Zimmerman charged with 2nd degree murder [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Zimmerman charged with 2nd degree murder


callihan_44
04-11-2012, 16:36
wow, one prosecutor doesnt charge but another decides second degree.....that is a wide margin, either they have evidence that no else knows about or this dude is going down no matter what
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/11/zimmerman-to-be-charged-by-florida-special-prosecutor-report-says/

Tango 1Zero
04-11-2012, 16:38
That lady doing the talking seemed way too happy and one sided.

HexHead
04-11-2012, 16:39
She opened the press conference with "We were committed to see justice for Trayvon".

Anything I have personally to add to that will likely get me banned from here.

Kingarthurhk
04-11-2012, 16:40
She opened the press conference with "We were committed to see justice for Trayvon".

Anything I have personally to add to that will likely get me banned from here.

He got justice.

greentriple
04-11-2012, 16:41
Of course she said that. Once they decided to charge they decided there was a victim and a defendant. The prosecutor would never say they were hoping for justice for the person charged.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Gunnut 45/454
04-11-2012, 16:47
I ask those from FL -does not the Stand your ground law prevent charges unless the evidence say otherwise. So if thats the case how can charges be filed with evidence being presented to a judge to show a crime other then a selfdefense action occured?

I agree she was way to happy about the whole thing ! I guess we wait for the very public hearing.

Well I found it!

"In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful."

FL better have some very good evidence or like I said Zimmerman is going to be a very rich man!

Kingarthurhk
04-11-2012, 16:48
Of course she said that. Once they decided to charge they decided there was a victim and a defendant. The prosecutor would never say they were hoping for justice for the person charged.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

All to appease the masses. The only racism going on here is being perpetrated against Zimmeran, a man of Peruvian descent.

G33Fla
04-11-2012, 16:49
dont forget, florida does have gun haters too

rhikdavis
04-11-2012, 16:51
Disgusting. I weep for this country.

snerd
04-11-2012, 16:52
All to appease the masses. The only racism going on here is being perpetrated against Zimmeran, a man of Peruvian descent.
Why, he's a racist white man as plain as the nose on your face! Don't you watch the news?!

DaveG
04-11-2012, 16:57
In the last few weeks, a white man was beaten and robbed for walking down the street by a group of thugs. An old man was beaten in response to the Martin shooting. And 3 black people were randomly murdered by an American Indian man.

...and this is all that is on the news.

Kingarthurhk
04-11-2012, 16:58
Why, he's a racist white man as plain as the nose on your face! Don't you watch the news?!

Race had zero to do with this until, as usual, racists like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the Black Panthers made it about race. Then everyone ran scared. Ridiculous. I don't care who the racists are, every group has them. They're all wrong.

The litmus test for how racist society has become, becuase of the fabrication of racism where it doesn't exist, was when they replaced the white Chief of Police, when NBC edited the 911 call to make it sound like Zimmerman was saying something racist.

When a guy who fought for his life under the law passed by the state of Florida is not protected under it, because the color of his skin is the wrong shade.

When the Black Panthers openly called for Zimmerman to be captured and killed with a bounty on his head, and none of them were arrested or charged.

When Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who make their living on injecting racism where there is none come crusading.

When Spike Lee tweets violence against an Elderly Couple where they have to run in fear because their skin color isn't the right hue.

I conclude, Florida is one of the most rcaist states in the Union at this point.

It should float next to Cuba, they don't believe in freedom over there either.

Javelin
04-11-2012, 16:59
Stupid.

Holder needs to go to jail.

njl
04-11-2012, 17:19
Unless they have evidence that somehow hasn't already been leaked, they have nothing.

So, the question is, did they charge him simply to placate the "black community"? Do the plan to try railroading him into prison? Do they have some "smoking gun" evidence that someone neglected to leak to the media?

Either way, it seems a sure thing, this is going to be the area's next Casey Anthony 3 ring media circus trial, and no matter what the outcome, a whole lot of people are going to be really pissed when the verdict is read.

I assume the defense will first move to have the case thrown out citing the stand your ground law, and the state will have to show why that shouldn't apply.

mt920
04-11-2012, 17:20
I welcome the news of Zimmerman's arrest with open arms. If we remove race and the fact that Zimmerman is a member of the CCW fraternity. Most of us would probably find him guilty. However, I am very interested in knowing more about the facts of this case. Let's not forget that an arrest doesn't necessarily mean a guilty verdict. Plus, the "hold your ground" law shouldn't only apply to gun owners. It sound like Travon "held his ground" and kicked Zimmerman's @$$ after being chased by him. Which led to his death after a well whooped Zimmerman "held his ground" by shooting him.

However, as one poster mentioned, it is a sad day for this country. I wonder at times if Zimmerman was black and Travon was white, would this be handled and viewed differently by all of us.

