor felt somehow “dissed” by said home owner. . .:rolleyes:
Beat me to it. Non Sequitur was all non sequitury.
ForTehNguyen
04-11-12, 18:57
2nd degree murder? whattt?
yea good luck to the prosecution to convince 12 jurors that he intentionally killed Trayvon without premeditation or planning. It took them 1.5 months to even bring charges. If this was such a slam dunk for the prosecution charges wouldve been brought up long ago.
Moose-Knuckle
04-11-12, 19:04
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/tyson-animal-planet.jpg
"It's a disgrace that man hasn't been dragged out of his house and tied to a car and taken away. That's the only kind of retribution that people like that understand. It's a disgrace that man hasn't been shot yet. Forget about him being arrested--the fact that he hasn't been shot yet is a disgrace. That's how I feel personally about it."
-Mike Tyson
Mike Tyson on George Zimmerman: ‘It’s a disgrace he hasn’t been shot yet’
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/mike-tyson-trayvon-martin-case-disgrace-george-zimmerman-221115400.html
Its a disgrace that so many famous/high profile black people feel the need to interject commentary into an already volatile situation when they don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about.
I wonder if this is all going to hinge on that it was not a public street but rather a private area.
What difference does that make? They were both on common ground even if it was private. They both had a right to be there. How would that differ from a public street?
I don't understand that stand your ground law. How do you know where to draw the line?
I think this is going to revolve on convincing people that Mr. Z had a right to have a gun and that is not only legal but perfectly normal.
I actually heard a lady on TV this week Who is anti-gun. I only caught the closing remarks. She closed with... Just look what happened in Florida. Then she said something to the effect of ... since passing gun permit laws there have been three times as many justified homicides.
So I supposed she would have rather seen three times as many criminals beating the good guy. "justified homicides" are her basis for taking away peoples guns.
I wonder if the media will "re-inact the crime" before the trial. If they do, I expect it will take until November.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-11-12, 19:38
What difference does that make? They were both on common ground even if it was private. They both had a right to be there. How would that differ from a public street?
The difference is subtle, but I think perhaps important. Walking up to someone on a public street and asking them what they are doing is very different than being in a limited-acess private area where there is a reasonable expection that you can ask someone you don't recognize why they are there.
To date I don't recall a riot in this country being ignited by the white populace after a highly publicized trial ended in an undesirable verdict.Never said anything about white people or riots. :confused:
Sorry this does not compute. I fail to see how a home owner in his own neighborhood is an idiot for defending himself after he was assaulted and had his head slammed into a concrete sidewalk repeatedly for doing absolutely nothing to the aggressor. Unless of course the aggressor felt somehow “dissed” by said home owner. . .:rolleyes:
So Zimmerman was sitting on his porch and dude jumped him?:rolleyes:
Of course not. We know he was playing cop. Chasing people walking through the neighborhood. He deserved an asswhipping; he was just too pussy ass coward to take it.
To date I don't recall a riot in this country being ignited by the white populace after a highly publicized trial ended in an undesirable verdict.
http://blog.mywonderfulworld.org/2009/02/11/busing%20riot%20boston.jpg
To be fair, you were probably not around for the Boston busing riots and those after Brown vs Board.
Eurodriver
04-11-12, 20:00
Of course not. We know he was playing cop. Chasing people walking through the neighborhood. He deserved an asswhipping; he was just too pussy ass coward to take it.
See, I agree with this.
However, what happens when:
White guy walking to his car downtown is confronted by an unarmed person threatening to kill him. (Why is irrelavent) White guy backs away, tries to de escalate situation and gets jumped anyway.
He shoots and kills the attacker.
The attacker turns out to be 16 year old Tyrone Norton.
No witnesses, nothing. The press immediately takes the Pro-Tyrone action and then what? White guy gets charged with 2nd degree murder?
That scares me.
See, I agree with this.
However, what happens when:
White guy walking to his car downtown is confronted by an unarmed person threatening to kill him. (Why is irrelavent) White guy backs away, tries to de escalate situation and gets jumped anyway.
He shoots and kills the attacker.
The attacker turns out to be 16 year old Tyrone Norton.
No witnesses, nothing. The press immediately takes the Pro-Tyrone action and then what? White guy gets charged with 2nd degree murder?
That scares me.
It scares me too. That's why I don't mind throwing this idiot under the bus. Why risk laws, protecting good citizens, protecting idiots?
Attended a presentation by the Casey Anthony Attorney, and it's a shame that the media's misguided inclination to jump to guilt is being repeated.
All I can really say is, I hope he gets a fair trial, and with competent counsel, I'm pretty sure he will. I have faith in our legal system.
Eurodriver
04-11-12, 20:21
It scares me too. That's why I don't mind throwing this idiot under the bus. Why risk laws, protecting good citizens, protecting idiots?
I see your point. I just hope that GZ didn't ruin it for someone who is truly in defense of his life.
And I will say that while I believe Zimmerman WAS in defense of his life, the only reason he was in that situation was because he was playing Cop.
I could see if Martin was breaking into his home, or hell committing ANY crime at all. But theres no way in hell you can justify following someone who is unarmed and not committing a crime and then shooting them, even if its your neighborhood.
Moose-Knuckle
04-11-12, 20:39
Never said anything about white people or riots. :confused:
You made a reference to the Casey Anthony trial and the "lynch mob" that followed the story. I don't recall seeing non-whites portrayed by the national media as being upset about the verdict that came down. And until Lanesmith's post I never knew of a riot that whites caused due to a verdict they didn't agree with.
So Zimmerman was sitting on his porch and dude jumped him?:rolleyes:
So I can only be at my own house in order to defend myself from being assaulted. . .:confused:
We know he was playing cop. Chasing people walking through the neighborhood. He deserved an asswhipping; he was just too pussy ass coward to take it.
Wow, I don't even know where to begin. First off no one aside from Martin and Zimmerman knows exactly what went down that night. Secondly Zimmerman wasn't "playing cop" and "chasing people through the neighborhood". No one "deserves an asswhiping" for making sure that his neighbor’s homes were not burglarized. No he wasn't just "too pussy ass coward to take it", he shot the son-of-a-bitch center mass who was trying to beat his brains out of his skull and use his own gun on him.
It scares me too. That's why I don't mind throwing this idiot under the bus. Why risk laws, protecting good citizens, protecting idiots?
This speaks volumes. . .so because you are scared you want this man's blood, innocence be damned??? :eek:
First off no one aside from Martin and Zimmerman knows exactly what went down that night.
You mean Martin, Zimmerman, and Moose-Knuckle? Since you proceeded to let me know how it went down. :rolleyes:
I'm just glad we don't have neighborhood nazis running around here. These old timers keep an eye out without shooting folks coming back from the store.
VooDoo6Actual
04-11-12, 20:54
Anybody seen this one below yet ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm72yYhNr-o&feature=youtu.be
Any bets if it gets canked soon?
madisonsfinest
04-11-12, 21:00
Anybody seen this one below yet ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm72yYhNr-o&feature=youtu.be
Any bets if it gets canked soon?
I couldn't get past the first minute of his racist remarks
GeorgiaBoy
04-11-12, 21:03
What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Oh that's right, that never existed. :rolleyes:
Since Trayvon was killed there have been dozens, probably hundreds of other murders on the streets. Why haven't they got any media attention? I swear this is one of the most perfect anti-gun/defense and pro race-war cases I have ever seen. Almost too perfect.
wild_wild_wes
04-11-12, 21:21
Just heard on Fox that US AG Eric Holder will look into bringing charges against Zimmerman too.
Of course.
Moose-Knuckle
04-11-12, 21:23
You mean Martin, Zimmerman, and Moose-Knuckle? Since you proceeded to let me know how it went down. :rolleyes:
How does that pot/kettle thing go again. . .;)
You can start by reading this thread with it's various links to audio transcripts of the 911 calls from that night, police reports, witness statements, links, et al.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=101160
I'm just glad we don't have neighborhood nazis running around here. These old timers keep an eye out without shooting folks coming back from the store.
So now Zimmerman is a Nazi? Wow hatt, your batting a thousand tonight! I guess the old timers in your neighborhood would be "pussy ass cowards" too if they had to defend themselves from assault and battery huh? :rolleyes:
The_War_Wagon
04-11-12, 21:25
Saw this coming. We live in a society where if you make enough noise, you get what you want. I'm sure he will get a fair trial :rolleyes:
And if he gets found INNOCENT, count on the new Black Pampers to fling their poo at everybody everywhere! :rolleyes:
Anybody seen this one below yet ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm72yYhNr-o&feature=youtu.be
Any bets if it gets canked soon?
Bet it will.. It pushes too many buttons that should be pushed.
I could see if Martin was breaking into his home, or hell committing ANY crime at all. But theres no way in hell you can justify following someone who is unarmed and not committing a crime and then shooting them, even if its your neighborhood.
Are you sure about that? Think about it for a minute. Zimmerman claims that he abandoned his pursuit of Martin at the suggestion of the dispatcher and was headed back to his vehicle when Trayvon attacked him. IF this is true, Trayvon committed battery (at the very least) and Zimmerman is innocent. It all depends one the evidence from that 1-2 minutes between Zimmerman's 911 call and the shooting. As of today, no one outside of the Sate's Attorney and Zimmerman's defense knows the strength of that evidence.
I think the State will lose the case.
either way the race pimps get their way - if he's found guilty, this gives them gas for down the road. if he's acquitted, be prepared for Rodney King style riots...
Anybody seen this one below yet ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm72yYhNr-o&feature=youtu.be
Any bets if it gets canked soon?
Does that really belong here? Seriously, I'd prefer that we not get this thread locked due to racists rants from Black Panthers or dipshits like this guy.
Army Chief
04-11-12, 22:15
There will be no satisfactory outcome of this ... for anyone.
Martin -- sinner or saint -- is going to remain quite dead.
Zimmerman is done, even if he is ultimately acquitted.
The stench of race-based politics is again filling our nostrils.
The aggrieved call for justice, but what they want is payback. Trouble is, no court in the land can really give them that, and so the rage will continue. It's not as it if is based upon the facts, anyway, since the evidence has yet to be heard.
As for the rest, let's keep this civil, gents. Take the high road, or please have the good sense not to get behind the wheel.
AC
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-11-12, 22:19
either way the race pimps get their way - if he's found guilty, this gives them gas for down the road. if he's acquitted, be prepared for Rodney King style riots...
and an assault on CCW and self-defense laws.
The aggrieved call for justice, but what they want is payback. Trouble is, no court in the land can really give them that, and so the rage will continue. It's not as it if is based upon the facts, anyway, since the evidence has yet to be heard.
Exactly. They cry for justice. OK, he is now going to trial. If the JUSTICE system finds min not guilty will they be happy that he was brought to justice and justice ran its course? NO, they will continue to cry for justice...ie, REVENGE.
Innocent until proven guilty has become trial by media and you are innocent or guilty at their will and even if you prove otherwise no one cares because the media already told them what to think.
Patrick Aherne
04-11-12, 22:46
When are we going to see a special prosecutor for AG Holder and Fast & Furious?
As already mentioned, 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes.'
Honestly, how many people here have actually been in court to see how a self-defense trial goes down? Anyone?
The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman left the safety of his car, armed, to follow a man down a dark alley. The prosecutor is going to beat him 'all upside the head' with this. There will be no getting around it.
Would the overweight, out of shape, 5'9" 240lb Zimmerman followed the big scary black youf out into the night if he were not armed? I think a reasonable jury would say no. If Zimmerman were not armed he would have kept his doughy ass in the car. Zimmerman left his car assured of the fact that if things did go south he could simply shoot his way out of it. And that kids, is pretty much how the prosecutor will lay out the case.
'Stand your ground' does not come into play here. As near as we can tell, Zimmerman ultimately got ambushed and it was a simple case of self defense at that point. At least, that will be his defense will be.
HOWEVER...
Zimmerman created the conditions that lead to the shooting. Legally, (depending on FL state law) Zimmerman harassed or menaced Martin prior to the shooting. Given that Zimmerman followed Martin and ultimately did kill him, there is a very good chance that Martin will be convicted on Manslaughter or plead out to the same.
This is pretty much how this sort of case will would play out in court anywhere.
Mauser KAR98K
04-11-12, 22:53
If Zimmerman looses, given the information that has come from Sanford police has indicated of the situation that night, self-defense in this country is in trouble, and racism in this country we will be back in the forefront in the worst possible way.
What I am disgusted about is the special prosecutor's statements that they were not couriered or lead by "mob" opinion and uproar to charge him, and that the decision was an easy one and it didn't take to long to make. I call bull shit. If they canceled the Grand Jury, then charged him with second degree murder, either they did under pressure, or they don't have enough to get an indictment through a Grand Jury. This whole damn thing smells.
Also, could GZ claim double jeopardy with this? They didn't charge him with 2nd degree murder because of self-defense, but now they are 40 days later, even after the investigating police decided his story and witness statements backed each other up?
Again, this is absolute bull shit, and it has lessen my faith in the justice system.
Mauser KAR98K
04-11-12, 23:06
As already mentioned, 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes.'
Honestly, how many people here have actually been in court to see how a self-defense trial goes down? Anyone?
The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman left the safety of his car, armed, to follow a man down a dark alley. The prosecutor is going to beat him 'all upside the head' with this. There will be no getting around it.
Would the overweight, out of shape, 5'9" 240lb Zimmerman followed the big scary black youf out into the night if he were not armed? I think a reasonable jury would say no. If Zimmerman were not armed he would have kept his doughy ass in the car. Zimmerman left his car assured of the fact that if things did go south he could simply shoot his way out of it. And that kids, is pretty much how the prosecutor will lay out the case.
'Stand your ground' does not come into play here. As near as we can tell, Zimmerman ultimately got ambushed and it was a simple case of self defense at that point. At least, that will be his defense will be.
HOWEVER...
Zimmerman created the conditions that lead to the shooting. Legally, (depending on FL state law) Zimmerman harassed or menaced Martin prior to the shooting. Given that Zimmerman followed Martin and ultimately did kill him, there is a very good chance that Martin will be convicted on Manslaughter or plead out to the same.
This is pretty much how this sort of case will would play out in court anywhere.
Listening to the 911 call from Zimmerman, Martin was approaching him first toward Zimmerman's vehicle, hands in his pocket, then ran. Do I agree with Zimmerman going after him? Not really, just because Martin could have doubled back and ambushed him...oh, wait, that did happen.
Would Zimmerman gone after him if he didn't have a gun? There was a good possibility he would have, trying to see where the guy went to give a more accurate description of him and his general direction. I know and talked to people who have done just that, and they weren't armed. Besides, Zimmerman is the "neighborhood watch" captain. He had already stopped a few break-ins in the past.
Honestly, how many people here have actually been in court to see how a self-defense trial goes down? Anyone?
This Guy. ;)
Honestly, Zimmerman will likely get two bites at the apple, one, at the SYG Motion to Dismiss, and a second, at the actual trial (if it reaches that stage.)
I think it behooves everyone to remember that what we're seeing from the media is not the actual "evidence" itself, but rather what the media (depending on angle) wants us to see.
Mauser KAR98K
04-11-12, 23:13
This Guy. ;)
Honestly, Zimmerman will likely get two bites at the apple, one, at the SYG Motion to Dismiss, and a second, at the actual trial (if it reaches that stage.)
I think it behooves everyone to remember that what we're seeing from the media is not the actual "evidence" itself, but rather what the media (depending on angle) wants us to see.
Here, here.
I hope the trial ends at dismissal.
As the saying goes, a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Zimmerman will get indicted. The facts of the case are that he shot a man and 'stand your ground' does not come into play. His defense is a simple self-defense case as you would get anywhere.
crusader377
04-11-12, 23:24
This case is a lose-lose situation. First off, although I don't have all of the facts, the information that is available I think points more to a manslaughter instead of a murder charge and I don't think Zimmerman is going to get a fair trial. Second if Zimmerman is found innocent, I can easily see riots like the Rodney King riots in which over 50 people got killed.
I find the hypocrisy of some black leaders like Sharpton and Jesse Jackson along with some of the media appalling. Because some white looking guy shot a black kid they are race baiting while no one talks about the dozens of black kids killed by other black kids every week in any number of our major cities like Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Memphis, etc..... No one talks about that a young black male is much more likely to go to prison than to go to college. Why don't Sharpton or Jesse Jackson take a leadership role to help solve the problem that over 70% of black children are born out of wedlock with most of those having absent fathers?
Mauser KAR98K
04-11-12, 23:26
As the saying goes, a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Zimmerman will get indicted. The facts of the case are that he shot a man and 'stand your ground' does not come into play. His defense is a simple self-defense case as you would get anywhere.
This is something I have been trying to get at to people and friends of mine about. The law does not apply ANYWHERE in this situation, or the two main ideas of how it played out.
or they don't have enough to get an indictment through a Grand Jury.
How many Grand Jury hearings have your testified in front of?
Also, could GZ claim double jeopardy with this? They didn't charge him with 2nd degree murder because of self-defense, but now they are 40 days later, even after the investigating police decided his story and witness statements backed each other up?
Based on what? When was he tried in a court the first time? It isn't up to the police if a case should be brought to trial. That is the decision of the presecutors office. All the police do after the fact is gather evidence and bring the person to trial should the evidence dictate.
All the prosecutors decision means is that they thought the case should be up to a jury to decide.
The only purpose a grand jury serves is that in significant cases, involving serious felony crime, is to offer a check and balance that the police and prosecutors office isn't conspiring to railroad someone. By large anymore a rubber stamp.
The problem is Zimmerman has already been railroaded by the media. I don't see how he could get a fair trial.
Mauser KAR98K
04-11-12, 23:42
How many Grand Jury hearings have your testified in front of?
Based on what? When was he tried in a court the first time? It isn't up to the police if a case should be brought to trial. That is the decision of the presecutors office. All the police do after the fact is gather evidence and bring the person to trial should the evidence dictate.
All the prosecutors decision means is that they thought the case should be up to a jury to decide.
The only purpose a grand jury serves is that in significant cases, involving serious felony crime, is to offer a check and balance that the police and prosecutors office isn't conspiring to railroad someone. By large anymore a rubber stamp.