Kingarthurhk
04-11-2012, 17:47
I welcome the news of Zimmerman's arrest with open arms. If we remove race and the fact that Zimmerman is a member of the CCW fraternity. Most of us would probably find him guilty. However, I am very interested in knowing more about the facts of this case. Let's not forget that an arrest doesn't necessarily mean a guilty verdict. Plus, the "hold your ground" law shouldn't only apply to gun owners. It sound like Travon "held his ground" and kicked Zimmerman's @$$ after being chased by him. Which led to his death after a well whooped Zimmerman "held his ground" by shooting him.

However, as one poster mentioned, it is a sad day for this country. I wonder at times if Zimmerman was black and Travon was white, would this be handled and viewed differently by all of us.

It would have gone the way it should have. When someone, regardless of what color they are, busts you in the face, climbs on top of you and tries to beat the gooey center out of your skull against a sidewalk, and you shoot them before you black out, how is this wrong? Especially, in a state where it says you have by law, the right to do that?

Let me guess, if you are on a sidewalk with someone, and then decide to go back to your vehicle, and they jump you, bust you in the nose, and try to beat your brains out against the sidewalk, you will let them kill you with dignity, knowing you did the right thing?:whistling:

I suspect, if you had the means and ability, you would shoot too.

Ruble Noon
04-11-2012, 17:51
I welcome the news of Zimmerman's arrest with open arms. If we remove race and the fact that Zimmerman is a member of the CCW fraternity. Most of us would probably find him guilty. However, I am very interested in knowing more about the facts of this case. Let's not forget that an arrest doesn't necessarily mean a guilty verdict. Plus, the "hold your ground" law shouldn't only apply to gun owners. It sound like Travon "held his ground" and kicked Zimmerman's @$$ after being chased by him. Which led to his death after a well whooped Zimmerman "held his ground" by shooting him.

However, as one poster mentioned, it is a sad day for this country. I wonder at times if Zimmerman was black and Travon was white, would this be handled and viewed differently by all of us.

The bold part of your post says that you are not interested in knowing more about the facts.

Cavalry Doc
04-11-2012, 17:58
The crucial piece of information missing is exactly what happened in between the time that the two men were aware of each other, and the gun was fired.

I don't know what happened. Maybe there is a good guy in this, maybe not.

I was pretty sure that he would be charged. Too much publicity. There will be a trial, and a lot of information will come out. Some will ignore the evidence to continue to hold their own foregone conclusions about the incident, and regardless of the outcome, there will be outrage. We live in interesting times.

I maintain a very strict policy that for me to have to shoot anyone, would be the second worst thing that could happen to me. It's still number two on the list. I'll avoid it if possible. It's much more expensive than most of us realize.

Cavalry Doc
04-11-2012, 18:00
The bold part of your post says that you are not interested in knowing more about the facts.

I'll second that. :shocked:

4Rules
04-11-2012, 18:10
...I wonder at times if Zimmerman was black and Travon was white, would this be handled and viewed differently by all of us.

I wonder if Zimmerman had been unarmed, and Martin had been 21 and legally armed with a pistol, would this be handled and viewed differently by all of us.

(Regardless of which of the two had ended up dead.)

DOC44
04-11-2012, 18:11
I see why it took her so long to have the press conference and file charges on national TV. She looked like she had a full make over; hair, make up, outfit ... when you compare her today to earlier pix of her. She gonna be a TV star now.... and when she said, "let's prey for the Martin family." the light really came on.

On the other hand by charging Z it took the pressure off today and it appears to be much harder to get a conviction for second degree than man slaughter. He may walk after everything settles down in a year or two after the court case and appeals are over. If Z gets a good team of lawyers he's gonna be quite well off.... he might be able to afford a Glock or Karh or a Colt instead of a Kel Tec.

Doc44

Gunnut 45/454
04-11-2012, 18:17
mt920
So you agree Travon was the aggressor? So then you'd have to agree it was self defense! Cause he had the ability to walk away. Yet he became the agressor there for gave up all rights to self defense!

njl
04-11-2012, 18:18
I welcome the news of Zimmerman's arrest with open arms.

Based on what? The only eye-witness account I've heard of any of the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin is a guy who heard and saw Zimmerman screaming for help, on the ground, Martin on top of him. Instead of intervening, this guy ran into his place, called 911, and waited. Had this guy helped pull Martin off Zimmerman, this whole mess might have been avoided.

czsmithGT
04-11-2012, 18:22
wow, one prosecutor doesnt charge but another decides second degree.....that is a wide margin,

This isn't true.

The original prosecutor planned to present the case to a Grand Jury. He was replaced by the Florida Governor with a Special Prosecutor who decided to charge rather than present the case to a Grand Jury. That is not a wide margin, it is a difference in procedure by the State.

czsmithGT
04-11-2012, 18:27
I wonder if Zimmerman had been unarmed, and Martin had been 21 and legally armed with a pistol, would this be handled and viewed differently by all of us.

(Regardless of which of the two had ended up dead.)

Neither would have ended up dead. Martin would be alive and Zimmerman would not be in jail. That is my guess.

czsmithGT
04-11-2012, 18:32
When someone, regardless of what color they are, busts you in the face, climbs on top of you and tries to beat the gooey center out of your skull against a sidewalk, and you shoot them before you black out, how is this wrong?

The thing is, how do you know that is the complete and accurate version of what happened?

Hopefully the jury will get enough evidence to decide.

mj9mm
04-11-2012, 18:34
:crying:there is no doubt that this will become a media spectacle, and not a trial as we know them

Hyksos
04-11-2012, 18:38
As a CWP holder in Florida, and a person involved intimately in the legal field, I respectfully dissent.

First of all, I would like to remind most GT PI posters that an arrest requires PC, but a conviction requires "beyond a reasonable doubt."

These figures cannot be quantified, but I will do my best.

Hunch = nothing
Reasonable Suspicion = hunch + something
Probable Cause = more than Reasonable Suspicion, but less than a preponderance (40%)
Preponderance = more likely than not...aka 51%
Reasonable Doubt = 85%ish.

Just because the state had PC to arrest doesn't mean they will ever come close to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard required in criminal cases.

GT Posters: Please google 776.041 of the Florida Statutes. It clearly outlines exceptions for initial aggressors (not saying zimmerman was initial aggressor). I'm saying that even if he was, he has legal defenses.

callihan_44
04-11-2012, 18:45
This isn't true.

The original prosecutor planned to present the case to a Grand Jury. He was replaced by the Florida Governor with a Special Prosecutor who decided to charge rather than present the case to a Grand Jury. That is not a wide margin, it is a difference in procedure by the State.

yes the original prosecutor was replaced midstream BUT apparently didnt see enough to bring charges yet or else they would have

aircarver
04-11-2012, 18:56
Looks to me to be Marcia Clark II in the making....

Lotsa TV and instant fame, until the acquittal, the riots, and the pariah-ship ..... :upeyes:

.

czsmithGT
04-11-2012, 19:01
yes the original prosecutor was replaced midstream BUT apparently didnt see enough to bring charges yet or else they would have

I don't agree. He decided to go the grand jury route and had scheduled it. Therefore he decided he had enough to present a case to the grand jury. Going to the grand jury = bringing charges.

czsmithGT
04-11-2012, 19:09
Looks to me to be Marcia Clark II in the making....

Lotsa TV and instant fame, until the acquittal, the riots, and the pariah-ship ..... :upeyes:

.

She has a good reputation and had the case dropped in her lap by the Republican Governor. I see no reason, at this point, to be concerned about her handling of the case.

mt920
04-11-2012, 19:22
mt920
So you agree Travon was the aggressor? So then you'd have to agree it was self defense! Cause he had the ability to walk away. Yet he became the agressor there for gave up all rights to self defense!

Initially, Travon wasn't the aggressor. In fact, as of what I know, Zimmerman sought him out, chased him, then shot him after being physically beat by Travon. Therefore, to answer your question, I wouldn't say Travon was the aggressor but more liked provoked. He too had a right to defend himself. Zimmerman's actions were the behavior of an aggressor. He cased the young man down for what reason? Because he looked like he didn't belong in the neighborhood, and he wanted to play cops and robbers? Zimmerman did right by calling the police; however, he crossed the line by chasing and hunting down the young man.

I'm not sure what part of the county you're from... But in my neck of the woods chasing someone is an act of aggression and a threat. Therefore, be prepared to fight when you catch up with them as they have the right to protect themselves from possible danger.

callihan_44
04-11-2012, 19:26
:crying:there is no doubt that this will become a media spectacle, and not a trial as we know them

yep it already is, how many people have been killed since this took place?

mt920
04-11-2012, 19:32
Let me guess, if you are on a sidewalk with someone, and then decide to go back to your vehicle, and they jump you, bust you in the nose, and try to beat your brains out against the sidewalk, you will let them kill you with dignity, knowing you did the right thing?:whistling:

Is that what really happened? If so, you're right.... I would've defended myself too. However, I'm sure your example is missing some facts. Also, please remember we're hearing a one sided story. I'm sure most of us lied after being caught with our hands in the cookie jar. I don't trust Zimmerman like I didn't trust OJ.

FLIPPER 348
04-11-2012, 19:32
He got justice.


He was killed while unarmed after being confronted & assaulted. You call that justice??

Kingarthurhk
04-11-2012, 19:33
He was killed while unarmed after being confronted & assaulted. You call that justice??

I suppose, jumping a guy going to his car, beating him about the head and then trying to crush his skull and being stopped is what you call unjust?

You hypocrite, you would defend yourself in a similar circumstance.

93GT
04-11-2012, 19:38
Stupid.

Holder needs to go to jail.

ditto

rgregoryb
04-11-2012, 19:38
I suppose, jumping a guy going to his car, beating him about the head and then trying to crush his skull and being stopped is what you call unjust?

You hypocrite, you would defend yourself in a similar circumstance.