The problem is Zimmerman has already been railroaded by the media. I don't see how he could get a fair trial.
Prosecuting Attorney Norm Wolfinger said that charges were not warranted at the time of the incident. Does that count?
And again, why the skip on the Grand Jury? They are going straight to prosecution, railroading him in.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-11-12, 23:51
Legally, (depending on FL state law) Zimmerman harassed or menaced Martin prior to the shooting.
Huh? menaced or harassed? Are you serious? WTF are you thinking.
Raven Armament
04-11-12, 23:54
AG Holder: if evidence in Trayvon Martin case warrants, Justice Department will act
http://news.yahoo.com/ag-holder-evidence-trayvon-martin-case-warrants-justice-140152112.html
What an absolute pile of horse shit. . .I'm so happy that my tax dollars are being put to good use. :mad:
Why does the AG NOT show the amount of vigor in the prevention of black on black "yute" violence and black on white hate crimes has he does Barry’s “could have been son”????
WAKE UP FOLKS, these are the people that want to take away your 2nd Amendment rights.
At 18:00 hrs EST there should be a press pony show with the FL AG announces the charges for Mr. Zimmerman.
He is taking donations for his legal fund on his offical website (there are a lot of fake ones)
http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/Home_Page.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t27ATBHMijI
Notice his references to "civil rights". Toward the end of the clip, notice his emphasis of a possible civil rights violation.
That being said, I sure wish Holder gave as much of a shit about the slain officers in the Gunwalker scandal as he does this pile of shit Martin.
Prosecuting Attorney Norm Wolfinger said that charges were not warranted at the time of the incident. Does that count?
No. It doesn't count. Double jeporady says you can't try the same person for the same offense twice. Zimmerman has never been to court on this.
You mean Martin, Zimmerman, and Moose-Knuckle? Since you proceeded to let me know how it went down. :rolleyes:
I'm just glad we don't have neighborhood nazis running around here. These old timers keep an eye out without shooting folks coming back from the store.
Is your name hatt or "Pot"??? :(
PdxMotoxer
04-12-12, 05:14
Just reading the "fighting" going on all over these interwebs, ANY outcome to this is going to be loose loose.
I'm just hoping the riots don't spread all over the country.
Sadly i think the one thing this case isn't even going to address are the FACTS of what went down.
Pretty much EVERYTHING from the start of this was done wrong by both parties, and i do not see the actual case going any better.
But i'm a glass half-full kinda guy.
Sadly i think the one thing this case isn't even going to address are the FACTS of what went down.
Why do you feel the FACTS of what actually went down wont be presented in this case?
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
ghostman1960
04-12-12, 07:20
I wanted to slap that smirk off the prosecutors face during that dog and pony show. If I heard justice for Trayvon come out of her pie hole one more time I would have puked.
QuietShootr
04-12-12, 07:37
Why do you feel the FACTS of what actually went down wont be presented in this case?
Because the media and Al Sharpton have already decided what happened, that's why.
davidjinks
04-12-12, 08:05
THANK YOU!!!
I thought I was the only one...
To be honest, I had hopes at the very beginning of her...ahem...speech, that she was going to say "No charges"...
But that got shattered when she followed up with her smiling and justice for Trayvon bullshit.
This whole thing is a damned shame, a mockery, a false flag race and bait bullshit case! It makes me ill, angry, pissed and even more hateful then what I already am.
Shame on them all for allowing this to happen!
I wanted to slap that smirk off the prosecutors face during that dog and pony show. If I heard justice for Trayvon come out of her pie hole one more time I would have puked.
davidjinks
04-12-12, 08:07
Wanna know how I know you're a racist?
You forgot to mention Al Sharpton is a reverend and you left out The Reverend Jesse Jackson.
:D
Because the media and Al Sharpton have already decided what happened, that's why.
I say if the evidence comes out that he is guilty, then I hope they convict. If the evidence shows Zimmerman innocent, I hope is is found innocent. I am very curious to see how all of this is going to go down. I am not naive enough to believe the whole 'justice is blind' crap...I can't help but think all of the racial pot-stirring won't have some bearing on the case.
I will say that when all the legal 'experts' (networks, CNN, Fox) come out with surprise of the murder 2 charge (as opposed to manslaughter), red flags go up. A good friend of mine is an ADA with experience prosecuting violent crime and said he is very surprised.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-12-12, 08:26
I say if the evidence comes out that he is guilty, then I hope they convict. If the evidence shows Zimmerman innocent, I hope is is found innocent. I am very curious to see how all of this is going to go down. I am not naive enough to believe the whole 'justice is blind' crap...I can't help but think all of the racial pot-stirring won't have some bearing on the case.
I will say that when all the legal 'experts' (networks, CNN, Fox) come out with surprise of the murder 2 charge (as opposed to manslaughter), red flags go up. A good friend of mine is an ADA with experience prosecuting violent crime and said he is very surprised.
Will this 'over-reach' make it harder to get a conviction? Wasn't there something with recent cases where lesser charges weren't an option so the guy walked free because they jury wouldn't go as far a the DA wanted.
Will this 'over-reach' make it harder to get a conviction?
Unless we are missing a critical detail somewhere, it sure better. Question is do they have additional damning evidence or did they set the bar too high on purpose? Manslaughter seems to be the only realistic option based upon the disclosed facts.
QuietShootr
04-12-12, 08:49
Wanna know how I know you're a racist?
You forgot to mention Al Sharpton is a reverend and you left out The Reverend Jesse Jackson.
:D
"Reverend" "Doctor" and "Young men" are all euphemisms for "angry black male".
RogerinTPA
04-12-12, 08:57
Not taking sides here but like it or not, Zman is in violation of FL law. Irrelevant of race, many who carry concealed think the Castle Doctrine is a license to confront, provoke, and if caught in a jam or losing end of a beat down, your "get out of jail free" card when you discharge your weapon to get out of something YOU caused. The author of the bill said so within days of the shooting that this case was NOT what the Castle Doctrine was written for. It's a common misconception. Which is what he did. Zimmerman is just one of them. Hopefully, this will be a wake up call to the Tackleberry types nation wide, to actually "read" the laws in their state, and be in full compliance if the day comes where you have to use deadly force.
montanadave
04-12-12, 09:17
I'm gonna stay out of the fray and let this play out in court, but I am curious about some of the forensic evidence (assuming it was collected and is available) which may shed some additional light on what actually happened during the confrontation.
It has been reported that the spent round was still in the chamber of Zimmerman's gun. Are Martin's fingerprints on the weapon indicating they were struggling for the pistol? Was there powder residue on Martin's clothing or person? And how about an accurate diagram depicting the movements of both individuals prior to the actual shooting. Does Zimmerman's account add up given the physical layout of the buildings, location of his vehicle, where Martin was supposed to be headed, and where his body was found.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions (to my knowledge) and I hope this evidence can be presented at trial.
Hopefully, this will be a wake up call to the Tackleberry types nation wide, to actually "read" the laws in their state, and be in full compliance if the day comes where you have to use deadly force.
I'm no advocate of the "Tackleberry type" myself and maybe he was a bit too aggressive initially (assuming following someone is somehow aggressive), but there is ample evidence to suggest that Martin started the violent confrontation. Not just due to Zimmerman's statement but also that of the girl Martin was talking to on the phone when he confronted Zimmerman.
Does Martin bear no responsibility for this?
I am unclear how "following" someone "provokes" that person to commit assault/battery. Can someone elaborate?
There is just no A->B for me there. I don't think there is one in the legal system either.
I say if the evidence comes out that he is guilty, then I hope they convict. If the evidence shows Zimmerman innocent, I hope is is found innocent. I am very curious to see how all of this is going to go down. I am not naive enough to believe the whole 'justice is blind' crap...I can't help but think all of the racial pot-stirring won't have some bearing on the case.
I will say that when all the legal 'experts' (networks, CNN, Fox) come out with surprise of the murder 2 charge (as opposed to manslaughter), red flags go up. A good friend of mine is an ADA with experience prosecuting violent crime and said he is very surprised.
It's a pretty simple equation. The "special" prosecutor is charging murder 2 in the hopes that Zimmerman will roll on a manslaughter charge. Manslaughter is the very least verdict the mob will accept, so there's no incentive to go for straight up manslaughter. No bargaining room there.
Not taking sides here but like it or not, Zman is in violation of FL law. Irrelevant of race, many who carry concealed think the Castle Doctrine is a license to confront, provoke, and if caught in a jam or losing end of a beat down, your "get out of jail free" card when you discharge your weapon to get out of something YOU caused. The author of the bill said so within days of the shooting that this case was NOT what the Castle Doctrine was written for. It's a common misconception. Which is what he did. Zimmerman is just one of them. Hopefully, this will be a wake up call to the Tackleberry types nation wide, to actually "read" the laws in their state, and be in full compliance if the day comes where you have to use deadly force.
I'm not convinced of his innocence or guilt on anything. How do you figure he's in violation? I can't see Castle Doctrine even applying at all? Are you meaning Stand Your Ground?
As an armed citizen carrying under a CCW permit, I can observe, approach and talk to anyone, particularly if I'm vectoring law enforcement to the scene for an investigation. I have not relenquished my right to any reasonable public action just because I'm carrying. If in the course of that legal and justified action I'm attacked, I can defend myself. If the attacker is slamming my skull against the pavement (as alleged), I can reasonably assume he intends to inflict death or great bodily harm and use deadly force if in fear for my life.
Was he stupid? Absolutely! Criminal? Not so sure yet. :(
Well looky here at what the racist Zimmerman did back in 2010/2011!
Will this change the race baiting of the media and professional pot stirrers? Doubtful. :(
http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-demanded-discipline-2010-race-related-beating-officers-051804872.html?fb_action_ids=10151485039985422&fb_action_types=news.reads&fb_ref=type%3Aread%2Cuser%3ApdY64D3E3UioLb4QB1xYUtdAoVU&fb_source=other_multiline&code=AQB-5mDPu2qd4n5MDRD31lGO7NzFkQChHD2TFV_njkZZhChQpTyzl_iYPhA5SqeEWAqFSgMkk55PSB7EO3v9d466WpKaj7Zv8hHG6PN9oGTqA1XH6awbtIyzPJBXnX7phbkQIdAotgs7YOOiJ6yAGqfR-65DwdxiH1wE73tZmxxuh9AGPqZiVnVoJ0t0jGFWRSs#_=_
Zimmerman demanded discipline in 2010 race-related beating for officers who investigated Martin shooting
In late 2010 and early 2011 George Zimmerman, the Hispanic Sanford, Fla., man who shot and killed 17-year-old black teen Trayvon Martin, publicly demanded discipline in a race-related beating case for at least two of the police officers who cleared him after the Feb. 26 altercation, according to records obtained by The Daily Caller.
In a letter to Seminole County NAACP president Turner Clayton, a member of the Zimmerman family wrote that George was one of “very few” in Sanford who publicly condemned the “beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on Dec. 4, 2010, by the son of a Sanford police officer,” who is white.
TheDC has confirmed the identity of the Zimmerman family member who wrote the letter but is withholding that person’s specific identity out of concern for the family’s safety.
On Dec. 4, 2010, Justin Collison, the son of Sanford Police Department Lt. Chris Collison, was involved in a bar fight at The Wet Spot bar in Sanford. During the fight, which moved from indoors to outdoors, the younger Collison struck Ware.
Ware suffered a concussion, and paramedics took him to the hospital shortly after police arrived on the scene. Collison was not arrested or charged, even though an onlooker had video evidence of his actions.
No arrest was made and no action taken for weeks. Documents and emails now show police officers and officials from the office of the State Attorney operated with extreme caution because Collison’s father was a high-ranking law enforcement officer.
In the final days of 2010, an Orlando television station aired the video footage of Justin Collison beating Ware. Collison turned himself in six days later, on Jan. 3, 2011. He agreed to pay for Ware’s medical bills and make donations to nonprofit organizations, including the NAACP. (RELATED: Full coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting)
After Justin Collison surrendered himself to authorities, the Sanford Police Department struggled to hold its officials accountable. A lengthy investigation conducted by the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office concluded that the police officials involved did not offer Justin Collison “preferential treatment.”
Still, according to members of the Zimmerman family, George printed and distributed copies of fliers on bright fluorescent-colored paper demanding that the community “hold accountable” officers responsible for any misconduct. TheDC has obtained a copy of one of those fliers.
“Do you know the individual that stepped up when no one else in the black community would?” the Zimmerman family member asked in the letter to the NAACP’s Clayton.
“Do you know who spent tireless hours putting fliers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church‐goers to get out of church so that he could hand them fliers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8th, 2011 at Sanford City Hall??”
“That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN,” the letter insisted. “Ironic isn’t it?”
Every Sunday, according to his family, Zimmerman would stroll through Sanford’s black neighborhoods handing out the fliers demanding justice for Sherman Ware, and calling for the police to hold their own officials accountable. Zimmerman would also place the fliers on people’s cars outside churches.
“I challenge you to stand together and to have our voices heard, and to hold accountable all of those officers, and officials whom let this atrocious attack pass unpunished until the media revealed it,” one of the fliers reads in part. “This animal could have attacked anyone of us, our children or loved ones in his alcohol fueled rage.”
The officers whom Zimmerman targeted for accountability in the Sherman Ware incident were all cleared by the Seminole County Sheriff’s investigation, despite Zimmerman’s repeated accusations that police gave kid-glove treatment to a white officer’s son who beat a defenseless, homeless black man.
But 14 months later, at least two of the same officers investigated the shooting death of Trayvon Martin — and cleared Zimmerman — even though his voice was the loudest calling for their punishment in the Ware case.
One of those officers was Timothy Smith. According to a police incident report from the scene of the Feb. 26 shooting, Officer Smith handcuffed Zimmerman and transported him to the police station. Another was Sergeant Anthony Raimondo, who was on scene with Smith and other local officers.
At least one liberal media outlet — the self-described African-American news outlet NewsOne — has framed the story in a different light.
On March 19, NewsOne argued that the Sherman Ware incident illustrates a pattern of mistreatment of black victims by the Sanford Police Department.
”They [Sanford police] have a history of NOT arresting offenders who assault black men,” the article’s author declared.
QuietShootr
04-12-12, 09:49
I am unclear how "following" someone "provokes" that person to commit assault/battery. Can someone elaborate?
There is just no A->B for me there. I don't think there is one in the legal system either.
If you're an "aggrieved minority", there is a concept known as "dissing" that is not well understood among the average American. "Dissing" is mangled English for "Disrespect", and it's once again based on an incorrect usage of the root word and concept of "respect". What you and I think of as "respect" is something that is earned through achievement and civilized behavior. What the Amish think of as "respeck" has more to do with displaying appropriately submissive behavior in the face of simple aggression. The action of not showing primal submissive behavior is referred to in the vernacular as "Dissing" or "to dis someone". In that cultural framework, it is entirely appropriate to initiate physical violence on another person who you believe has "dissed" you.
Not taking sides here but like it or not, Zman is in violation of FL law. Irrelevant of race, many who carry concealed think the Castle Doctrine is a license to confront, provoke, and if caught in a jam or losing end of a beat down, your "get out of jail free" card when you discharge your weapon to get out of something YOU caused. The author of the bill said so within days of the shooting that this case was NOT what the Castle Doctrine was written for. It's a common misconception. Which is what he did. Zimmerman is just one of them. Hopefully, this will be a wake up call to the Tackleberry types nation wide, to actually "read" the laws in their state, and be in full compliance if the day comes where you have to use deadly force.
If it was as cut and dried as this, he would have been arrested awhile ago. It isn't though, and has been mentioned by SHIVAN, Safetyhit and glocktogo there is more to the story than the Al Sharpton talking points.
Ironic side note: This isn't Castle Doctrine, it's Stand Your Ground. There is a difference.
RogerinTPA
04-12-12, 11:33
I'm no advocate of the "Tackleberry type" myself and maybe he was a bit too aggressive initially (assuming following someone is somehow aggressive), but there is ample evidence to suggest that Martin started the violent confrontation. Not just due to Zimmerman's statement but also that of the girl Martin was talking to on the phone when he confronted Zimmerman.
Does Martin bear no responsibility for this?
Of course, after the fact...if Zimmerman would have stood down (and stayed in his vehicle) as per the 911 operator, and kept giving updates, instead of pursuing his course of action, this probably would not have escalated to Martin's death.
ChicagoTex
04-12-12, 11:36
If you're an "aggrieved minority", there is a concept known as "dissing" that is not well understood among the average American. "Dissing" is mangled English for "Disrespect", and it's once again based on an incorrect usage of the root word and concept of "respect". What you and I think of as "respect" is something that is earned through achievement and civilized behavior. What the Amish think of as "respeck" has more to do with displaying appropriately submissive behavior in the face of simple aggression. The action of not showing primal submissive behavior is referred to in the vernacular as "Dissing" or "to dis someone". In that cultural framework, it is entirely appropriate to initiate physical violence on another person who you believe has "dissed" you.
This is both hilarious and accurate.
It also bears mentioning that failure to violently correct (or "check") someone who you believe is "dissing" you is viewed as a sign of weakness, making you a "bitch".
RogerinTPA
04-12-12, 12:17
If it was as cut and dried as this, he would have been arrested awhile ago. It isn't though, and has been mentioned by SHIVAN, Safetyhit and glocktogo there is more to the story than the Al Sharpton talking points.
Ironic side note: This isn't Castle Doctrine, it's Stand Your Ground. There is a difference.
FYI: The castle doctrine IS the stand your ground law...which applies to your home, property and vehicles...without the CCW License. The License covers everything else. For that, you have to be in fear of your life or someone else's life, or fear of grievous bodily injury. BUT, when you pursue someone when you are relatively safe, and not saving some one's life or your own, without being a LEO, you have stepped outside that law. On top of that, he had no proof that the kid did anything wrong, just a suspicion or in his words, a suspicious person, which we all know is code for black guy. I've been hung with that title myself quite a few times in my life time, just walking from point A to point B, in areas in which I lived, doing absolutely nothing unlawful (washing my car, walking my dog, walking with my girlfriend, coming back from an evening jog, unloading groceries from my car, and cops showing up out of the blue). Being an upper middle income earner with a permanent sun tan, living in nice predominate Caucasian areas, can at times, be a curse...
It's not that cut and dry. Evidence is still being pieced together, so the complete story isn't told. My opinion is based on the initial reports. However, if the special prosecutor didn't have grounds to charge him with the evidence already in hand, would she bow to political pressure, not withstanding the initial inept police investigation and charge him anyway? Or would she piece together that scene from that initial evidence to come to a rational conclusion on her own, then charge him, pending further evidence? Some are suggesting the former, while others, including myself, suggest the latter.
yea good luck to the prosecution to convince 12 jurors that he intentionally killed Trayvon without premeditation or planning. It took them 1.5 months to even bring charges. If this was such a slam dunk for the prosecution charges wouldve been brought up long ago.
This is the key point here. Murder 2. The state can't possibly win which is why they charged him with it. They charge him to save face bc let's face it, the people out there protesting don't know the difference between murder and manslaughter by legal definition.
FYI: The castle doctrine IS the stand your ground law...which applies to your home, property and vehicles...without the CCW License. The License covers everything else. For that, you have to be in fear of your life or someone else's life, or fear of grievous bodily injury. BUT, when you pursue someone when you are relatively safe, and not saving some one's life or your own, without being a LEO, you have stepped outside that law. On top of that, he had no proof that the kid did anything wrong, just a suspicion or in his words, a suspicious person, which we all know is code for black guy. I've been hung with that title myself quite a few times in my life time, just walking from point A to point B, in areas in which I lived, doing absolutely nothing unlawful (washing my car, walking my dog, walking with my girlfriend, coming back from an evening jog, unloading groceries from my car, and cops showing up out of the blue). Being an upper middle income earner with a permanent sun tan, living in nice predominate Caucasian areas, can at times, be a curse...
It's not that cut and dry. Evidence is still being pieced together, so the complete story isn't told. My opinion is based on the initial reports. However, if the special prosecutor didn't have grounds to charge him with the evidence already in hand, would she bow to political pressure, not withstanding the initial inept police investigation and charge him anyway? Or would she piece together that scene from that initial evidence to come to a rational conclusion on her own, then charge him, pending further evidence? Some are suggesting the former, while others, including myself, suggest the latter.
Since your mind seems to be made up based on facts not in evidence, we'll just have to agree to disagree. :(
The fact of the matter is the facts seem to be in dispute.
Is this a simple case of self defense? Was it a crime of passion? Was it a horrible accident? That is what the Court will have to determine. Thus, by all rights, Zimmerman and Martin will get to debate this in court. This is sort of how we do it in America.
Anyone still upset?
The fact of the matter is the facts seem to be in dispute.
Is this a simple case of self defense? Was it a crime of passion? Was it a horrible accident? That is what the Court will have to determine. Thus, by all rights, Zimmerman and Martin will get to debate this in court. This is sort of how we do it in America.
Anyone still upset?
Just every talking bobblehead on TV and the internet. :(
...BUT, when you pursue someone when you are relatively safe, and not saving some one's life or your own, without being a LEO, you have stepped outside that law....
If I am in a place I am legally allowed to be, and you believe that I am "pursuing" you, there is no legal jump for you to get a legal pass on assault or battery.
I could walk right behind you all day on a public sidewalk, calling you names, and there just isn't a path to go from me calling you names and watching you go about your day, to you slamming my head in the sidewalk.
Once you decide that you do not like my "pursuit", you can either choose to go in a place where I can not legally go (your house, etc), or you can flee, or you can confront me.
Your confrontation can not escalate to battery or assault, just because you don't like that I am following you around. Again, no legal, or logical path to get from A->B there.
So, now that we've established that, when Martin decides to do some ground and pound with Zimmerman, MARTIN has escalated the situation unilaterally. Going from a legal, though stupid, public encounter and following, to a battery, or maybe assault & battery.
Strikes to the head are consider deadly force, striking someone's head in to stationary objects is also considered deadly force. Therefore, answering deadly force with deadly force is perfectly logical.
Put any LE expert on the stand and have them expound on their use of force continuum. If you ask that expert what their response would be to having their head bashed on a sidewalk by an assailant, you would likely hear that they would deploy a primary sidearm, BUG (backup gun), or BUK (backup knife). I would almost certainly not expect to hear them say they would grapple it out, or try to use pepper spray, less lethal, etc.
This morning on the Today Show Martin's mother said she believed it was all "an accident" and that Zimmerman only shot Martin because the situation spun out of control. You could see the family attorney sitting next to her begin to look uncomfortable and ready to intervene, but he stayed quiet. Then hours later...
"Earlier today, I made a comment to the media that was later mischaracterized. When I referenced the word 'accident' today with regard to Trayvon's death, in NO way did I mean the shooting was an accident.
We believe that George Zimmerman stalked my son and murdered him in cold blood. The 'accident' I was referring to was the fact that George Zimmerman and my son ever crossed paths. It was an accidental encounter. If George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his vehicle, this entire incident would have been avoided.
My son was profiled, followed and murdered by George Zimmerman, and there was nothing accidental about that."
Fact manipulation at it's leftist best folks. You have to see it to believe it, you really do.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/12/11159111-update-trayvon-martins-mom-retracts-accident-characterization-says-zimmerman-killed-him-in-cold-blood?lite
Of course, after the fact...if Zimmerman would have stood down (and stayed in his vehicle) as per the 911 operator, and kept giving updates, instead of pursuing his course of action, this probably would not have escalated to Martin's death.
I believe the 911 operator gave the instructions once Zimmwerman had already left his car and the operator realized he was outside of the car.
Having said that I agree that Zimmerman should not have left the safety of his car in the first place.
I'm not monday morning quarterbacking, but referring to the general principal of trying to avoid situations that have the potential to excalate into violence, like leaving your car to follow a suspicious person on foot.
I believe that if you carry a gun for self defense you should try to avoid all situations that have the potential to escalate into violence, as long as it is safely possible to do so without increasing the risk to your safety or that of someone you know.
Once you walk into an avoidable situation where no one's life is on the line that has the potential to escalate to violence and deadly force, you have no idea where it could go or if it could develop into a worse case legal scenario, as this one did.
Two observations about this:
1. I believe Zimmerman is being railroaded for political appeasement. This is one reason why they did not appoint a grand jury, because the grand jury might have declined to indict.
2. Even without a stand your groud law, in most places someone who is having their head pounded into the ground and being struck in the face and head is considered to be in danger of serious injury or death and has no place to go, thus is justified in using deadly physical force, providing they were not the initial aggressor in the situation.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-12-12, 14:11
Well put Shivan. The best total explanation that I've seen and why I think that the setting of a controlled access private area is perhaps important to the outcome. This wasn't a public street it was Z-man's ground.
We don't give up our rights just because we CCW.
As to Tryvons Mom changing her tune, it seems lefties and Obama's admin do this all the time. We didn't hear them right, or we don't understand what he was trying to say, the climate-gate emails are to complex for you to understand. It's really insulting when people try to tell me that not only did I not actually hear what I heard, it doesn't mean what they said.
Conservatives get bashed for things they never actually said. "I can see Russia from my house" or "Mission Accomplished" or "I want dirty air and water."
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-12-12, 14:16
Of course, after the fact...if Zimmerman would have stood down (and stayed in his vehicle) as per the 911 operator, and kept giving updates, instead of pursuing his course of action, this probably would not have escalated to Martin's death.
Excuse my French, but screw 911 operators. Two recently here in Denver told one crime victim to go back to the attack location where they were killed and another operator said for a family to hang loose while someone tried to pound down their front door- when police weren't actually on the way.
I am the captain of my ship and until you are standing shoulder-to-shoulder next to me you are offering opinions, not orders.
I believe the 911 operator gave the instructions once Zimmerman had already left his car and the operator realized he was outside of the car.
Having said that I agree that Zimmerman should not have left the safety of his car in the first place.
I'm not monday morning quarterbacking, but referring to the general principal of trying to avoid situations that have the potential to excalate into violence, like leaving your car to follow a suspicious person on foot.
I believe that if you carry a gun for self defense you should try to avoid all situations that have the potential to escalate into violence, as long as it is safely possible to do so without increasing the risk to your safety or that of someone you know.
Once you walk into an avoidable situation where no one's life is on the line that has the potential to escalate to violence and deadly force, you have no idea where it could go or if it could develop into a worse case legal scenario, as this one did.
Two observations about this:
1. I believe Zimmerman is being railroaded for political appeasement. This is one reason why they did not appoint a grand jury, because the grand jury might have declined to indict.
2. Even without a stand your groud law, in most places someone who is having their head pounded into the ground and being struck in the face and head is considered to be in danger of serious injury or death and has no place to go, thus is justified in using deadly physical force, providing they were not the initial aggressor in the situation.
This is a point that's been misconstrued by the media. From the Zimmerman 911 call transcript:
From the call released by the Sanford Police:
At 2:07, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher, “He’s running.”
At 2:09, you can hear a car door open and an alarm begins that is undoubtedly the “door open, keys in ignition” warning on Zimmerman’s truck.
At 2:13, you can clearly hear the car door slamming shut, and the alarm stops.
At 2:17, Zimmerman’s voice wobbles and he starts breathing heavily into the phone, indicating that he has started running.
At 2:22, without any prompting other than the aforementioned noises and breathing, the dispatcher asks “Are you following him?” to which Zimmerman responds, “Yeah.”
At 2:26, the dispatcher says, “Okay, we don’t need you to do that,” to which Zimmerman responds, “Okay.”
Zimmerman proceeds to give the dispatcher his name. Then he says, “He ran.”
Zimmerman can still be heard breathing into the phone until about 2:39, at which point the heavy breathing stops entirely, a mere 13 seconds after the dispatcher asked him to stop following. A very calm and collected Zimmerman then proceeds to give the dispatcher his own information, directions and a description of his location for another 1 minute and 33 seconds.
"We don't need you to do that" is not a command and it's not an instruction. In legal terms, it would be a suggestion at most and more correctly an explanation of what the dispatcher and/or police don't need. An instruction would be something like "Do not follow him" or "Stop following him". It still wouldn't carry the weight of an order and Zimmerman didn't violate any laws by following him. Stupid, yes. Criminal, no.
FYI: The castle doctrine IS the stand your ground law...which applies to your home, property and vehicles...without the CCW License. The License covers everything else. For that, you have to be in fear of your life or someone else's life, or fear of grievous bodily injury.
CWFL is irrelevant. Zimmerman could have been totally justified in shooting Martin even if he was illegally carrying a concealed firearm. FS 776.013 (the statute that covers both the Castle Doctrine and SYG) doesn't address licenses of any kind, and FS 790.06 (the CWFL statute) doesn't address the use of force, just the carrying of the firearm or weapon. Castle Doctrine is FS 776.013 (1) and specifies the presumption of fear of great bodily harm or death by the presence of an unauthorized person inside one's house or in their vehicle. Stand Your Ground is FS 776.013 (3). Will discuss further beyond the next quote.
BUT, when you pursue someone when you are relatively safe, and not saving some one's life or your own, without being a LEO, you have stepped outside that law. On top of that, he had no proof that the kid did anything wrong, just a suspicion or in his words, a suspicious person, which we all know is code for black guy.
Where do you see that in the law? Side note: See above posts on Zimmerman over the last few years regarding the "he must be a racist" assertion. Back to your assertion that Zimmerman's "pursuit" of Martin somehow eliminates Zimmerman's right to self defense, the below is the text of the Stand Your Ground law as well as the subsequent statute regarding the lack of SYG protection for the aggressor in a lethal force scenario.
776.013 (3): A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Now was Zimmerman engaged in unlawful activity prior to the use of lethal force against Martin? I haven't seen anyone argue that he did anything illegal. Dumb perhaps, ill-advised maybe, illegal? No. So in 776.041, did he "provoke" the use of force? We can argue about that perhaps. And I'm sure it will be argued. Moving to (2)(a) under the same statute, does getting one's head bashed in while pinned to the ground meet the standard laid out here? I would argue that it does.
It should be noted that calling you names, or following you, will not
meet the legal definition of "initial provocation of the use of force".
That would be reserved for things like Zimmerman pushing, hitting, tripping, or otherwise making some sort of illegal contact with Martin.
According to the coroner's leak, other than the bullet hole, Martin didn't have any defensive injuries. Hmm...
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Now was Zimmerman engaged in unlawful activity prior to the use of lethal force against Martin? I haven't seen anyone argue that he did anything illegal. Dumb perhaps, ill-advised maybe, illegal? No. So in 776.041, did he "provoke" the use of force? We can argue about that perhaps. And I'm sure it will be argued. Moving to (2)(a) under the same statute, does getting one's head bashed in while pinned to the ground meet the standard laid out here? I would argue that it does.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-12-12, 14:55
And on a lighter note, the best thing to come out of all this is that we will be spared the "Neighborhood Watch" movie this summer.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1298649/
QuietShootr
04-12-12, 15:24
It should be noted that calling you names, or following you, will not
meet the legal definition of "initial provocation of the use of force".
That would be reserved for things like Zimmerman pushing, hitting, tripping, or otherwise making some sort of illegal contact with Martin.
In the American black world, it most certainly is provocation for use of force. Disregard this at your peril.
Moose-Knuckle
04-12-12, 15:25
This morning on the Today Show Martin's mother said she believed it was all "an accident" and that Zimmerman only shot Martin because the situation spun out of control. You could see the family attorney sitting next to her begin to look uncomfortable and ready to intervene, but he stayed quiet. Then hours later...
"Earlier today, I made a comment to the media that was later mischaracterized. When I referenced the word 'accident' today with regard to Trayvon's death, in NO way did I mean the shooting was an accident.
We believe that George Zimmerman stalked my son and murdered him in cold blood. The 'accident' I was referring to was the fact that George Zimmerman and my son ever crossed paths. It was an accidental encounter. If George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his vehicle, this entire incident would have been avoided.
My son was profiled, followed and murdered by George Zimmerman, and there was nothing accidental about that."
Fact manipulation at it's leftist best folks. You have to see it to believe it, you really do.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/12/11159111-update-trayvon-martins-mom-retracts-accident-characterization-says-zimmerman-killed-him-in-cold-blood?lite
Thanks for posting this, good catch.
I love these "parents". . .they cry wolf and create this cluster **** and they then trademark their deceased son's name so as to profit from it.
I wished I had the chance to be on camera and ask these two "parents":
1.) Where were you the night Trayvon was shot?
2.) Why didn't one of you drive him to the store for a snack and or why didn't you have any damn snacks in the house to begin with for a teenage boy?
3.) Why did you take down little Trayvon's Twitter, FB, and MS pages so quickly? (most parents of deceased children leave them up as a memorial to their child) Nothing to hide right? :rolleyes:
4.) Why was your "baby boy" branded with tattoos at 17, affiliated with a known street gang, posting pictures flashing gang signs, suspended from school, and assaulted a school bus driver?
Had these two "parents" raised their child in a responsible manner he still would be alive.
For those that keep questioning why Zimmerman would follow, and blame him for doing so, I will paste my comments from the previous locked thread from 3/27- https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1267752&postcount=283
2. As an officer who works in an extremely racially/culturally diverse jurisdiction with a high crime rate, I deal with this type of scenario often.
People are sick of getting their home broken into while they are at work or even church. People have had a gut full of their vehicles being burglarized over night. When they see something or someone that does not belong, regardless of race, they call- and often times- and try to follow- even when they are told not to by the 911 call taker. They are tired of being victims and sick of us telling them that we did not locate the "suspicious" person or vehicle. Race is merely a descriptor given, just as the color of shirt the person is wearing.
Sometimes we locate the suspicious person. Sometimes that person has no legitimate reason for being in that area and has a history of property crimes, yet it is still completely legal for them to be there. It still sends a message that they are being watched. Other times, it is the meter reader, truant student or uncle Luis visiting from out of town out for a walk. Regardless, I am compelled to tell people that it is not advisable to follow these people, as it poses a risk to their safety and could be met with an adverse reaction from the person being followed. I have had the follower and "followee" both call on each other.
On the flip side, I still remind people that they are the eyes and ears of their community. They know who and what belongs better than I do. They are encouraged to keep watch and thanked for their vigilance. That is how we catch the majority of our vehicle burglars and graffiti "artists".
The way I see it, Zimmerman is a citizen that was just fed up with the crime in his 'hood. Not a vigilante, just a dumb ass that decides to follow the male he does not recognize inside his gated community to assist police in locating the suspicious person. Was it because he was black? No. Zimmerman has black friends and neighbors.
It appears Zimmerman gives up, and starts to return to his vehicle. Martin had a phone and he had every right (and reason) to call police and report the man following him. By all accounts, he was doing nothing wrong. But that is not "gangsta" (not saying he is a gang member, just that mentality). Instead, he tells his GF that he is not going to run. He confronts. Again, every right to do so.
Now, according to Zimmerman and several witnesses- Martin, who we will now call "Slimm", decides to punch the most likely winded, out of shape Zimmerman knocking him to the ground. He could have split. No. Martin continues to attack Zimmerman's face and head while Zimmerman screams for help. No one comes to his aid. Zimmerman produces his legally concealed Kel-Tec and fires one round into his attacker. I would say that Zimmerman was worried about being disarmed and killed.
Yes, this whole shitty mess could have been avoided. But it happened. The real tragedy here is that it has been turned into and issue of race. Al Sharptounge and other race baiters come out and turn this into a dog and pony show, while the media portrays pictures of a 12 year old child and the 7 year old mug shot of Zimmerman looking like a thug himself.
They say reverse the rolls; If Martin was the shooter he would be arrested. Well, um, yeah. He would have assaulted with a firearm.
Now, reverse the RACE. Martin is a 17 yo white male and Zimmerman is a 28 yo black citizen, sick of the crime in his community. The white Martin attacks the Black Zimmerman for following him and ends up shot. Same. ****ing. Outcome. Only Al Sharpton and others will stay home for this one.
This is a lose-lose situation. Zimmerman is not charged=Riots in several US cities.
Zimmerman is charged (with what?), and acquitted = Riots.