I don't think he would, he did vote for the girlieman POTUS

Gunnut 45/454
04-11-2012, 19:42
mt920

"then shot him after being physically beat by Travon. Therefore, to answer your question, I wouldn't say Travon was the aggressor but more liked provoked"

In the eyes of the law a perfect defense of Zimmerman- Travon agressor -whether provoked or not! There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever layed hands on Travon. Travon was seen not by just one person but two people( Reported tonight on Hanity) as being on top of Zimmerman! Travon didn't call 911, didn't stay away from Zimmerman , Zimmerman stopped following Travon but yet Travon comes back to where Zimmerman was! As I've said in other posts - when a prosecutor wants to find a law to charge they will. I'd love to know what the Proable Cause was to make the charge and if his lawyer is any good he require the DA to show that at the hearing.:whistling:

FLIPPER 348
04-11-2012, 19:59
I suppose, jumping a guy going to his car, beating him about the head and then trying to crush his skull and being stopped is what you call unjust?

You hypocrite, you would defend yourself in a similar circumstance.


I would not have assaulted an un armed man who was not threat to me.



Dude, the guy is in tape with 911 going after an unarmed man even after the 911 operator told him not to.

DOC44
04-11-2012, 20:05
I would not have assaulted an un armed man who was not threat to me.



Dude, the guy is in tape with 911 going after an unarmed man even after the 911 operator told him not to.

a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Doc44

4Rules
04-11-2012, 20:35
I would not have assaulted an un armed man who was not threat to me.
How does your dictionary define the word "assault"?

DOC44
04-11-2012, 20:38
The charges.

http://www.sao4th.com/documents/AR-M550N_20120412_053049.pdf

Doc44

FLIPPER 348
04-11-2012, 20:44
How does your dictionary define the word "assault"?


'my' dictionary??


The man had a choice and he chose to confront an unarmed man(after being told not to) and ended up shooting him. He will go down and rightly so.

DOC44
04-11-2012, 20:51
how will they ever be able to choose a jury for this trial. if you are on a jury that finds Z not guilty the NBP will put a bounty on your head and Al and Eric will hold a rally press conference to demonize the crackers and oreos on the jury, not to mention IRS audits for the rest of your life.

Doc44

G29Reload
04-11-2012, 20:56
I welcome the news of Zimmerman's arrest with open arms. If we remove race and the fact that Zimmerman is a member of the CCW fraternity.

And if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle.


Speak for yourself. The cops and the original prosecutor who all investigated the case found nothing.

Some people just didn't like that answer.

Zimmerman was where he was supposed to be, and doing what he was supposed to do.

The evidence is that Z was not chasing travon, he was returning to his truck and was jumped.

He was beaten to the ground and had a bloody head wound and nose and the back of his shirt was wet and covered with grass stains.

He had enough strength and presence of mine to extract his weapon and save his own life.

In the aftermath we had the media butchering 911 tapes to fabricate a racist mall ninja out of whole cloth where there was not one, and supplementing it by showing a picture of an 11 year old, and plastering it with references to Skittles, (like they're never consumed by anything but little kids and incapable of being bought, stolen or eaten by gang members, serial killers…just 8 year olds, unicorns and fluffy bunny rabbits while providing protection against bad character.

MEanwhile, Z cooperated with the police and told his story, and a witness was found to corroborate him.

It'll cost this poor guy 100k just to be found not guilty.

So, no, its not justice to indulge malicious politically motivated prosecution when none is appropriate.

lancesorbenson
04-11-2012, 20:57
'my' dictionary??


The man had a choice and he chose to confront an unarmed man(after being told not to) and ended up shooting him. He will go down and rightly so.

Confront=assault? I don't think so.

greentriple
04-11-2012, 20:59
The crucial piece of information missing is exactly what happened in between the time that the two men were aware of each other, and the gun was fired.

I don't know what happened. Maybe there is a good guy in this, maybe not.

I was pretty sure that he would be charged. Too much publicity. There will be a trial, and a lot of information will come out. Some will ignore the evidence to continue to hold their own foregone conclusions about the incident, and regardless of the outcome, there will be outrage. We live in interesting times.

I maintain a very strict policy that for me to have to shoot anyone, would be the second worst thing that could happen to me. It's still number two on the list. I'll avoid it if possible. It's much more expensive than most of us realize.

Right on.

For me as an American with the right to carry a gun I do everything I can to keep clear of any situation where I may have to use it. Avoid trouble is my mantra. Walk away from conflict. And when I have my gun, never, ever get face to face with anyone, unless 100% unavoidable.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

lancesorbenson
04-11-2012, 21:02
It'll cost this poor guy 100k just to be found not guilty.

Not to mention having to watch his back lest some of the frenzies come after him.

juggy4711
04-11-2012, 21:02
...I don't know what happened...

None of us do.

He was killed while unarmed after being confronted & assaulted. You call that justice??

I suppose, jumping a guy going to his car, beating him about the head and then trying to crush his skull and being stopped is what you call unjust?..

Oh wait I guess these two do.

FLIPPER 348
04-11-2012, 21:32
For me as an American with the right to carry a gun I do everything I can to keep clear of any situation where I may have to use it. Avoid trouble is my mantra. Walk away from conflict. And when I have my gun, never, ever get face to face with anyone, unless 100% unavoidable.