Zimmerman is charged and convicted as a scapegoat to "keep the peace"= bullshit.
We now know Zimmerman was not actively pursuing Martin when confronted, and that Zimmerman was not the fat ass the media made him out to be.
As a citizen I choose to zero in on anyone I think does not belong or looks shady in my own neighborhood. Of course, I have the skills and smarts to deal with the person if things go south (again, as a citizen). As a citizen, I have ran off many "undesirables" from around my home with out involving the local PD. Just the simple notion that they are being watched will suffice.
Now, if a that person chooses to attack me for watching out for where I live, that is their own poor decision, and they will suffer the consequences. On the other hand, if they do belong, a simple "hey I just moved in up the street" will usually be followed by "it is nice to see people are looking out" if they are a rational person.
Zimmerman had every right in the world to do what he did, with good cause as seen here: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/BurglaryReports.pdf
You can choose to disagree, but I am sympathetic to what Zimmerman was doing- even if he was a little too overzealous.
2nd Felony- My ass.
Moose-Knuckle
04-12-12, 16:29
For those that keep questioning why Zimmerman would follow, and blame him for doing so, I will paste my comments from the previous locked thread from 3/27- https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1267752&postcount=283
We now know Zimmerman was not actively pursuing Martin when confronted, and that Zimmerman was not the fat ass the media made him out to be.
As a citizen I choose to zero in on anyone I think does not belong or looks shady in my own neighborhood. Of course, I have the skills and smarts to deal with the person if things go south (again, as a citizen). As a citizen, I have ran off many "undesirables" from around my home with out involving the local PD. Just the simple notion that they are being watched will suffice.
Now, if a that person chooses to attack me for watching out for where I live, that is their own poor decision, and they will suffer the consequences. On the other hand, if they do belong, a simple "hey I just moved in up the street" will usually be followed by "it is nice to see people are looking out" if they are a rational person.
Zimmerman had every right in the world to do what he did, with good cause as seen here: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/BurglaryReports.pdf
You can choose to disagree, but I am sympathetic to what Zimmerman was doing- even if he was a little too overzealous.
2nd Felony- My ass.
http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee362/thebruneitor/memes/applause.gif
Allow me to make a correction. Most blacks cared less for O.J. He was acquitted because of silly mistakes made on behalf of the LAPD and prosecutors office. I remember the trial fairly well and read a few of the books that were written.
Of course, it didn't hurt that he had a lot of money.
The thinks that I remember most about the OJ trial is Mark Furman lying when he said he'd never used the word nigger. Then they played the tape of him saying it over and over. Very stupid and damning for the prosecution. The second was the blood evidence that was said to have the preservative in it and the direction of the drops was wrong, both pointing towards planted evidence. Those two things alone were probably enough for him to walk.
The press LIED big time and several times in this case, they doctored the 911 tape and claimed there were racial slurs when there were not. The press and the fact that Sharpton was there spoke volumes for me. The police returned his pistol to him. Not something you do with someone you intend to charge with homicide. Sounds like reasonable doubt right there.
I feel bad for everyone personally involved in this mess.
Hopefully, this will be a wake up call to the Tackleberry types nation wide, to actually "read" the laws in their state, and be in full compliance if the day comes where you have to use deadly force.
I think a lot of gun owners, especially those with limited training and experience, entertain all sorts of Walter Mitty fantasies on how they are going to blow away the bad guys. The fact of the matter is that when you kill someone, all sorts of questions may be asked, questions you may not be prepared to answer. Even if you avoid criminal charges, you will face a wrongful death suit by the surviving family. This is how it goes down in the real world. Zimmerman should serve as a very public object lesson of what happens in real world shootings.
ForTehNguyen
04-12-12, 19:56
Guy here analyzes the map of the crime scene and the timeline of the 911 call and can place certain parts of the call with locations on the map including Martin's destination. He puts forth the argument that TM had plenty of time to return to the house he was staying at. Zimmerman was around the corner for some time giving the 911 operator information after he lost sight of Martin. If a confrontation occurred its most likely because Martin doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This further supports the fact that Zimmerman didn't chase Martin down.
What I find funny is before they got the body weights right and reported Zimmerman was 100 lbs over the 160lb Martin, so how the hell did an older 250lb person chase down a 160lb younger fitter individual. Yup, makes total ****ing sense.
Evidence that Trayvon Martin Doubled Back (http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back)
Key:
A – The Clubhouse for Retreat at Twin Lakes.
B – Community mailboxes.
C – Where George Zimmerman parked his truck.
D – Brandy Green’s Townhouse, where Trayvon was staying.
E – Zimmerman stopped and completed his 911 call for approximately eighty seconds.
F – The fight and shooting took place in this area.
G – Eyewitness “John’s” townhouse.
Let’s take a look at how events unfolded during the original 911 call Zimmerman made to report Trayvon as a suspicious person.
We can match things up on the map with the 911 call pretty much step-by-step.
0:15 – The best address I can give you is the clubhouse. [A]
0:45 – He’s just staring at the houses. Now he’s staring at me.
1:00 – He’s coming towards me.
1:20 – He’s coming to check me out.
2:08 – Shit, he’s running.
2:14 – Sound of truck door being closed. [C]
2:20 – He’s heading towards the back entrance. [referring to E]
2:25 – Are you following him? Yep.
2:45 – He ran… Zimmerman stops and completes the 911 call. [E]
4:05 – Call ends.
Martin is initially reported as hanging out near the clubhouse, looking at houses and acting suspiciously. Then he walks by Zimmerman’s truck at around 1:30 on the 911 call and proceeds east.
At 2:08, Trayvon starts running. Six seconds later, we hear Zimmerman leave his truck to see where he went.
While Trayvon runs south towards Brandy Green’s townhouse, Zimmerman continues east, and remains on the line with the 911 dispatcher.
At a slow jogging pace, Trayvon is estimated to have arrived back at Brandy Green’s townhouse at around 2:40 on the 911 call.
Trayvon may have gone inside the townhouse, but it seems more likely that he remained outside to see if Zimmerman was still following him and just continued talking to his girlfriend over the next few minutes.
After a few minutes, Trayvon seems to have walked north, back up the sidewalk to confront Zimmerman about why he was followed.
George Zimmerman leaves his truck at 2:14 and reaches Retreat View Circle just over thirty seconds later at 2:45.
He agrees to stop pursuit at the dispatcher’s request. After the 911 call is complete, Zimmerman begins to head back to his truck to meet the police. At this point, he claims he was confronted by Trayvon, and walks a few steps down the sidewalk south to respond to him.
As we can see, it appears unlikely that Zimmerman ever “chased down” Martin. Zimmerman only pursued long enough to maintain visual contact to see what direction Trayvon was going.
Zimmerman traveled his entire route in around 30 seconds, he only went a very short distance and did so specifically to tell the 911 dispatcher where Trayvon had gone.
It wasn’t until a minute later that their altercation took place, when Martin apparently doubled back to confront Zimmerman.
John, the eyewitness who lives in [G], picks up the account from there.
http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/martin_1000.jpg
Moose-Knuckle
04-12-12, 20:04
Even if you avoid criminal charges, you will face a wrongful death suit by the surviving family. This is how it goes down in the real world. Zimmerman should serve as a very public object lesson of what happens in real world shootings.
Hence the old adage. . .
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/id_rather_be_judged_by_12_than_carried_by_6_tshirt-p235201567591764987z85i2_210.jpg
All this is... is just an attack on the Second Amendment.
Moose-Knuckle
04-12-12, 20:34
All this is... is just an attack on the Second Amendment.
The powers at be are not going to allow this one to go to waste. With this case they will attack the 2nd, pro 2nd laws (Stand Your Ground/Castle Doctrine), CCW rights, damage race relations, and regulate or out in right ban neighborhood watch programs.
I think a lot of gun owners, especially those with limited training and experience, entertain all sorts of Walter Mitty fantasies on how they are going to blow away the bad guys. The fact of the matter is that when you kill someone, all sorts of questions may be asked, questions you may not be prepared to answer. Even if you avoid criminal charges, you will face a wrongful death suit by the surviving family. This is how it goes down in the real world. Zimmerman should serve as a very public object lesson of what happens in real world shootings.
While I don't disagree with your first point and personally believe that deadly force shouldn't be used capriciously, civil immunity in cases of justified self defense isn't exactly uncommon in state laws.
I'm gonna stay out of the fray and let this play out in court, but I am curious about some of the forensic evidence (assuming it was collected and is available) which may shed some additional light on what actually happened during the confrontation.
It has been reported that the spent round was still in the chamber of Zimmerman's gun. Are Martin's fingerprints on the weapon indicating they were struggling for the pistol? Was there powder residue on Martin's clothing or person? And how about an accurate diagram depicting the movements of both individuals prior to the actual shooting. Does Zimmerman's account add up given the physical layout of the buildings, location of his vehicle, where Martin was supposed to be headed, and where his body was found.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions (to my knowledge) and I hope this evidence can be presented at trial.
I think they gave the gun back and don't think they collected the shooters clothes.
What I find funny is before they got the body weights right and reported Zimmerman was 100 lbs over the 160lb Martin, so how the hell did an older 250lb person chase down a 160lb younger fitter individual. Yup, makes total ****ing sense.
Golly gee willikers, that is a great question. I am not sure where that is going to fit into Zimmerman's defense but I am sure it will be well analyzed by Faux News.
FYI: The castle doctrine IS the stand your ground law...which applies to your home, property and vehicles...without the CCW License. The License covers everything else. For that, you have to be in fear of your life or someone else's life, or fear of grievous bodily injury. BUT, when you pursue someone when you are relatively safe, and not saving some one's life or your own, without being a LEO, you have stepped outside that law. On top of that, he had no proof that the kid did anything wrong, just a suspicion or in his words, a suspicious person, which we all know is code for black guy. I've been hung with that title myself quite a few times in my life time, just walking from point A to point B, in areas in which I lived, doing absolutely nothing unlawful (washing my car, walking my dog, walking with my girlfriend, coming back from an evening jog, unloading groceries from my car, and cops showing up out of the blue). Being an upper middle income earner with a permanent sun tan, living in nice predominate Caucasian areas, can at times, be a curse...
It's not that cut and dry. Evidence is still being pieced together, so the complete story isn't told. My opinion is based on the initial reports. However, if the special prosecutor didn't have grounds to charge him with the evidence already in hand, would she bow to political pressure, not withstanding the initial inept police investigation and charge him anyway? Or would she piece together that scene from that initial evidence to come to a rational conclusion on her own, then charge him, pending further evidence? Some are suggesting the former, while others, including myself, suggest the latter.
all these people who are suggesting that Zimmerman had no business following Martin are forgetting the concept of citizens arrest. the 911 operator did not tell Z not to approach M, she said , "we don't need you to do that." big difference.
since local police authorities encourage, sponsor, and consult with neighborhood watch groups, it appears that they are a valuable asset to crime prevention and control. at least that's what my local police tell my group and it was reinforced at the Citizens Police Academy that they held.
all this said, it was neither wrong nor unusual for a concerned citizen, much less a member of the neighborhood watch, to be curious and possibly question a person, regardless of their race, in an area which has seen a lot of crime as this one had...
all these people who are suggesting that Zimmerman had no business following Martin are forgetting the concept of citizens arrest.
And what exactly was Zimmerman's 'reasonable suspicion' to do a Terry Stop on Martin? Not to mention that as a non-LEO he has NO legal authority to stop, question or detain another private citizen.
Sorry Tackleberry, but you may want brush up on your basic Constitutional Law.
And what exactly was Zimmerman's 'reasonable suspicion' to do a Terry Stop on Martin? Not to mention that as a non-LEO he has NO legal authority to stop, question or detain another private citizen.
Sorry Tackleberry, but you may want brush up on your basic Constitutional Law.
That's just it, he didn't do a Terry Stop. Where did you fabricate that he did? Also, Terry is a limit on law enforcement. As a private citizen, I have every right to stop or question another citizen, just as they have the right to tell me to **** off.
Might want to dial back the rhetoric a bit. :(
Guy here analyzes the map of the crime scene and the timeline of the 911 call and can place certain parts of the call with locations on the map including Martin's destination. He puts forth the argument that TM had plenty of time to return to the house he was staying at. Zimmerman was around the corner for some time giving the 911 operator information after he lost sight of Martin. If a confrontation occurred its most likely because Martin doubled back to confront Zimmerman. This further supports the fact that Zimmerman didn't chase Martin down.
What I find funny is before they got the body weights right and reported Zimmerman was 100 lbs over the 160lb Martin, so how the hell did an older 250lb person chase down a 160lb younger fitter individual. Yup, makes total ****ing sense.
Evidence that Trayvon Martin Doubled Back (http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back)
http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/martin_1000.jpg
This map is very helpful and does suggest that Trayvon doubled back to initiate the confrontation. Remember, Zimmerman told police that he was attacked from the LEFT as he returned to his SUV. This is consistent with the map and Trayvon approaching from the South. This seems to really challenge the 2nd degree murder charge.
However, there is a little wrinkle in Zimmerman's statements. Notice that the confrontation took place about 20 yards South of the "T" intersection. Some might suggest that Zimmerman tried to follow Trayvon as he headed home.
As a private citizen, I have every right to stop or question another citizen, just as they have the right to tell me to **** off.
Actually no. You do not have the right to stop anyone. You can follow them and talk at them but you cannot physically detain them. It also begs to degenerate into a physical confrontation. Which, is pretty much what happened.
ChicagoTex
04-13-12, 00:15
all these people who are suggesting that Zimmerman had no business following Martin are forgetting the concept of citizens arrest.
We're not forgetting it, we're simply viewing it with two crucial bits of information:
1. Zimmerman never told the 911 dispatcher he had observed Martin doing anything besides hanging around suspiciously. The legal justification for a citizens arrest requires the direct observation of a felony. Just hanging around looking suspicious isn't a felony, and questioning said person on the basis of trying to establish grounds for a citizens arrest is legally invalid. You arrest because you saw something, you don't go looking for something so you can arrest. You are, however, correct in that a citizen has every right to QUESTION another citizen just generally, but the logic that Zimmerman was doing so in the hopes of making a citizens arrest is legally indefensible.
2. Citizens arrests are suicidally stupid. In a situation where you have no back up, and no clear-to-the-suspect authority, you attempt a citizens arrest at your peril. While a citizens arrest is somewhat viable in situations where a suspect actively submits to you, PURSUING someone with the goal of making a citizens arrest is unfathomably dangerous and I, and I believe most of us on this board (and in society in general, for that matter) can't imagine voluntarily taking on such a totally unwarranted risk as a member of the general citizenry.
I never have understood this comment....
"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.
Why would you tell the guy getting beat and yelling for help to "stop"?
He was on bottom
He was yelling to me
He was yelling help help
I told -him- to stop..............
????????????? Not -them-, or -the other guy- but "him".
Actually no. You do not have the right to stop anyone. You can follow them and talk at them but you cannot physically detain them. It also begs to degenerate into a physical confrontation. Which, is pretty much what happened.
I never said detain, so don't put words in my mouth. Also, I've yet to see a single report where anyone has said that Zimmerman talked to or detained Martin before the altercation began. Please provide a link to that report. Thanks.
RogerinTPA
04-13-12, 03:15
I think a lot of gun owners, especially those with limited training and experience, entertain all sorts of Walter Mitty fantasies on how they are going to blow away the bad guys. The fact of the matter is that when you kill someone, all sorts of questions may be asked, questions you may not be prepared to answer. Even if you avoid criminal charges, you will face a wrongful death suit by the surviving family. This is how it goes down in the real world. Zimmerman should serve as a very public object lesson of what happens in real world shootings.
I believe under FL law, if it was deemed a "good shoot" by all the powers that be, you are immune from civil prosecution.
all these people who are suggesting that Zimmerman had no business following Martin are forgetting the concept of citizens arrest. the 911 operator did not tell Z not to approach M, she said , "we don't need you to do that." big difference.
Agreed, however, in the absence of adult supervision, common sense should have prevailed, but not in this case.
since local police authorities encourage, sponsor, and consult with neighborhood watch groups, it appears that they are a valuable asset to crime prevention and control. at least that's what my local police tell my group and it was reinforced at the Citizens Police Academy that they held.
Agreed.
all this said, it was neither wrong nor unusual for a concerned citizen, much less a member of the neighborhood watch, to be curious and possibly question a person, regardless of their race, in an area which has seen a lot of crime as this one had...
Agreed...but to the extent of Z-Mans actions, I disagree.
RogerinTPA
04-13-12, 03:28
If I am in a place I am legally allowed to be, and you believe that I am "pursuing" you, there is no legal jump for you to get a legal pass on assault or battery.
Martin also was legally allowed to be there.
I could walk right behind you all day on a public sidewalk, calling you names, and there just isn't a path to go from me calling you names and watching you go about your day, to you slamming my head in the sidewalk.
Once you decide that you do not like my "pursuit", you can either choose to go in a place where I can not legally go (your house, etc), or you can flee, or you can confront me.
Your confrontation can not escalate to battery or assault, just because you don't like that I am following you around. Again, no legal, or logical path to get from A->B there.
I don't know man. If given the same situation, I would have confronted a man following me. Me be being legally armed, if Z-man would have attempted to escalate the situation into a hostile act, I would have burned him to the ground.
So, now that we've established that, when Martin decides to do some ground and pound with Zimmerman, MARTIN has escalated the situation unilaterally. Going from a legal, though stupid, public encounter and following, to a battery, or maybe assault & battery.
And that is the "64,000 dollar question", who initiated the hostilities at this encounter???
Strikes to the head are consider deadly force, striking someone's head in to stationary objects is also considered deadly force. Therefore, answering deadly force with deadly force is perfectly logical.
Agreed, however, we still don't know who escalated the hostilities. If Z-man did, then Martin was acting in self defense. If Martin escalated it by assaulting Z-man, then Z-man acted in self defense.
Put any LE expert on the stand and have them expound on their use of force continuum. If you ask that expert what their response would be to having their head bashed on a sidewalk by an assailant, you would likely hear that they would deploy a primary sidearm, BUG (backup gun), or BUK (backup knife). I would almost certainly not expect to hear them say they would grapple it out, or try to use pepper spray, less lethal, etc.