Had Mr Z followed the same sage advice he would be a free man tonight and not be going on trial for murder. However he pursued an unarmed man and ended up having to defend his life. As a self proclaimed neighborhood watch he did what they are supposed to do, report suspicious activity. He chose to go the next step against the advice of 911. Look where he is now.

greentriple
04-11-2012, 21:43
Had Mr Z followed the same sage advice he would be a free man tonight and not be going on trial for murder. However he pursued an unarmed man and ended up having to defend his life. As a self proclaimed neighborhood watch he did what they are supposed to do, report suspicious activity. He chose to go the next step against the advice of 911. Look where he is now.

And the sh$&er or us is he was armed and the anti gum lobby WILL try and capitalize on that.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Fred Hansen
04-11-2012, 21:44
Most of us would probably find him guilty. However, I am very interested in knowing more about the facts of this case.Is your mind really that hopelessly broken? Or are you just pulling everyone's leg?

GunHo198
04-11-2012, 21:49
I just hope they don't choose Tampa for the trial. My Resturant is in the hood and I don't need any more trouble than what I already have.

They can take the circus to Tallahassee!


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

mt920
04-11-2012, 21:53
Right on.

For me as an American with the right to carry a gun I do everything I can to keep clear of any situation where I may have to use it. Avoid trouble is my mantra. Walk away from conflict. And when I have my gun, never, ever get face to face with anyone, unless 100% unavoidable.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Agree.... Well said!

FLIPPER 348
04-11-2012, 22:37
And the sh$&er or us is he was armed and the anti gum lobby WILL try and capitalize on that.





should they??

plainsman
04-11-2012, 23:19
Lets hope Zimmerman gets the legal defense he deserves, no one can fight the witchhunt, and scapegoating, he is undergoing, without hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Here's the way a homeowner association neighborhood works, each homeowner has rights to be on the common areas, streets, sidewalks, pool areas etc, furthermore, these associations give homeowner crime patrols the right to be on their property and patrol. Trayvons status has not been determined. As a guest of a homeowner there, you are subject to all rules and regulations. It's does not give trayvon the right to trespass on other homeowners grounds. It does not give you the right to walk through other property owners back yards. etc.
I doubt if Mr. Zimmerman drove his car up on the grass and pursued trayvon, nor did the fact that trayvon felt "dissed," gave him the right to attack Zimmerman, and the physical evidence if collected should support this. Probably what went down was trayvon was outraged at being perceived as being followed, immediately dropped the ice tea, and skittles , which you don't drop your food unless you are looking to fight, ambushed and sucker punched zimmerman who was caught unaware, and was attempting to injure or kill Zimmerman when he was shot,.Witnesses reported trayvon on top of zimmerman beating him. trayvor could simply have run away, Zimmerman in a car,could not possibly have pursued him. I'd encourage everyone to contribute to Mr. Zimmerman's legal defense. All our rights are on the line. Other then pandering to the lawless mob, this man never would have been arrested.

Guss
04-12-2012, 00:03
I welcome the news of Zimmerman's arrest with open arms. If we remove race and the fact that Zimmerman is a member of the CCW fraternity. Most of us would probably find him guilty. However, I am very interested in knowing more about the facts of this case. Let's not forget that an arrest doesn't necessarily mean a guilty verdict. Plus, the "hold your ground" law shouldn't only apply to gun owners. It sound like Travon "held his ground" and kicked Zimmerman's @$$ after being chased by him. Which led to his death after a well whooped Zimmerman "held his ground" by shooting him.

However, as one poster mentioned, it is a sad day for this country. I wonder at times if Zimmerman was black and Travon was white, would this be handled and viewed differently by all of us.
Let's assume your portrayal of the events was the way it happened. Under those circumstances, if Trayvon had subdued Zimmerman and held him for police, that would have been perfectly legal. But proceeding to beat Zimmerman bloody while he was down and screaming for help would not have been legal even under those circumstances. So either way it came down, Zimmerman was within his rights to defend himself. He had no obligation to continue to lie there and take a beating, and if the kid made a grab for his gun, that's the clincher.

Yes it's a sad mess and will leave Florida CCW holders wondering just what their status is.

DustyJacket
04-12-2012, 00:04
I would like to think they did not file charges just to appease those yelling for an arrest. But, my gut says they did.

On the other hand, if they don't have enough to convict, this should help Zimmerman.

A not-guilty verdict means he cannot be tried again for the same charges for the same incident.
If they also file the lesser included charges (manslaughter, criminally neligence homicide, etc) he is safe from everything but a civil rights charge in the future.
And it would help him in the inevitable lawsuit.

A former Douglas County (Colorado) DA would file murder/homicide charges against officers involved in a legit shooting, rush to trial, and lose, just to protect the officers from future charges and suits.

juggy4711
04-12-2012, 00:15
Let's assume your portrayal of the events was the way it happened... How bout we don't and wait till all the evidence is revealed before we jump to conclusions? I know pure insanity right.

Allfal
04-12-2012, 00:15
Had Mr Z followed the same sage advice he would be a free man tonight and not be going on trial for murder. However he pursued an unarmed man and ended up having to defend his life. As a self proclaimed neighborhood watch he did what they are supposed to do, report suspicious activity. He chose to go the next step against the advice of 911. Look where he is now.

First of all, if we want to 2nd guess what may have happened, If Trayvon had not carried a baggie with drug residue to school, he would not have been suspended and therefore, not shot. If dad, taking T because he was suspended, had stayed home instead of going to dinner with his girlfriend and thus insuring T was punished by having to watch a b ball game, T would not be shot.

Second, anyone, even you, even if not in some neighborhood watch, have the right to observe, follow and even question some suspicious individual in their neighborhood. Absent certain types of crime that you directly observed, you may not detain them and they have no legal obligation to comply with any of your requests. You may even consider it your neighborly duty to observe, follow and report such suspicious activity.

Also, the 911 operator's advice was just that, adivice. They have no more legal authority than your butcher instucting you on how to cook a cut of steak.

This case has been handled very badly from the start. You had the subject from shortly after the moment of the shooting. Almost all the investigation was done in less than 7 days yet you wait 46 to charge him. He is such a dangerous individual that you schedule a press conference 2 days prior to the arrest, instead of the usual taking the subject into custody, then having the pressor. There are numerous more problems here.

I find myself hoping that there is some large, significant evidence that is not known to the public. The alternative is this individual was sacrificed for political correctness and gain. Unforgiveable, if true.

Big Mad Dawg
04-12-2012, 03:03
He was killed while unarmed after being confronted & assaulted. You call that justice??

This is your opinion and you know what they say about opinions.

What we know is what the media and racist dirt bags are saying they both may be angles or devils we won’t know until the facts are in. but what we do know is one was a suspected burglar so that may tip the scales a little.

Allfal
04-12-2012, 03:29
He was killed while unarmed after being confronted & assaulted. You call that justice??

Even if your fantasy were true, at what point of trayvon defending himself does it become an assault? By most accounts T broke Z's nose and straddled him, beating his head into the pavement.

I assume we have all listened to the tapes of the individual that sounds like an 8 yo girl screaming. Are you really trying to say that the person represented on that tape is 17 yo t, rejoicing for over 30 seconds in his victory over the young fat guy as he pounds his head into the pavement?

Sorry, it sounds to me as someone getting his butt beat and crying out like a girl, { no disrespect meant to either party}. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Bren
04-12-2012, 04:29
He got justice.

For once, I agree with you.

Bren
04-12-2012, 04:30
He was killed while unarmed after being confronted & assaulted. You call that justice??

Yes - you seem to be confusing "justice" and "a fair fight." The 2 rarely, if ever, go together.

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 05:02
"a fair fight."

There are no more fair fights in "stand your ground" states. Every assault, no matter how minor, has the potential for death. Therefore, by the dictates of the law, you're entitled to meet that threat with lethal force.

If someone follows and confronts you, and you fight back, you can be shot and killed and the law will be on their side.

Think you're gonna duke it out? Got in to an argument and someone threw a fist? Pop pop, there's a body.

The age of fistfights is dead.

Here's an article to digest:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930

Hyksos
04-12-2012, 05:05
There are no more fair fights in "stand your ground" states. Every assault, no matter how minor, has the potential for death. Therefore, by the dictates of the law, you're entitled to meet that threat with lethal force.

If someone follows and confronts you, and you fight back, you can be shot and killed and the law will be on their side.

Think you're gonna duke it out? Got in to an argument and someone threw a fist? Pop pop, there's a body.

The age of fistfights is dead.

Here's an article to digest:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930

If someone followed me and confronted me, I would probably just answer their question. I wouldn't attack them. Words alone are never enough to justify force. Even if you threaten me . . . without the apparent present ability to carry through with the threat, i can't use force.

Man says "im gonna kill you" and punches at you from 100 yards away = no apparent present ability = you can't use force

Man says "im gonna kill you" and punches at you from 2 feet away = go for it.

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 05:14
If someone followed me and confronted me, I would probably just answer their question.

Someone follows you for a quarter of a mile in the dark and rain, in to an alley, and you want to have a polite conversation with them. That's very metrosexual of you. Maybe you can exchange recipes.

Kingarthurhk
04-12-2012, 05:39
Had Mr Z followed the same sage advice he would be a free man tonight and not be going on trial for murder. However he pursued an unarmed man and ended up having to defend his life. As a self proclaimed neighborhood watch he did what they are supposed to do, report suspicious activity. He chose to go the next step against the advice of 911. Look where he is now.

Yes, never walk the streets of your own neighborhood if someone is out there that may not like you out there. Never make eye contact. Never follow anyone that might be offended by you walking near them.

So, let's review. Cower in your own home, never go out.

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 05:41
Someone follows you for a quarter of a mile in the dark and rain, in to an alley, and you want to have a polite conversation with them. That's very metrosexual of you. Maybe you can exchange recipes.