Agreed.
platoonDaddy
04-13-12, 05:21
I emphasize the word "LIBERAL", what is also VERY surprising it occurred on MSNBC Hardball.
**********************************
“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.”
Video of his comments:http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/12/alan_dershowitz_zimmerman_arrest_affidavit_irresponsible_and_unethical.html
QuietShootr
04-13-12, 07:41
The bottom line is this.
I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS WHAT ZIMMERMAN DID PRIOR TO NO_LIMIT_NIGGA ASSAULTING HIM. There is NO, repeat NO, legal justification for assaulting someone because you think dey dissin' you. Zimmerman could have followed No_Limit_Nigga (I'm using HIS name for himself, by the way, so as to remind everyone this wasn't Steve Urkel on his way from Bible study) all day long, asking him what he was doing every time he turned around, and there would still be no justification for No_Limit_Nigga to lay hands on Zimmerman.
Once he assaulted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman was losing the fight to the point at which he would have been in danger of losing his weapon, then Zimmerman was perfectly justified in using his weapon, because even the love child of Forrest Gump and Ray Charles could see that someone who is pounding your head into the pavement probably won't mind taking your gun once you're unconscious and using it on you. All that shit that happened prior to the assault (whatever it was) is totally irrelevant UNLESS Zimmerman laid hands on No_Limit_Nigga first - and there is NO evidence to suggest that that is the case.
Listen up, kids: black, white, brown, yellow, red, whatever. If you decide to assault someone, you deserve what you get - sometimes you'll get an eggshell-skulled old person who you can beat senseless, and other times you'll get Bernhard Goetz. It's one of the hazards of being an asshole: you have to take your victims as you find them. Don't like those rules? Don't play the game.
2) The second point the defense must prove is that Zimmerman was attacked.
So this burden of proof for stand your ground law is with the defense.
At the moment he is innocent but has to prove he had the right to use stand your ground.
How does that work when there are two people with no witnesses and one of the two people are dead. The second might incriminate himself.
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/setting-up-stand-your-ground-04122012
If no one saw Travon attack him how could he possibly prove it.
Two people walk down a dark alley. One comes out alive. How can you prove what happened.
QuietShootr
04-13-12, 08:06
2) The second point the defense must prove is that Zimmerman was attacked.
So this burden of proof for stand your ground law is with the defense.
At the moment he is innocent but has to prove he had the right to use stand your ground.
How does that work when there are two people with no witnesses and one of the two people are dead. The second might incriminate himself.
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/setting-up-stand-your-ground-04122012
If no one saw Travon attack him how could he possibly prove it.
Two people walk down a dark alley. One comes out alive. How can you prove what happened.
You can't, in that case, and since our legal system presumes innocence rather than guilt, in your theoretical example if there's no evidence the shooter actually murdered the other person, the shooter walks.
It's better for a hundred guilty men to go free than one innocent man be punished.
And what exactly was Zimmerman's 'reasonable suspicion' to do a Terry Stop on Martin? Not to mention that as a non-LEO he has NO legal authority to stop, question or detain another private citizen.
Sorry Tackleberry, but you may want brush up on your basic Constitutional Law.
Have you been watching too much MSNBC again? Sharpton laid it all out for you and now you blindly follow along like a good little soldier? Well golly gee wilikers, good for you.
Problem is that you are wrong. Like those on the left you are repeatedly misstating fact and circumstance so you can be right, but you are still wrong. You keep yapping about a citizen's arrest (or detainment) when it has never been discussed nor implied that was what Zimmerman attempted or desired to attempt. And that's just one of your made up fallacies.
Let us know if there is anything good on Maddow later and stop with the nonsense.
2) The second point the defense must prove is that Zimmerman was attacked.
So this burden of proof for stand your ground law is with the defense.
At the moment he is innocent but has to prove he had the right to use stand your ground.
How does that work when there are two people with no witnesses and one of the two people are dead. The second might incriminate himself.
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/setting-up-stand-your-ground-04122012
If no one saw Travon attack him how could he possibly prove it.
Two people walk down a dark alley. One comes out alive. How can you prove what happened.
I would recommend reading this: http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-self-defense-laws/
QuietShootr
04-13-12, 08:40
I would recommend reading this: http://volokh.com/2012/03/27/floridas-self-defense-laws/
No kidding. Talk about a backward-ass interpretation of the law, tb-av. In this country you don't have to prove your innocence, the state has to prove your guilt...and that's a critical difference.
montanadave
04-13-12, 08:51
It's a "he said, he dead" situation. Assuming Zimmerman has a decent defense attorney (and I think he does) and they piece together a credible version of what took place which is consistent with the evidence, who's to dispute his story? Unless an eyewitness comes forward who actually saw what transpired in those crucial 2-3 minutes, the only two people that know what really occurred are Zimmerman and Martin and one of 'em ain't talkin'.
Advantage Zimmerman. The prosecution is going to have a tough row to hoe getting a conviction, assuming a judge doesn't toss the case before it even gets to trial.
As for Zimmerman skating on a civil tort case using the "Stand Your Ground" law as a shield, I think it gets a little dicier. And I'm still concerned that this Florida law seems to remove the burden of proof distinction between criminal and civil prosecution.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-13-12, 08:55
Have you been watching too much MSNBC again? Sharpton laid it all out for you and now you blindly follow along like a good little soldier? Well golly gee wilikers, good for you.
Problem is that you are wrong. Like those on the left you are repeatedly misstating fact and circumstance so you can be right, but you are still wrong. You keep yapping about a citizen's arrest (or detainment) when it has never been discussed nor implied that was what Zimmerman attempted or desired to attempt. And that's just one of your made up fallacies.
Let us know if there is anything good on Maddow later and stop with the nonsense.
I was wondering where all the 'citizens arrest' stuff was coming from. I think it is pretty telling that the left has to put together a 'straw-man' arguement to get close to invalidating the SYG defense- especially since a SYG defense would make sure that they can't make any money in civil court.
From:MontanaDave
It's a "he said, he dead" situation.
That is awesome.
Assuming Zimmerman has a decent defense attorney (and I think he does) and they piece together a credible version of what took place which is consistent with the evidence, who's to dispute his story? Unless an eyewitness comes forward who actually saw what transpired in those crucial 2-3 minutes, the only two people that know what really occurred are Zimmerman and Martin and one of 'em ain't talkin'.
Until the girlfriend starts to remember stuff now....
As for Zimmerman skating on a civil tort case using the "Stand Your Ground" law as a shield, I think it gets a little dicier. And I'm still concerned that this Florida law seems to remove the burden of proof distinction between criminal and civil prosecution.
If the legal system hadn't started handing out Lotto prizes to thugs who attacked people and came out on the losing end, it wouldn't be an necessary.
NCPatrolAR
04-13-12, 09:01
You guys need to start making your points (if you have any) without the insults. This is the only warning I'm giving
Martin also was legally allowed to be there.
So it's a non-issue. Act like a responsible person, and not a ****ing dumbass. Say, "Hey is there a problem, I'm staying with Aunt D down the street."
I don't know man. If given the same situation, I would have confronted a man following me. Me be being legally armed, if Z-man would have attempted to escalate the situation into a hostile act, I would have burned him to the ground.
Why? Why not just get to where you are going, and if you get to your "castle" then worry about the dude following you...and what you might do.
And that is the "64,000 dollar question", who initiated the hostilities at this encounter???
I think it's obvious, but this is why serving on a jury is so maddening. If Zimmerman wanted to kill himself a black kid, why call 911? Why, give his name and details? Why not just ambush him and bust a cap behind his ear? I mean from the details of the call, he broke off the observation.
Agreed, however, we still don't know who escalated the hostilities. If Z-man did, then Martin was acting in self defense. If Martin escalated it by assaulting Z-man, then Z-man acted in self defense.
Again, according to the leaked coroner's information, other than the bullet hole, Martin had no defensive injuries of any kind. So Zimmerman got the drop on him, and struck him, but he's got no scrapes, bruising, blood, nothing. Again, if Zimmerman had ambushed him, two men are going to create some sort of wounding on one another.
I've never been in even a minor scuffle where I didn't get "something" to show for my efforts. Welt, minor cuts, bruises, bloody nose, bloody lip, etc.
Isn't it odd that Zimmerman is the only one with "defensive" wounds, like from getting his head beat in to the sidewalk, and that seems to fit with eyewitness accounts as well as blabberface Zimmerman right after the incident.
Cops are told to clam up, because invariably they will say something that can be misconstrued later by IA, families, a judge, etc. Zimmerman didn't, and his account seems to line up with what other person(s) saw, and heard. I don't think it's a friggin' coincidence.
Army Chief
04-13-12, 09:15
The problem I'm seeing is this: it would seem that all concerned wished to avoid creating a (further) furor over this, and so the grounds for an indictment were created -- or, at the very least, affirmed with an extra measure of political expedience. In this, we may have dodged a bullet and given Martin's supporters a reason to feel that the winds of justice are at last blowing in their favor. For now.
An indictment that almost didn't even happen is a very long way from a conviction, however, and nothing I'm seeing to date suggests that the case is going to prove strong enough to justify depriving Zimmerman of his freedom for the next 20+ years. If we end up with an acquittal or a suspended/light sentence, the whole situation turns toxic all over again. We're so divided on this as a nation right now (again, admittedly without the facts) that it doesn't seem that any outcome is going to accepted as just and final.
AC
2) The second point the defense must prove is that Zimmerman was attacked.
So this burden of proof for stand your ground law is with the defense.
At the moment he is innocent but has to prove he had the right to use stand your ground.
How does that work when there are two people with no witnesses and one of the two people are dead. The second might incriminate himself.
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/setting-up-stand-your-ground-04122012
If no one saw Travon attack him how could he possibly prove it.
Two people walk down a dark alley. One comes out alive. How can you prove what happened.
Eyewitness testimony, remove reasonable doubt, Zimmerman's account tied to eyewitness seeing him getting ground & pounded.
"He got the drop on me on my way back to the truck. Came out of no where."
You don't have to prove it happened, you just have to frame it to remove doubt, or leave doubt, whichever way you need to play it. All you need is one person to find your version believeable.
We're so divided on this as a nation right now (again, admittedly without the facts) that it doesn't seem that any outcome is going to accepted as just and final.
There was one window of opportunity for a far better outcome, but it was slammed shut quickly by the race baiters. When Martin's mother stated yesterday that it was all a tragic accident that spun out of control, there was hope. Hope that if they became sane and sensible about all of this, and advocated that same sensibility to those around them, then the hate and anger would start to diminish.
But instead of her being real and honest from that point, she was surely reprimanded and reminded that she just jeopardized the cause and pending civil suite. So now she's back to lying and instigating and everyone in that camp vigorously continues to drive the bus toward the cliff.
I have to say that I thought this country was better than this. Flawed and weakened a bit perhaps, but this is just very bad. Even with a black President we seem to have gotten all of nowhere collectively. The media has really hurt this nation and gone far beyond being heinous. I tell you those two parents wield tremendous power right now and they are the only ones who can start to fix this disaster.
I think it's obvious, but this is why serving on a jury is so maddening. If Zimmerman wanted to kill himself a black kid, why call 911? Why, give his name and details? Why not just ambush him and bust a cap behind his ear? I mean from the details of the call, he broke off the observation.
Again, according to the leaked coroner's information, other than the bullet hole, Martin had no defensive injuries of any kind. So Zimmerman got the drop on him, and struck him, but he's got no scrapes, bruising, blood, nothing. Again, if Zimmerman had ambushed him, two men are going to create some sort of wounding on one another.
I've never been in even a minor scuffle where I didn't get "something" to show for my efforts. Welt, minor cuts, bruises, bloody nose, bloody lip, etc.
Isn't it odd that Zimmerman is the only one with "defensive" wounds, like from getting his head beat in to the sidewalk, and that seems to fit with eyewitness accounts as well as blabberface Zimmerman right after the incident.
Cops are told to clam up, because invariably they will say something that can be misconstrued later by IA, families, a judge, etc. Zimmerman didn't, and his account seems to line up with what other person(s) saw, and heard. I don't think it's a friggin' coincidence.
I'm a little surprised that the State's Attorney did not go for a voluntary manslaughter charge for many of the reasons that you listed. It would seem that prosecutors need to show that Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon when the confrontation started which seems to be a high bar given the evidence that is currently available. It seems very odd that a would-be-murderer calls 911 and plans to meet responding officers a few minutes prior to killing his victim. Things may change if they find a witness or video that shows Zimmerman ambushing Martin. Even a voluntary manslaughter charge seems to be an uphill battle given the witness statements that Martin continue to deliver blows to the head from a dominant position.
Also, I'm not buying the logic that the prosecutors charged him with 2nd degree murder with the intention of pleading down to manslaughter. I know this may be the usual way things operate, but this case has way to much media attention and outside influence pulling the strings. The interested parties would go nuts if there is a plea deal.
Finally, I've heard several analysts claim that the SYG law allows for a pre-trail hearing before a judge who may dismiss the charges unless the prosecutors can show evidence that Zimmerman's actions were criminal or otherwise outside of the SYG statute. God help the judge who throws this one out - MSNBC would probably publish their address and photos of their kids.
Where again does SYG come into play here? Once attacked it becomes a simple self defense case.
ForTehNguyen
04-13-12, 13:26
Where again does SYG come into play here? Once attacked it becomes a simple self defense case.
and if Z's story is true and he was on the ground being hit on, SYG doesnt apply, he cant escape
Where again does SYG come into play here? Once attacked it becomes a simple self defense case.
I'm not sure that it does, but it appears that the defense plans to use it for the purposes of the pre-trial hearing. Some analysts on FNC were saying that the protections afforded by the SYG law will apply to Zimmerman due to his claim that he was confronted / attacked by Martin outside of his home and did not (or could not) initially flee. I'm not saying that I agree - that is just what the talking heads are now espousing.
Another interesting point is that Alan Dershowitz is predicting that the case will be dismissed by a judge prior to trial. Apparently, the affidavit was weak and "immoral" because the DA intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Dershowitz fan...but a broken clock is correct twice per day.
Where again does SYG come into play here? Once attacked it becomes a simple self defense case.
Stand Your Ground should no longer apply once you are on the ground.
Another interesting point is that Alan Dershowitz is predicting that the case will be dismissed by a judge prior to trial. Apparently, the affidavit was weak and "immoral" because the DA intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Dershowitz fan...but a broken clock is correct twice per day.
Yep: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-prof-alan-dershowitz-zimmerman-arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/
Moose-Knuckle
04-13-12, 15:42
I emphasize the word "LIBERAL", what is also VERY surprising it occurred on MSNBC Hardball.
**********************************
“Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.”
Video of his comments:http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/12/alan_dershowitz_zimmerman_arrest_affidavit_irresponsible_and_unethical.html
Judge Jessica Recksiedler has asked that she be allowed to step down from this case due to a conflict of interest. Any judge is going to be looking for any reason not to touch this one.
George Zimmerman judge: My husband works for a lawyer who'll do case commentary for CNN
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-13/news/os-george-zimmerman-hearing-trayvon-martin-20120413_1_status-hearing-second-degree-murder-affidavit
Uber-liberal Alan Dershowitz commenting. Can't stand him, but he is a smart guy.
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2012/04/13/harvard-prof-alan-dershowitz-unloads-on-zimmerman-arrest-affidavit/
ForTehNguyen
04-13-12, 16:38
i read the affidavit and it sounded like complete junk. It reeked of Thought Police
i read the affidavit and it sounded like complete junk. It reeked of Thought Police
Wow. The affidavit seems to be missing "As per the deceased's family and counsel"..... I see they made sure to mention Skittles and iced tea.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/89120165/Zimmerman-Probable-Cause-Document-2
Unbelievable.
Another interesting point is that Alan Dershowitz is predicting that the case will be dismissed by a judge prior to trial. Apparently, the affidavit was weak and "immoral" because the DA intentionally omitted exculpatory evidence. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Dershowitz fan...but a broken clock is correct twice per day.
This afternoon, Mark Geragos was on Hardball saying the same thing.
That is the worst probable cause statement I have ever seen. Lots of speculation and not a lot of facts. If I wrote something like that for a simple shoplifting my case probably would have been thrown out at initial appearance.
That is a pretty thinly veiled PC statement...
It's like we've all been transported into some kind of distorted netherworld. :fie:
At this point all we can do is pray that this trial is the catalyst to turn all reasonable independents against our now loathsome President and the even more reprehensible leftist media. Man they need to go now more than ever. I mean like yesterday.
Jon Gutmacher's excellent post on State Attorney Angela Corey and the case:
http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=Criminal-Lawyer-Blog&Store_Code=FFL
PdxMotoxer
04-14-12, 01:02
The bottom line is this.
I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS WHAT ZIMMERMAN DID PRIOR TO NO_LIMIT_NIGGA ASSAULTING HIM. There is NO, repeat NO, legal justification for assaulting someone because you think dey dissin' you. Zimmerman could have followed No_Limit_Nigga (I'm using HIS name for himself, by the way, so as to remind everyone this wasn't Steve Urkel on his way from Bible study) all day long, asking him what he was doing every time he turned around, and there would still be no justification for No_Limit_Nigga to lay hands on Zimmerman..............
But Trayvon is sooo sweet just look at his picture.
http://cdn.hiphopdx.org//images/news/Trayvon%20Martin_04-11-2012.jpg
**when he was what??13 or 14 years old**
The "media" is plastering this picture makes me wonder why no Recent pictures??
**From his own facebook**
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR4jDidia633esIeJ-p3035nvMznjQk5nGaczmomMMFT_oF0P4hL-ZUb8DT
Sporting his GOLD grill under his posted name of "No_Limit_Nigga"
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwfZ7f2bjrG-p2zcIkDLUqJZSYC0fos-Hu7wSubRkQIP-vY_WJpw
There is another with pants down below his boxers sporting double middle fingers BUT there s question if that is him or not in the photo's
so i'll leave that out.
But why are the only pictures of Travyon being used only when he was a sweet kid??
Seems like they are hiding something and going for every edge they can find.