Following someone is not illegal.

Punching them in the face is, Trayvon became the aggressor at that point.

The evidence provided to date is that Trayvon was the only aggressor and initiated the physical contact that got him killed.

This took place after George had given up the pursuit.

Trayvon was the aggressor according to the evidence provided so far.

expatman
04-12-2012, 05:42
Someone follows you for a quarter of a mile in the dark and rain, in to an alley, and you want to have a polite conversation with them. That's very metrosexual of you. Maybe you can exchange recipes.

Just curious but are you trying to imply that if someone followed you into a dark alley in the rain that you would punch them in the face?

Kingarthurhk
04-12-2012, 05:45
Just curious but are you trying to imply that if someone followed you into a dark alley in the rain that you would punch them in the face?

There was no dark ally, and St. Trey jumped the guy as he was leaving and getting into his vehicle.

So, I guess St. Trey was then the follower, the agrressor, and the assaulter and the batterer.

And if Zimmerman had been killed that night rather than having the means to make the attempted murder on his life stop, it wouldn't even make page one in that town.

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 05:47
Following someone is not illegal.

Punching them in the face is, Trayvon became the aggressor at that point.

The evidence provided to date is that Trayvon was the only aggressor and initiated the physical contact that got him killed.

This took place after George had given up the pursuit.

Trayvon was the aggressor according to the evidence provided so far.

Based on what evidence? You're clearly full of it if you're making declarations of fact based on things that are clearly unknowable except the hearsay you clearly want to believe.

The only real evidence so far is that Zimmerman followed Martin and they confronted each other in a walkway more than 200 feet from a roadway where Zimmerman could have parked his vehicle. Everything else is speculation.

Kingarthurhk
04-12-2012, 05:51
Based on what evidence? You're clearly full of it if you're making declarations of fact based on things that are clearly unknowable except the hearsay you clearly want to believe.

The only real evidence so far is that Zimmerman followed Martin and they confronted each other in a walkway more than 200 feet from a roadway where Zimmerman could have parked his vehicle. Everything else is speculation.

Let's look at the real evidence. The assault and battery happened at Zimmerman's vehicle. In an open public area. This is while Zimmerman was attempting to leave the area.

I don't know what state, except now apparently Florida, where if you are ambushed getting into your vehicle and someone then tries to beat you to death that you are not allowed to defend yourself.

But, I guess, depending on how powerful your lobby is, you get to be above the law.

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 05:53
Just curious but are you trying to imply that if someone followed you into a dark alley in the rain that you would punch them in the face?

Well, maybe the next time a stranger follows you in the dark for hundreds of yards you'll have a polite conversation with them.

The last thing you'd ever do, I'm sure, is confront them.

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 06:00
There was no dark ally, and St. Trey jumped the guy as he was leaving and getting into his vehicle.

So, I guess St. Trey was then the follower, the agrressor, and the assaulter and the batterer.

And if Zimmerman had been killed that night rather than having the means to make the attempted murder on his life stop, it wouldn't even make page one in that town.

You're out of your depth. "Jumped the guy"? Maybe you'll show me the evidence for that statement. Oh, that's right, you can't because it doesn't exist.

You hear what you want to hear and discard the things you don't. You're an ideologue defending a political position. There's no way you can be taken seriously when you make declarations about things that are unknowable. My advice to you: sit in your corner and be quiet.

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 06:04
Let's look at the real evidence. The assault and battery happened at Zimmerman's vehicle.

Now you're just inventing things. The confrontation and killing happened between two rows of townhouses more than 200 feet away from any roadway.

You clearly need to take a break because this appears to be too stressful for you.

Restless28
04-12-2012, 06:04
The prosecutor sounds like a dunce. They better have some new solid evidence to get a Murder 2 rap.

Oh, and if gets a fair jury trial, and he's acquitted, the blacks will riot. If he's convicted, the whites will be upset and vocal and the blacks will party like its 1999.

Remember Rodney King and OJ?

If I lived where this trial is held, I would bug out. If I lived in an urban area on the verdict day, I would bug out.

This is going to be big, no matter which way it goes, IMO

certifiedfunds
04-12-2012, 06:07
There are no more fair fights in "stand your ground" states. Every assault, no matter how minor, has the potential for death.



Fair fights? We're supposed to have fair fights? This isn't an elementary school playground.

Nothing about stand your ground changes the requirements for using a gun in self-defense other than you don't have to flee first.

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 06:10
Fair fights? We're supposed to have fair fights? This isn't an elementary school playground.

Nothing about stand your ground changes the requirements for using a gun in self-defense other than you don't have to flee first.

I think you missed the point there chief.

Goaltender66
04-12-2012, 06:12
Fair fights? We're supposed to have fair fights? This isn't an elementary school playground.

Nothing about stand your ground changes the requirements for using a gun in self-defense other than you don't have to flee first.

Yep, and either way this went down, SYG doesn't apply anyway.