His parents pulled down his Facebook, Twitter, and other personal pages.
Don't most parents who loose a child leave those up as a "remembrance"??
I was asked why i think the FACTS won't be the main focus in this case and this media bias has most convicted this horrible man gunning down this sweet teenaged boy.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2012/3/21/1332331651594/George-Zimmerman-and-Tray-010.jpg
What about this hard working Mortgage Analyst homeowner??
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT49CHan-l59AKu3BMEmTMFtpBOt1St4IPXD23p_CyqmEABddPZ
Because if they used recent pictures from less than a year ago it would look like this......
http://source1news.com/news-blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/MediaBias-Martin-Zimmerman3.jpg
The "media" convicted Zimmerman in the minds of sheep that follow everything the media feeds them long ago.
I wonder if so many would be sporting hooded sweatshirts in support
of that sweet kid gunned down by that evil "tackelberry" if they were not fooled by the media about how to think.
ForTehNguyen
04-14-12, 08:35
I'll add a pic
http://a57.foxnews.com/img.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/660/371/Zim_Mar_Charges640.jpg
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-14-12, 09:54
Crime is out of control in areas.
A kid a dead.
A media goes into hyper-expliotation mode.
The legal system gets twisted and perverted.
By all accounts a good guy's life is ruined.
The only people who are going to make out are politicians who try to divide us and lawyers who protect us from a system they engineered.
ForTehNguyen
04-14-12, 20:39
Articles: Problems with the Zimmerman Affidavit (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/problems_with_the_zimmerman_affidavit.html)
April 14, 2012
Problems with the Zimmerman Affidavit
By John Work
I spent twenty years working Colorado law enforcement, followed by nearly two years as an investigator for the Colorado State Public Defender's Office. Ten of my twenty-two years in the criminal justice arena were in the area of criminal investigations, complex and simple.
I just read the arrest affidavit in the Florida v. George Zimmerman case. I'm pretty certain that I would have been laughed out of any judge's chambers in Colorado, had I brought in a piece of evidentiary matter so poorly written. The Zimmerman affidavit is so deficient in properly sourced factual information and full of unsubstantiated, unsourced conclusions, I am appalled that a State's Attorney would even give it a second look. I don't know what's going on in the Florida Courts. But, where I worked as a cop, all summaries of statements from eye and ear witnesses, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, had to be both sourced and included in a properly assembled arrest affidavit.
Every piece of information in the affidavit must be provable to a jury. This case is terribly lacking, both in supporting evidence and in veracity. To wit, from the document (with pertinent material emphasis highlighted by me):
On Sunday 2/26/12, Trayvon Martin was temporarily living at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. That evening Martin walked to a nearby 7-11 Store where he purchased a can of iced tea and some skittles. Martin then walked back to and entered the gated community and was on his way back to the townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by George Zimmerman. Martin was unarmed and was not committing a crime...
Here we have two unsubstantiated conclusions:
1) There is nothing offered by way of proof that anyone "profiled" Martin. If Zimmerman confessed to doing that, based upon the color of Martin's skin, it should be in the document. Otherwise, lacking some independent substantiation, it's a huge lie.
2) We don't know that Martin was not committing a crime, or preparing to commit a crime. Zimmerman's statements to the 911 dispatcher tend to dispute the affiants' conclusion, the evidentiary source of which is not included.
...During the recorded call Zimmerman made reference to people he felt had committed and gotten away with break-ins in his neighborhood. Later while talking about Martin, Zimmerman stated "these assholes, they always get away" and also said "these ******* punks."...
1) Either Zimmerman and the investigators who wrote the affidavit knew there had been burglaries in the neighborhood, or they did not know about any burglaries. It's not possible to credibly say that anyone, including the defendant, felt that crimes had been committed. If, in fact, there was or was not a series of unsolved burglaries in that neighborhood, the cops should have included that fact in the affidavit. It's a lie of omission, either way.
2) Profanity spoken by eyewitnesses in the stress of the moment can be heard in countless 911 recordings. If the investigators are trying to prove more racially biased culpability with Zimmerman's use of the words "assholes" and "******* punks," I'm just not getting it.
...Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home...
1) Zimmerman's acknowledgement of the dispatcher's instruction to break off and not engage Martin is on the recorded 911 call. The dispatcher said "you don't have to do that," which is quite different from a n instruction do not do it.
2) Where the actual confrontation happened is not included in the affidavit. Was it near Zimmerman's parked car? Or was it down the street from his car, because he disregarded the dispatcher's instructions? This is critical information. It's a murder affidavit. If Martin is shot with Zimmerman's car parked close-by, that makes Zimmerman's claim that Martin followed him back to the vehicle more credible. If the body is some distance from the car, that makes Zimmerman look less credible and in defiance of the dispatcher's request to break off the pursuit. Incredibly, the affiants neglected to include that piece of vital information in the affidavit.
...Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued. Witnesses heard people arguing and what sounded like a struggle. During this time period witnesses heard numerous calls for help and some of these were recorded in 911 calls to police. Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's voice...
1) Did the cops play the dispatch tapes for Trayvon's father?
2) If so, what did the father say about recognizing or not recognizing the screaming voice?
3) What did the eye-witness to the fight say about who was sitting atop whom during the struggle? Much has been omitted here, to enhance the appearance of Zimmerman's inculpation.
...Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. When police arrived Zimmerman admitted shooting Martin...
...The facts mentioned in this affidavit are not a complete recitation of all the facts and evidence in this case but only are presented for a determination of Probable Cause for Second Degree Murder...
Indeed.
Remind me again, in the USA is it
A) "innocent until proven guilty,"
or
B) "hang the honky/spic cuz my baby aint done nuffin wrong?"
:help:
The State AG hanging with the Martin family prayer vigil does not bode well for "A".
Moose-Knuckle
04-15-12, 03:32
The State AG hanging with the Martin family prayer vigil does not bode well for "A".
The AG is playing to the mob for sure, it's a pathetic day in America. . . :help:
IMO the AG is playing with fire. If the affidavit is as weak as people seem to make it out, then her motivations are far from honorable, like placating a mob. While IMO the average doofus who makes up the mob may not get the clue that they are being played, the likes of Sharpton and Jackson will and they will have a kaniption fanning the flames of racial discontent with and even larger bellows than before. Nothing like giving someone hope that the system is doing something for them, and then dash it with stupidity. Not only will the race baiters be able to claim that there is something amiss, that the white system is covering it's collective ass, but they will add the ole whitey thinks you're too stupid to know when your being ass raped.
Not a good long term play, unless the fix is already in and they know that no matter what kind of anemic play they make they will get the desired result.
Maybe in their PC stand to appease the race baiting crowd, they will wake the normal people of this country, but I'm not holding my breath. The end result will be Zimmerman's life ruined with absolutely no truth about what happened coming to the surface. The race baiters setting more precedent that they can get what they want by screaming vs what is deserved. The rest of America taking one in the shorts and seeing their beloved country devolve one more step.
Now I have a question....
How exactly did Zimmerman get to his gun? If he was being beaten, pummeled, and his head was being bashed on the concrete, it seems that it would be extremely difficult to draw his gun from a concealment holster and fire.
Drawing from concealment is a challenge for most shooters even on a static flat range. Drawing from a duty holster can be difficult on the ground when someone is on top of you. Add strikes to the face with that mix and even the well trained will have problems. If Zimmerman was mounted in classic MMA fashion, how does he get his hands past Martin's legs to get to his waistband?
This leads me to believe that Zimmerman actually drew his gun and had it in his hand as he wondered off into the night - possibly put the muzzle in his pocket to keep a little shade on it but held the grip.
Again, I think the prosecution will eat his lunch with this. If he DA brings in expert witness to recreate the Zimmerman's account of the fight he is going to have real problems. I think it will be very easy to show that Zimmerman was 'patrolling' the back streets with his gun drawn just like he saw it done on CSI.
davidjinks
04-15-12, 10:27
Reading the crap you spew makes me sick. I'd be willing to put a bet on the fact that you write for CNN/MSNBC/Obama for a living.
Do you even think before you write/speak? Pathetic...
Now I have a question....
How exactly did Zimmerman get to his gun? If he was being beaten, pummeled, and his head was being bashed on the concrete, it seems that it would be extremely difficult to draw his gun from a concealment holster and fire.
Drawing from concealment is a challenge for most shooters even on a static flat range. Drawing from a duty holster can be difficult on the ground when someone is on top of you. Add strikes to the face with that mix and even the well trained will have problems. If Zimmerman was mounted in classic MMA fashion, how does he get his hands past Martin's legs to get to his waistband?
This leads me to believe that Zimmerman actually drew his gun and had it in his hand as he wondered off into the night - possibly put the muzzle in his pocket to keep a little shade on it but held the grip.
Again, I think the prosecution will eat his lunch with this. If he DA brings in expert witness to recreate the Zimmerman's account of the fight he is going to have real problems. I think it will be very easy to show that Zimmerman was 'patrolling' the back streets with his gun drawn just like he saw it done on CSI.
Reading the crap you spew makes me sick. I'd be willing to put a bet on the fact that you write for CNN/MSNBC/Obama for a living.
Do you even think before you write/speak? Pathetic...
Thank you for your well thought out analysis. Now, would you care to take a stab at answering the question?
Do you even know what I am talking about?
NoveskeFan
04-15-12, 10:52
Now I have a question....
How exactly did Zimmerman get to his gun? If he was being beaten, pummeled, and his head was being bashed on the concrete, it seems that it would be extremely difficult to draw his gun from a concealment holster and fire.
Drawing from concealment is a challenge for most shooters even on a static flat range. Drawing from a duty holster can be difficult on the ground when someone is on top of you. Add strikes to the face with that mix and even the well trained will have problems. If Zimmerman was mounted in classic MMA fashion, how does he get his hands past Martin's legs to get to his waistband?
This leads me to believe that Zimmerman actually drew his gun and had it in his hand as he wondered off into the night - possibly put the muzzle in his pocket to keep a little shade on it but held the grip.
Again, I think the prosecution will eat his lunch with this. If he DA brings in expert witness to recreate the Zimmerman's account of the fight he is going to have real problems. I think it will be very easy to show that Zimmerman was 'patrolling' the back streets with his gun drawn just like he saw it done on CSI.
Because it seems difficult doesn't mean it didn't happen. I'm not taking sides, as I think both parties made bad choices that night. My thought is that as Martin got up he was shot in the chest. It will be interesting to see how well the scene was processed (bullet trajectory, blood splatter on clothing, etc.)
Maybe he wasn't in a classic MMA position. Maybe he wasn't wearing a "duty holster". It was a Keltec, maybe it was appendix carry/Mexican carry. Well have to wait and see and not jump to preconceived conclusions.
Sent from my Evo 3D using Tapatalk
Now I have a question....
How exactly did Zimmerman get to his gun? If he was being beaten, pummeled, and his head was being bashed on the concrete, it seems that it would be extremely difficult to draw his gun from a concealment holster and fire.
Drawing from concealment is a challenge for most shooters even on a static flat range. Drawing from a duty holster can be difficult on the ground when someone is on top of you. Add strikes to the face with that mix and even the well trained will have problems. If Zimmerman was mounted in classic MMA fashion, how does he get his hands past Martin's legs to get to his waistband?
This leads me to believe that Zimmerman actually drew his gun and had it in his hand as he wondered off into the night - possibly put the muzzle in his pocket to keep a little shade on it but held the grip.
Again, I think the prosecution will eat his lunch with this. If he DA brings in expert witness to recreate the Zimmerman's account of the fight he is going to have real problems. I think it will be very easy to show that Zimmerman was 'patrolling' the back streets with his gun drawn just like he saw it done on CSI.
You're being completely ridiculous. Does the police report even say that Zimmerman was "mounted" versus guard/half guard/side control? The latter three would allow him access to his gun. Way to jump to conclusions.
I carry every day in my pocket. Sometimes, I keep my hand on the grip of the gun if shit doesn't feel right. Does that make me a premeditated killer if I were engaged in a self defense situation?
First of all, and people have already dealt with this, it isn't against the law to follow someone in YOUR neighborhood.
Second, and people have already addressed this as well, a DECENT person would have said, "Hi can I help you, why are you following me", instead of doubling back and assaulting the person who followed them.
My thought is that as Martin got up he was shot in the chest. It will be interesting to see how well the scene was processed (bullet trajectory, blood splatter on clothing, etc.)
Now that does make a lot more sense. Naturally, it will all come down the physical evidence but this is the best explanation I have heard so far.
Here too, Zimmerman is going to have problems. And, this would be the most damning evidence in a Murder 2 case. Because, it would seem to indicate that Zimmerman fired out of anger after the fight. In other words, you got into some fist-t-cuffs got your ass beat, and then once the guy backs off you (having made his point) you shoot him. Yeah, that is pretty much Murder 2 by definition. And, it contradicts Zimmerman's account - which will not look good in front of a jury.
montanadave
04-15-12, 11:18
Do we even know if Zimmerman was carrying his pistol in a holster, in his pocket, or just had it in his vehicle?
You're being completely ridiculous. Does the police report even say that Zimmerman was "mounted" versus guard/half guard/side control? The latter three would allow him access to his gun. Way to jump to conclusions.
Actually, that is what other Zimmerman supporters in this thread have said in his defense - he was mounted and being beaten, thus he had to shoot. That is the conclusion they jumped to. I am just trying to apply a little critical thinking to that line of defense. And that is pretty much what will happen in court too!
Now that does make a lot more sense. Naturally, it will all come down the physical evidence but this is the best explanation I have heard so far.
Here too, Zimmerman is going to have problems. And, this would be the most damning evidence in a Murder 2 case. Because, it would seem to indicate that Zimmerman fired out of anger after the fight. In other words, you got into some fist-t-cuffs got your ass beat, and then once the guy backs off you (having made his point) you shoot him. Yeah, that is pretty much Murder 2 by definition. And, it contradicts Zimmerman's account - which will not look good in front of a jury.
Multiple, documented, independent witnesses have indicated the shot was fired while the "man in the red jacket" (Zimmerman) was on the ground being beaten by the "other guy" (Martin).
Multiple, documented, independent witnesses have indicated the shot was fired while the "man in the red jacket" (Zimmerman) was on the ground being beaten by the "other guy" (Martin).
Thanks, now I am back to Zimmerman already having his gun in his hand.
Actually, that is what other Zimmerman supporters in this thread have said in his defense - he was mounted and being beaten, thus he had to shoot. That is the conclusion they jumped to. I am just trying to apply a little critical thinking to that line of defense. And that is pretty much what will happen in court too!
Fair enough. Let's assume (since we don't know any better anyways) that Trayvon was on "top" versus "mounted". In 3 of 4 classic MMA positions, Zimmerman could have accessed his gun.
Thanks, now I am back to Zimmerman already having his gun in his hand.
If he had a hand on the gun and it was still concealed, in a holster, pocket holster or just pocket carried, it's not considered "drawn", correct? I don't understand why this should really matter.
Army Chief
04-15-12, 11:39
The infusion of "you/your opinion" posts is incendiary and counter-productive. Gents, for the Nth time, please do not make any of this personal. We're debating concepts, facts and/or ideas here -- not whizzing into each other's Wheaties. If we can't keep this civil and at least somewhat dispassionate, the hammer will invariably fall, and the thread will be shut down. Lose-lose.
This is unquestionably a very difficult topic, no matter where you choose to draw your lines, but we cannot continue with the "you're a dumbass and your opinion is just plain stupid" overtones. When you reach the point where you want to punch some guy on the internet in the junk -- the same guy you would gladly share a beer or three with after a day on the range -- the discussion is simply no longer worth having.
... and, lest we forget, we still don't know what we don't know.
AC
Multiple, documented, independent witnesses have indicated the shot was fired while the "man in the red jacket" (Zimmerman) was on the ground being beaten by the "other guy" (Martin).
I did not know that... that makes the eye witness comment make more sense now.
The eye witness said Z on was on ground being beaten. Yet the EW tells Z to "stop". He then goes to call 911 and hears gun shots.
If Z had a gun pulled or was in teh process of doing so, and was still getting beat it would make sense the EW told him to stop. IOW, don't shoot him the police are on the way.
I never could figure why the EW would tell Z to stop.
Thanks, now I am back to Zimmerman already having his gun in his hand.
It is more possible to draw while on the ground than to NOT drop your gun when punched in the face hard enough to fall to the ground.
If you disagree, here is some training for you. http://shivworks.com/
Do we even know if Zimmerman was carrying his pistol in a holster, in his pocket, or just had it in his vehicle?
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere he re-holstered his weapon after it was over.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere he re-holstered his weapon after it was over.
The issue at hand was that Armati was trying to insinuate, without evidence, that Zimmerman was patrolling the streets with gun drawn, CSI style.
My point was that if he had his hand on the gun, and it was still concealed/holstered, then he wasn't brandishing it. It isn't against the law to put your hand on your gun when you feel threatened.
If he had a hand on the gun and it was still concealed, in a holster, pocket holster or just pocket carried, it's not considered "drawn", correct? I don't understand why this should really matter.
Because it is at the core of a self-defense case. Walking around looking for a guy with a gun in your hand is not self-defense. So I am back to drilling down into the physical evidence. At what point did Zimmerman draw? I just find it extremely unlikely that he was able to get to his gun during the process of the assault. It seems much more likely that he drew his gun sometime before the fight or right after Martin stopped hitting him.
It just seems that Zimmerman's own public statements contradict the current physical evidence that is public knowledge. I am good with waiting for the carnival that will be his trial. But at the very least the Zimmerman supporters must recognized that this is not a cut-and-dry clear cut case of self-defense. A lot of facts are in dispute and when that happens, under our system of law, there is usually a trial.
Really, this case should be fairly instructive to gun owners - especially CCW. I would take it as a word to the wise.
The point is you do not know. What seems unlikely to you is still plausible. So sit back and wait for the carnival.
Sent from my Evo 3D using Tapatalk
Because it is at the core of a self-defense case. Walking around looking for a guy with a gun in your hand is not self-defense. So I am back to drilling down into the physical evidence. At what point did Zimmerman draw? I just find it extremely unlikely that he was able to get to his gun during the process of the assault. It seems much more likely that he drew his gun sometime before the fight or right after Martin stopped hitting him.
It just seems that Zimmerman's own public statements contradict the current physical evidence that is public knowledge. I am good with waiting for the carnival that will be his trial. But at the very least the Zimmerman supporters must recognized that this is not a cut-and-dry clear cut case of self-defense. A lot of facts are in dispute and when that happens, under our system of law, there is usually a trial.
Really, this case should be fairly instructive to gun owners - especially CCW. I would take it as a word to the wise.
I understand that walking around looking for a guy with a gun drawn, in hand is not self defense. (Like seen on CSI)
However according to Zimmerman, he had broken off and was returning to his vehicle.
How difficult would it be for Zimmerman to put his hand on his pistol as Trayvon began to approach him? Probably not too difficult.
Awaiting the carnival....
At what point did Zimmerman draw? I just find it extremely unlikely that he was able to get to his gun during the process of the assault.
If that was indeed the case.... under what set of conditions do you see it happening that two non professional fighters find themselves in such a situation where one is armed yet the other is able to over power him per witnesses.
In all that going on, the gun is not dropped, discharged into the air or any other such thing. AND do you think a 17 year old could actually find the presence of mind and will to make all that occur while still ending up getting himself killed.
It seems like a stretch to me. Too many things would have had to occur. The struggle would have to have involved struggling over the gun.
I'm not saying it didn't happen. Just wondering how it could have without more shots being fired or the gun being knocked loose or something.
On the other had.... two shots to the chest sounds like the gun was drawn and fired immediately. Which means at some time in the fight access to it did present itself and once presented, acted on.
Only one shot was fired, tb.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-15-12, 13:32
I just find it extremely unlikely that he was able to get to his gun during the process of the assault. It seems much more likely that he drew his gun sometime before the fight or right after Martin stopped hitting him.
It just seems that Zimmerman's own public statements contradict the current physical evidence that is public knowledge. I am good with waiting for the carnival that will be his trial. But at the very least the Zimmerman supporters must recognized that this is not a cut-and-dry clear cut case of self-defense. A lot of facts are in dispute and when that happens, under our system of law, there is usually a trial.
Really, this case should be fairly instructive to gun owners - especially CCW. I would take it as a word to the wise.
What is up with all the carnival comments?
I have found that when I am bashing people's heads into the concrete that I use both hands, one hand doesn't give you control. If GZ had his gun in a holster, front pocket or Appendix carry, it seems that he could have perhaps both hands free to bring the gun into play.
Has there every been a clear cut case of self defense, people can always start throwing in hypotheticals.
The facts are not in dispute. Not all of them are known to us on the outside, but it pretty clear from the indictment that there is little to no evidence contradicting GZ's account.
Has the autopsy report on Treyvon come out yet. If there is a contact gun wound this is over.
Now I have a question....
How exactly did Zimmerman get to his gun? If he was being beaten, pummeled, and his head was being bashed on the concrete, it seems that it would be extremely difficult to draw his gun from a concealment holster and fire.
Drawing from concealment is a challenge for most shooters even on a static flat range. Drawing from a duty holster can be difficult on the ground when someone is on top of you. Add strikes to the face with that mix and even the well trained will have problems. If Zimmerman was mounted in classic MMA fashion, how does he get his hands past Martin's legs to get to his waistband?
This leads me to believe that Zimmerman actually drew his gun and had it in his hand as he wondered off into the night - possibly put the muzzle in his pocket to keep a little shade on it but held the grip.
Again, I think the prosecution will eat his lunch with this. If he DA brings in expert witness to recreate the Zimmerman's account of the fight he is going to have real problems. I think it will be very easy to show that Zimmerman was 'patrolling' the back streets with his gun drawn just like he saw it done on CSI.
Wow?!?
Thats a pretty giant conclusive leap. Making such a leap based on little to no factual data is incredibly scary. I though that kind of thinking was reserved for the main stream journalists among us, not the average American.
For one people, can and do access guns or knives while engaged in a hand to hand confrontation, even if they are grappling. Take a look some of SouthNarcs training and you can see how something as unbelievable as accessing a weapon while on the ground fending off an attach is possible. Also ask a cop if you know one if they were taught grappling techniques from both a weapon retention standpoint and a weapon access standpoint. If they say no they should sue their department for negligence. To assume that the only way that a weapon can come out during a ground fight is for it to have been drawn prior to the engagement of hostilities is faulty logic at best.
Before I get labeled as a racist Zimmerman supporter, I'd like to make it clear that my only interest is to have a decision in this case that is based on fact, not emotionalism. If Zimmerman went looking for trouble and initiated physical contact with Martin, then when he ended up getting his ass kicked killed Martin he needs to fry. If he went looking to kill someone he needs to fry. On the other hand if Martin initiated contact and then went about beating the crap out of somebody then Zimmerman was well within his rights to use deadly force to defend himself. Any of these possible scenarios need to be proven with facts and only facts. If there are no facts available
E, we should err on the side of caution and consider someone innocent, like our Constitution suggests, instead of making crap up.
Now I have a question....
How exactly did Zimmerman get to his gun? If he was being beaten, pummeled, and his head was being bashed on the concrete, it seems that it would be extremely difficult to draw his gun from a concealment holster and fire.
Drawing from concealment is a challenge for most shooters even on a static flat range. Drawing from a duty holster can be difficult on the ground when someone is on top of you. Add strikes to the face with that mix and even the well trained will have problems. If Zimmerman was mounted in classic MMA fashion, how does he get his hands past Martin's legs to get to his waistband?
This leads me to believe that Zimmerman actually drew his gun and had it in his hand as he wondered off into the night - possibly put the muzzle in his pocket to keep a little shade on it but held the grip.
Again, I think the prosecution will eat his lunch with this. If he DA brings in expert witness to recreate the Zimmerman's account of the fight he is going to have real problems. I think it will be very easy to show that Zimmerman was 'patrolling' the back streets with his gun drawn just like he saw it done on CSI.
Now I have a question....
How exactly did Zimmerman get to his gun? If he was being beaten, pummeled, and his head was being bashed on the concrete, it seems that it would be extremely difficult to draw his gun from a concealment holster and fire.
Drawing from concealment is a challenge for most shooters even on a static flat range. Drawing from a duty holster can be difficult on the ground when someone is on top of you. Add strikes to the face with that mix and even the well trained will have problems. If Zimmerman was mounted in classic MMA fashion, how does he get his hands past Martin's legs to get to his waistband?
This leads me to believe that Zimmerman actually drew his gun and had it in his hand as he wondered off into the night - possibly put the muzzle in his pocket to keep a little shade on it but held the grip.
Again, I think the prosecution will eat his lunch with this. If he DA brings in expert witness to recreate the Zimmerman's account of the fight he is going to have real problems. I think it will be very easy to show that Zimmerman was 'patrolling' the back streets with his gun drawn just like he saw it done on CSI.
Thank you for your well thought out analysis. Now, would you care to take a stab at answering the question?
Do you even know what I am talking about?
Actually, that is what other Zimmerman supporters in this thread have said in his defense - he was mounted and being beaten, thus he had to shoot. That is the conclusion they jumped to. I am just trying to apply a little critical thinking to that line of defense. And that is pretty much what will happen in court too!
Thanks, now I am back to Zimmerman already having his gun in his hand.
Because it is at the core of a self-defense case. Walking around looking for a guy with a gun in your hand is not self-defense. So I am back to drilling down into the physical evidence. At what point did Zimmerman draw? I just find it extremely unlikely that he was able to get to his gun during the process of the assault. It seems much more likely that he drew his gun sometime before the fight or right after Martin stopped hitting him.
It just seems that Zimmerman's own public statements contradict the current physical evidence that is public knowledge. I am good with waiting for the carnival that will be his trial. But at the very least the Zimmerman supporters must recognized that this is not a cut-and-dry clear cut case of self-defense. A lot of facts are in dispute and when that happens, under our system of law, there is usually a trial.
Really, this case should be fairly instructive to gun owners - especially CCW. I would take it as a word to the wise.
No, you're not. Your really sounding a lot like Nancy Grace in this thread. Attempting to use twisted leaps of logic in order to shoehorn the facts into your preconceived notions of what happened. You've only looked at this from one perspective, when you shouldn't be looking at it from any perspective at all. Why not let the facts revealed a trial be the arbiter?
Your last two sentences are the only thing you've typed that make any sense at all. :(
Cesiumsponge
04-15-12, 15:29
Has anyone actually pulled up the affidavit of probable cause? Nothing presented in the document actually makes a strong case for second degree murder. Proving malice beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be difficult based off publically-released details. The only suggestions of inculpatory evidence provided in the document is the testimony from the alleged girlfriend of Martin and Martin's mother claiming the screaming voice on the 911 tapes were her son's.
There is also evidence we don't have. They photodocumented all of Zimmerman's injuries to make sure the wounds are probable given his story. Since we don't have the photos or any medical experts to break down the probability of the encounter resulting in those wounds we can only speculate. Of course, the CSI-style stuff being done is also arguably open to interpretation since many times, getting the opinion from 10 experts will result in 10 conclusions, a problem in itself. We have some initial statements from several of the six listed witnesses in the initial police report but not much more than that.
People are still fixated on the assumption Zimmerman is 250-300lbs because of a 6-year old orange jumpsuit booking photo when multiple sources cite he was 170lbs around the time of the incident. A lot of people are still making the Skittles vs gun case when it is irrelevant under certain conditions. The same people cried about a lack of injury after seeing Zimmerman in the grainy surveillance footage from the police station after he was cleaned up by paramedics to determine the nature of his injuries but refuse to recognize that footage, and new footage of Zimmerman clearly shows he is of average weight. Hell, some people still insist this is a white-on-black crime when latinos aren't exactly a favored race among racists down in FL.
Do we even know if Zimmerman was carrying his pistol in a holster, in his pocket, or just had it in his vehicle?
The police report said he carried a Kel-Tec 9mm in a holster, with no further details listed.
In a typical violent encounter, it starts with verbal conflict, escalation into heated argument, which escalates into initial physical violence, which might escalate into lethal violence. Typically you don't just jump someone and do a ground-and-pound. For probability's sake and pure speculation, it probably went the way of most encounters. Verbal, physical, lethal.
The exact conditions in which Zimmerman brought lethal force into the conflict will largely determine if it's murder, justifiable homicide, or manslaughter. That determination might come down to no more than several seconds' time of the actual conflict. If, assuming Zimmerman was knocked down as he claims and he shot Martin right when he fell over, it could be considered murder since the conflict was not at a lethal level of force and Martin didn't want to lose in mutual combat. If Martin was using the shod foot on Zimmerman, it was justifiable homicide. If Martin kicked Zimmerman in the head several times, deemed it accomplishment, and went to disengage, immediate threat is gone and shooting could be interpreted as manslaughter. In such a situation, only a couple seconds separate three different determinations. The initial stereotype that Zimmerman ran after Martin with a gun drawn and simply shot him in the chest in cold-blood seems about as remote as an alien invasion right now.
Right now, all we're doing is speculating and even the smallest detail could change the context of what happened. I am not sure if self-defense is an affirmative defense in the state of FL, but if it is, Zimmerman will have to articulate his actions and justify his actions as what any reasonable and prudent person would do, given what they knew at the time. We'll have to wait for facts to come out, and let some expert witnesses chew on them a little. We're all free to speculate and provide opinions but some opinions are more worthless than others.
Just because a random person on the internet does not believe they can draw from a holster, concealment, etc does not mean other people do not actually train to draw a gun, or knife, in life and death situations.
Decide what you are going to do, make space with a strike, or a movement, and draw with a purpose, shoot from "retention".
Also, there has been an indication that Zimmerman's gun has Martin's fingerprints on it, like Martin found it, or at a minimum grabbed it, and they struggled for it.
There is also evidence we don't have. They photodocumented all of Zimmerman's injuries to make sure the wounds are probable given his story.
I am hoping that they actually did photodocument his injuries as well as the grass stains on his jacket that indicate that he was knocked down. Otherwise they did a sloppy job, and it will make a much harder work for Zimmerman's attorney.
Walking around looking for a guy with a gun in your hand is not self-defense.
Give it a break. Go sign on as a forum contributor with the Huffington Post, this isn't the place for you. Facts matter here.
Army Chief
04-15-12, 18:35
For those who like to keep score at home, this thread is sitting on a full count with two outs.
AC
montanadave
04-15-12, 18:57
For those who like to keep score at home, this thread is sitting on a full count with two outs.
AC
And if memory serves, it's the second game of a double-header.
And if memory serves, it's the second game of a double-header.
He's trying to be fair and patient, which we appreciate. I should have refrained since I now see I was just piling on, but still that individual needlessly stirs the pot.
VooDoo6Actual
04-15-12, 19:10
different & interesting insights...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONUecnsMb8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Cagemonkey
04-15-12, 19:29
different & interesting insights...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONUecnsMb8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Thanks for the insight Hop. As usual your spot on. I found that quite refreshing.
Before I get labeled as a racist Zimmerman supporter, I'd like to make it clear that my only interest is to have a decision in this case that is based on fact, not emotionalism. If Zimmerman went looking for trouble and initiated physical contact with Martin, then when he ended up getting his ass kicked killed Martin he needs to fry. If he went looking to kill someone he needs to fry. On the other hand if Martin initiated contact and then went about beating the crap out of somebody then Zimmerman was well within his rights to use deadly force to defend himself.
I wholeheartedly agree.
But what we see continually in these debates is people immediately taking sides based on various political or social leanings. Most here seem to support Zimmerman. Got it. He is a CCW holder and everyone's first reaction is to close ranks around him. But I think any reasonable person would agree that Zimmerman made a whole heap of mistakes the escalated the situation to a point that made some sort of physical confrontation almost certain.
Since all of the facts are legitimately in dispute, and a man is dead, no one should be surprised or outraged that Zimmerman has been detained and charged with some sort of unlawful death.
This case should serve as an object lesson to gun owners of what not to do.
different & interesting insights...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LONUecnsMb8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I agree with the sentiment. Can't say that I'd use all of his imagery (i.e. monkeys, fried chicken eating....). I suppose that he can get away with it given his skin color.
I wholeheartedly agree.
But what we see continually in these debates is people immediately taking sides based on various political or social leanings. Most here seem to support Zimmerman. Got it. He is a CCW holder and everyone's first reaction is to close ranks around him. But I think any reasonable person would agree that Zimmerman made a whole heap of mistakes the escalated the situation to a point that made some sort of physical confrontation almost certain.
Since all of the facts are legitimately in dispute, and a man is dead, no one should be surprised or outraged that Zimmerman has been detained and charged with some sort of unlawful death.
This case should serve as an object lesson to gun owners of what not to do.
And I disagree with almost none of that (not sure what he did made a physical confrontation almost certain). I see no issues with charging him if the facts in evidence support the charge. It sure would've been nice if they'd been allowed the time to develop an affidavit that actually supported the charge though. :(
Also, there has been an indication that Zimmerman's gun has Martin's fingerprints on it, like Martin found it, or at a minimum grabbed it, and they struggled for it.
Sure.
Still begging the question at what point did Zimmerman actually pull his piece?
As anyone in the combatives game knows, a lot can happen in a scramble with a gun. Did he have it in his hand already when he was ambushed? Did he attempt draw just as he was being ambushed? Did the gun fall out of his pants or jacket pocket and they both went for it? Did Martin attempt to retreat after Zimmerman gained positive control of his weapon? Hard to tell. The physical evidence will be important here and will become public knowledge in short order.
My only point here is that there are enough facts in dispute that an arrest is warranted and Martin's side of the story will have to be told using forensic evidence. Zimmerman is hardly an innocent victim who is being railroaded. He made his bed. Big boy rules...
I wholeheartedly agree.
But what we see continually in these debates is people immediately taking sides based on various political or social leanings. Most here seem to support Zimmerman. Got it. He is a CCW holder and everyone's first reaction is to close ranks around him. But I think any reasonable person would agree that Zimmerman made a whole heap of mistakes the escalated the situation to a point that made some sort of physical confrontation almost certain.
Since all of the facts are legitimately in dispute, and a man is dead, no one should be surprised or outraged that Zimmerman has been detained and charged with some sort of unlawful death.
This case should serve as an object lesson to gun owners of what not to do.
The tendency to see Zimmerman as a sympathetic figure has nothing to to with his holding a CCW permit or even his race. It has to do with 2 big factors that are interrelated: 1) initial distortions by the media about the incident, 2) involvement of certain racist special interest groups making this a white vs black issue. This forum has more that its fair share of media / establishment skeptics and this case plays to our worst assumptions of the media, special interests, and government. Examples of the first issue are the inaccurate reports of the 2 men's appearances/photos to paint one in a more favorable light, definitive statements that Trayvon was chased, and suppression of police reports indicating that Zimmerman was injured in the confrontation. As for the second issue, I am of course speaking to the involvement of Rev. Sharpton, Jackson, and the Justice Department who have a history of supporting false accusations to further a liberal agenda (i.e Duke Lacrosse, Tawana Brawley, Fast and Furious).
I'll be one to agree that Zimmerman made one big mistake - getting out of his car. However, this is not illegal and should not by itself necessitate a physical confrontation.
As for the criticism of the charges, most of us were expecting an uphill battle for a voluntary manslaughter charge. Second degree murder seems like an egregious overcharge given the known facts and the evidence in the affidavit. Hell, even liberal legal analysts such as Alan Dershowitz and Mark Geragos say that the case for 2nd degree murder is laughable. In fact, I cannot find a single, reputable, legal analyst (outside of the Martin family attorney and State's Attorney Office) who will claim that the affidavit was a well conceived document.
My only point here is that there are enough facts in dispute that an arrest is warranted and Martin's side of the story will have to be told using forensic evidence. Zimmerman is hardly an innocent victim who is being railroaded. He made his bed. Big boy rules...
Point to any corroboration of any "facts" being in dispute. Saying things like he could have been combing the neighborhood with his gun out is not a dispute, it's a red herring. Saying that Zimmerman jumped Martin, despite the lack of defensive wounds on Martin is not a fact in dispute, it's grasping. Saying that he couldn't have drawn his gun isn't disputing facts, it's making things up to support other red herrings.
It would seem that the police, original prosecutor, and prosecutor's office found the actual facts they had on their table to be one sided, and all in favor of supporting the story laid out by Zimmerman and the eyewitnesses on the scene.
Now there are two staff who have grown weary of this thread and the methods used herein. I'm bowing out at this point to make AC's job easier if he sees fit to close the thread.
Why are people arguing about how two amateur men are fighting. Talking about the classic MMA style mounts and how someone could reach for a gun while being struck. A street fight isn't choreographed. The witnesses say Travon was on top of Z. It doesn't say anything about how he was on top. Trying to state facts or opinion about how someone could do this or that during so and so situation is stupid because you have no idea how either of the fighters were positioned, what their actions were moment to moment, what their attention was on, where they were looking, what they could see from their position etc...
As a street cop I've been in a few fights. Shit gets weird sometimes with how your body ends up in different positions.
It's like the saying.... Professionals are easy to predict, Amateurs are unpredictable.
But I think any reasonable person would agree that Zimmerman made a whole heap of mistakes the escalated the situation to a point that made some sort of physical confrontation almost certain.
We don't know that for certain, so no, we wouldn't necessarily agree with that presumption. He may very well have done everything just right in the context of the circumstances such as they were, and still ended up in the same situation. Most likely the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes of "making a whole heap of mistakes" and "doing everything just right".
I did not know that... that makes the eye witness comment make more sense now.
The eye witness said Z on was on ground being beaten. Yet the EW tells Z to "stop". He then goes to call 911 and hears gun shots.
If Z had a gun pulled or was in teh process of doing so, and was still getting beat it would make sense the EW told him to stop. IOW, don't shoot him the police are on the way.
I never could figure why the EW would tell Z to stop.
I've read the article about the witness named "John" several times and I think that you may be incorrect in who he was telling to stop. Here is the quote from the article:
"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911."
The use of "...punctuation" can mean that some statements were omitted from the quote. Thus, it is not completely clear who he was telling to stop. However, the tone of the article and the fact that the police consider him to be a favorable witness for Zimmerman suggests to me that he was telling Martin to stop. I suppose that we will not know for sure until John clarifies who he was telling to stop when he testifies.
Moose-Knuckle
04-16-12, 03:35
Here we go, you knew it was coming. . .
Bill Cosby: Guns, not race, real issue in Trayvon Martin case
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/cosby-george-zimmerman-guns-not-race-real-issue-184628189.html
That’s right Bill, it dosen’t have a damn thing to do with parenting or the embracing of a culture of criminality known on the streets as “Thug Life”. . . :rolleyes:
I wholeheartedly agree.
But what we see continually in these debates is people immediately taking sides based on various political or social leanings. Most here seem to support Zimmerman. Got it. He is a CCW holder and everyone's first reaction is to close ranks around him. But I think any reasonable person would agree that Zimmerman made a whole heap of mistakes the escalated the situation to a point that made some sort of physical confrontation almost certain.
Since all of the facts are legitimately in dispute, and a man is dead, no one should be surprised or outraged that Zimmerman has been detained and charged with some sort of unlawful death.
This case should serve as an object lesson to gun owners of what not to do.
Given that at the time it does not appear that Martin was doing anything illegal,I personally agree that getting out of his car and trying to follow Martin was an unwise choice. However, that choice in no way shape of form bar Zimmerman from then being able to defend himself properly. Again, only if Zimmerman initiated the physical contact do I see reason for this NOT being a self defense situation.
In all honesty I am not upset that Zimmerman is under investigation and possibly going to trial. I am not familiar with Florida law, so I'll give the whole not going to use a Grand Jury thing a pass.
The only reason I am upset, for lack of better words, at him being arrested and charged is because of the circumstances surrounding the decision making. Not a soul knew squat about this case till the media turned it into a circus. And IMO that is exactly what they did. Using emotion based and BIASED reporting they blew this case into a national debate on race relations. Something that sells copy very well and fills their coffers, but does nothing to report facts or seek the "justice" they claim to want. To show images of a cute 12 YO boy as the victim instead of the grill wearing tattoo laden teenager is biased. To seal up his records, delete his Facebook and twitter accounts is also questionable (although that was done by his folks instead of the media). To purposefully edit materials in a manner as to only present one side of the equation is wrong. To have an affidavit of probable cause based on little fact reeks of political correctness. So yeah I question the motives of the people involved. I see the arrest as a political placating move to keep the city from burning at the hands of the supposedly aggrieved few, who in all likelyhood are nothing more than disposable pawns for the likes of Sharpton and Jackson, instead of an act of justice.
I am giving Zimmerman the same benefit of the doubt that our Constitution gives EVERY person accused of a crime. He is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. In my little world proof is based upon facts and not emotions. So until I see factual evidence that proves Zimmerman was in the wrong he will get the benefit of the doubt. If there are facts that support the theory that he went out looking for blood or initiated the conflict I will 100% support putting him under the jail.
If there are facts that support the theory that he went out looking for blood or initiated the conflict I will 100% support putting him under the jail.
This is the part that confuses me about a murder charge - when did Zimmerman decide to kill Martin? If Zimmerman had set out to kill a back man and was stalking Martin based on his race, then a first degree murder charge seems most appropriate. Good luck with that one since Zimmerman would have called the police on himself with his 911 call. On the other hand, a voluntary manslaughter charge would be appropriate if Zimmerman shot Martin in a scuffle that did not warrant lethal force. Second degree murder seems a stretch since it requires the state to prove that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin (with malice) sometime during their confrontation. This is a high bar to cross without some witness seeing the entire event at at least hearing an argument.
That conclusion is absurd, given you do not even know what precisely happened yet. Based on what is factually known at this time, "what not to do" = "use your gun". If anything, it evidences your bias.
If you are armed with a gun, and you follow someone who does not know your intentions, you should have a reasonable expectation that a physical encounter may erupt. Most people do not like being followed by people they don't know. Being a CCW holder does not give you a licence to put yourself or others in situations where gun play could result. A CCW holder should, in fact, make an extra effort to avoid conflict because ultimately any conflict could result in death. CCW holders should make every effort to deescalate these sorts of situation - not ramp them up.
I've been in a few fights. Shit gets weird sometimes with how your body ends up in different positions.
It's like the saying.... Professionals are easy to predict, Amateurs are unpredictable.
Agreed. And all the more reason not to write this off as a clear cut case of self-defense.
In the event that this tread gets locked too. I think we should all agree to take this up again when the trial starts and the forensics report comes out.
I am an American First, I have observed that many persons have some higher allegiance. This may be the line that separates our American future.
If you are armed with a gun, and you follow someone who does not know your intentions, you should have a reasonable expectation that a physical encounter may erupt. Most people do not like being followed by people they don't know. Being a CCW holder does not give you a licence to put yourself or others in situations where gun play could result. A CCW holder should, in fact, make an extra effort to avoid conflict because ultimately any conflict could result in death. CCW holders should make every effort to deescalate these sorts of situation - not ramp them up.
I think if you're following someone who's up to no good, it might escalate if you don't maintain your distance. However, we have certain expectations in society. If you're doing nothing wrong, someone following you shouldn't presume a reasonable expectation that a physical confrontation will ensue. If it were me, I'd have hung up with the GF and dialed 911 to report the "stalker".
Are you black?
Because I can't see any other explanation for your virulent condemnation of Zimmerman.
Just answer the question.
I don't think that's at all helpful or germane to the discussion. :(
Cincinnatus
04-16-12, 11:32
Here are two articles with some interesting observations about the indictment from a legal perspective--both writers are lawyers--and they also make two other points I find interesting:
1) One is not bound to obey a 911 dispatcher
2) The reasons for the indictment on the charge of 2nd Degree murder are because a Grand Jury was unlikely to indict, and in order to scare defendant into plea-bargain.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295984/where-s-probable-cause-john-r-lott-jr
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295997/martin-case-affidavit-andrew-c-mccarthy
The second article also makes a sensible point from an informed legal perspective about exactly what consitutes "confrontation" and how that is different than assault.
QuietShootr
04-16-12, 11:39
I think if you're following someone who's up to no good, it might escalate if you don't maintain your distance. However, we have certain expectations in society. If you're doing nothing wrong, someone following you shouldn't presume a reasonable expectation that a physical confrontation will ensue. If it were me, I'd have hung up with the GF and dialed 911 to report the "stalker".
I don't think that's at all helpful or germane to the discussion. :(
I think it's clearly germane. If I were discussing cutting Medicaid benefits for the disabled with someone with a kid who has medical problems that the State pays for, I'd rather know that up front so I don't waste time arguing with them.
Wow! Did you really go there?
My condemnation of Zimmerman is based on the fact that he is a Tackleberry Mall Ninja wannabe cop who represents the worst stereotype of gun owners - stereotype that we should all be working hard to dispel.
Anyway, to answer the question, I am a white guy of the Scots-Irish variety:
http://www.amazon.com/Born-Fighting-Scots-Irish-Shaped-America/dp/0767916883
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch-Irish_American
However, I do have a few black friends so I can tell everybody how I am not a racist.
I think if you're following someone who's up to no good, it might escalate if you don't maintain your distance.
Are you suggesting that Zimmerman has some magical power that allows him to divine who is 'up to no go' just by looking at them.
Oh dear God! I surely hope he doesn't use that as a defense in his trial.
Here are two articles with some interesting observations about the indictment from a legal perspective--both writers are lawyers--and they also make two other points I find interesting:
1) One is not bound to obey a 911 dispatcher
2) The reasons for the indictment on the charge of 2nd Degree murder are because a Grand Jury was unlikely to indict, and in order to scare defendant into plea-bargain.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295984/where-s-probable-cause-john-r-lott-jr
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/295997/martin-case-affidavit-andrew-c-mccarthy
The second article also makes a sensible point from an informed legal perspective about exactly what consitutes "confrontation" and how that is different than assault.
Intimidation to plea bargain would explain the weirdness of the indictment. Even if he pleas to manslaughter or littering it will be seen as a WIN that Zimmerman was "guilty" of SOMETHING, and poor little Trayvon is innocent after all.
It is amusing to see people press for "just the facts" then wildly speculate with no basis whatsoever except their own OPINION, that:
- Trayvon really was walking to far away store for Skittle late at night and not scoping the neighborhood for an easy mark
- Trayvon really was walking on a path to-from said store
- Trayvon was invisible and that is why the store videos are not mentioned as supporting this "store" theory
- little Trayvon did not follow Zimmerman
- the gun was drawn before Trayvon hit him
- Zimmerman was "mounted" and thus could not reach his gun
I hope Zimmerman stands in there and goes to trial so we can really learn the actual evidence, and be spared all the wild speculation clothed as established "must have happened this way" of the press, and other Trayvon apologists.
I think it's clearly germane. If I were discussing cutting Medicaid benefits for the disabled with someone with a kid who has medical problems that the State pays for, I'd rather know that up front so I don't waste time arguing with them.
Does that mean you should disclose if you're white, if you're pro-Zimmerman? Double standards are not cool dude, check it. :(
Are you suggesting that Zimmerman has some magical power that allows him to divine who is 'up to no go' just by looking at them. Oh dear God! I surely hope he doesn't use that as a defense in his trial.
Jeez, stop putting words in my mouth! They taste like crap! :)
Seriously, I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that if Zimmerman truly thought that Martin was a potential burglar or other nefarious type, he could reasonably expect the "suspect" to either bolt (which I think he initially did), or confront him. Following someone you think might be up to no good (regardless of whether your suspicion is reasonable or not) is a potentially dangerous situation. It should only be undertaken with a great degree of caution and merely having a gun should in no way embolden you to further the danger to yourself or others.
I can watch traffic and tell you which subjects are likely good for a crime or warrants. It's accomplished through pattern and behavioral recognition, not racial profiling. If I'm in a predominantly black neighborhood, tha majority will be black. Hispanic neighborhood, hispanics. White trash neighborhood, the one's with loose copper wire in the bed of the truck. :)
I'm not convinced that Zimmerman knows how to correctly profile by behavior and pattern. But I'm not yet convinced he's not either.
Cincinnatus
04-16-12, 12:16
Can we avoid the back and forth at each other in this thread for ANY reason, no matter how justified? I don't want to see this locked. I humbly suggest that if someone criticizes you or your post, just ignore it. Don't respond.
As to the bounty the New Black Panthers put on Zimmerman, no legal entity has yet acted. Can you imagine if the KKK had put a bounty out on a black guy? This seems reverse racism of the highest order, which of course, it is.
In fact, this whole case seems to be a reverse application of the old double-standards of lynchings and mob or vigilante instigated "justice" when black individuals were not prosecuted or indicted fast enough to please the segregationists in the community.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295919/new-black-panthers-unpunished-threats-john-fund
Can we avoid the back and forth at each other in this thread for ANY reason, no matter how justified? I don't want to see this locked.
As to the bounty the New Black Panthers put on Zimmerman, no legal entity has yet acted. Can you imagine if the KKK had put a bounty out on a black guy? This seems reverse racism of the highest order, which of course, it is.
In fact, this whole case seems to be a reverse application of the old double-standards of lynchings and mob or vigilante instigated "justice" when black individuals were not prosecuted or indicted fast enough to please the segregationists in the community.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/295919/new-black-panthers-unpunished-threats-john-fund
I think if Holder would've moved quickly and decisively to quash the NBP bounty, it would've done a lot to bolster his credibility. Sadly, he thinks credibility is an entitlement, rather than something earned. :(
Cincinnatus
04-16-12, 12:22
I think if Holder would've moved quickly and decisively to quash the NBP bounty, it would've done a lot to bolster his credibility. Sadly, he thinks credibility is an entitlement, rather than something earned. :(
Yup. And he has explicitly said he will not prosecute "his people." Which, of course, shows, that he and his ilk do not think racism itself is bad, it is payback and revenge and somehow justified in their view--judging by the color of someone's skin and not the content of their character is now their mother's milk and drink d'jour. Too bad they have forgotten what the Homer Plessy council said in the Plessy v. Ferguson case of 1896: "If justice is not blind, she should at least be color-blind." Hypocrisy, to them, however, only applies to their enemies.
Army Chief
04-16-12, 13:29
Time now is 1430 EDT, 16 APR 12.
This one is closed for the next 24 hours.
Perspective, gentlemen. Let's cool our jets.
AC
Army Chief
04-17-12, 12:02
So let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness ... (JFK)
Re-opened 90 minutes early as a gesture of good faith.
AC
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=84&load=6801
What about the other Trayvons?
montanadave
04-17-12, 12:53
Re-opened 90 minutes early as a gesture of good faith.
AC
Your optimism is an inspiration to us all. :sarcastic:
QuietShootr
04-17-12, 15:20
Wow, this thread is a lot more pleasant to read with a few adjustments to my ignore list.
There are a few guys here who need a nice long vacation for trolling when Zimmerman proves to be innocent.
What kind of candy was he carrying when shot?
SWATcop556
04-17-12, 16:49
What kind of candy was he carrying when shot?
Skittles, and that matter how?
Skittles, and that matter how?
...because we allow the media to control the message. He was making a point I thought about making by asking who was winning American Idol.
:-)
http://ncguns.blogspot.com/2012/04/you-werent-target.html
I am taking the time to repost this here because this answers my biggest question about the Martin-Zimmerman case.
Since the day the ****-storm started, I have been wanting to know why it became "news" almost a full month after the original incident. Now I will admit that initially, I fell hook, line, and sinker to the original media narrative. About two days later when the "storm" picked up, I started getting all skeptical. Then I got sick and tired and just stopped giving a ****, because the media was laying it on too thick with their posting dated photos and so forth. The most sickening thing is that in our country, it's only a hate-crime when the victim is a non-white.
But all this time, I have been wanting to know why the hell this story went national almost one full month after the incident. Since the day one, that made this whole thing sketch...
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark," if you will...
Rojo
Moose-Knuckle
04-18-12, 00:54
http://ncguns.blogspot.com/2012/04/you-werent-target.html
I am taking the time to repost this here because this answers my biggest question about the Martin-Zimmerman case.
Since the day the ****-storm started, I have been wanting to know why it became "news" almost a full month after the original incident. Now I will admit that initially, I fell hook, line, and sinker to the original media narrative. About two days later when the "storm" picked up, I started getting all skeptical. Then I got sick and tired and just stopped giving a ****, because the media was laying it on too thick with their posting dated photos and so forth. The most sickening thing is that in our country, it's only a hate-crime when the victim is a non-white.
But all this time, I have been wanting to know why the hell this story went national almost one full month after the incident. Since the day one, that made this whole thing sketch...
"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark," if you will...
Rojo
Shit like this will set race relatioins back in this country far more than the original incident ever would.
Race relations in this country are fine among reasonable persons.
The problem lies with the fools that will never allow reason and logic to apply.
Moose-Knuckle
04-18-12, 15:02
Race relations in this country are fine among reasonable persons.
The problem lies with the fools that will never allow reason and logic to apply.
That was point, the masses (i.e. sheep). People are easily manipulated and incidents like this bring out the instigators like a fetid carcass brings out scavengers.
Race relations in this country are fine among reasonable persons.
The problem lies with the fools that will never allow reason and logic to apply.
Actually the bigger problem is that there are far, far too many fools. This is what will need to be addressed eventually, as there seems to be no converting them regardless of how many facts are presented.
montanadave
04-18-12, 18:43
Damn shame the judge in the case stepped down today. She looks kinda hot. If we were gonna be forced to watch a billion hours of trial coverage, she'd be a lot easier on the eyes than Judge Ito.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/18/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Moose-Knuckle
04-18-12, 19:36
Damn shame the judge in the case stepped down today. She looks kinda hot. If we were gonna be forced to watch a billion hours of trial coverage, she'd be a lot easier on the eyes than Judge Ito.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/18/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Smart woman, who can blame her? Many of us would say anything to get out of jury duty.
This case will be the biggest one since OJ.
No judge in their right mind would want to preside over this one. Hopefully the one that gets stuck with it is a cranky SOB. If not, they're gonna use em as a doormat. :(
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.