Since the fact picture suggests Martin was atop Zimmerman and punching him (after, apparently, circling back to confront Zimmerman after Zimmerman "lost him."), Martin denied Zimmerman the opportunity to retreat in the midst of the beating. Standard self-defense laws (AFAIK consistent across all 50 states) apply, not SYG.

Simply put, there is no law I know of requiring you to endure a beating. Add the element that Martin was apparently going for Zimmerman's gun and I can see why the original prosecutor declined to file charges.

expatman
04-12-2012, 06:18
Well, maybe the next time a stranger follows you in the dark for hundreds of yards you'll have a polite conversation with them.

The last thing you'd ever do, I'm sure, is confront them.

That is not what I asked you. You obviously do not have to answer though.

eracer
04-12-2012, 06:22
The crucial piece of information missing is exactly what happened in between the time that the two men were aware of each other, and the gun was fired.

I don't know what happened. Maybe there is a good guy in this, maybe not.

I was pretty sure that he would be charged. Too much publicity. There will be a trial, and a lot of information will come out. Some will ignore the evidence to continue to hold their own foregone conclusions about the incident, and regardless of the outcome, there will be outrage. We live in interesting times.

I maintain a very strict policy that for me to have to shoot anyone, would be the second worst thing that could happen to me. It's still number two on the list. I'll avoid it if possible. It's much more expensive than most of us realize.You know what would make me really happy?

If this woman had quoted your post, instead of calling for the death of whitey. She's here in Tampa area, openly calling for a race war.

What she and the other black activists fail to recognize is that there is a race war already on, and it's been going on since 1962. It's black on black crime, and it started when they didn't know how to handle their second emancipation, instead falling on each other like dogs.

But neither Jesse, nor Al, nor Michelle, nor any of the other "Blame Whitey" people want to talk about that.

"New Black Panther Party" Threatens Whites - YouTube

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 06:22
Yep, and either way this went down, SYG doesn't apply anyway.

Since the fact picture suggests Martin was atop Zimmerman and punching him (after, apparently, circling back to confront Zimmerman after Zimmerman "lost him."), Martin denied Zimmerman the opportunity to retreat in the midst of the beating. Standard self-defense laws (AFAIK consistent across all 50 states) apply, not SYG.

Simply put, there is no law I know of requiring you to endure a beating. Add the element that Martin was apparently going for Zimmerman's gun and I can see why the original prosecutor declined to file charges.

"Martin was atop Zimmerman and punching him"

"circling back to confront Zimmerman"

"denied Zimmerman the opportunity to retreat"

"the midst of the beating"

"Martin was apparently going for Zimmerman's gun"

And here I was thinking that you were about the only rational, credible member of this forum. Where exactly is your evidence for all the speculation you proffered?

What a pants load.

And since we're clearly in the land of speculation, have you seen the video of Zimmerman being delivered to the Sanford PD? Keep in mind that footage was taken 35 minutes after he killed Martin. Does that man look like he had been in a fight for his life?

For all your lawyerly chatter, apparently you're just another ideologue.

Deployment Solu
04-12-2012, 06:23
Disgusting. I weep for this country.

<< Weeping and preparing!!!!

HexHead
04-12-2012, 06:24
I heard today that Murder 2 in FL is defined as "depraved disregard for human life". Seems like a real stretch in this case.

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 06:25
That is not what I asked you. You obviously do not have to answer though.

You've got part of the method right, you avoided the initial argument and attempted to change the narrative by putting your opponent on the defensive. But you went soft on the follow up. I'm gonna have to give you a C for the effort.

expatman
04-12-2012, 06:28
You've got part of the method right, you avoided the initial argument and attempted to change the narrative by putting your opponent on the defensive. But you went soft on the follow up. I'm gonna have to give you a C for the effort.

So I assume you are not going to answer the question. That is OK.

I am left with the impression that you think it is OK to assault someone who is following you in a dark alley in the rain. Someone who has yet to assaulty YOU.

Thank you, and please do not get snippy with me. I am trying to be polite.

MoCop
04-12-2012, 06:30
Because the media turned this into a race issue, Zimmerman was damned from the get-go. Not surprising.

Goaltender66
04-12-2012, 06:31
"Martin was atop Zimmerman and punching him"

"circling back to confront Zimmerman"

"denied Zimmerman the opportunity to retreat"

"the midst of the beating"

"Martin was apparently going for Zimmerman's gun"

And here I was thinking that you were about the only rational, credible member of this forum. Where exactly is your evidence for all the speculation you proffered?

What a pants load.

And since we're clearly in the land of speculation, have you seen the video of Zimmerman being delivered to the Sanford PD? Keep in mind that footage was taken 35 minutes after he killed Martin. Does that man look like he had been in a fight for his life?

For all your lawyerly chatter, apparently you're just another ideologue.

Earlier I think you accused another member of only seeing what he wanted to see. I think you're actually projecting slightly.

One report said Zimmerman's Kel-Tec hadn't cycled. That says something prevented it from doing so, like, say, a struggle? Kind of explains why there was only one shot too. Not having the stats in front of me but a single shot seems pretty tame for a guy who was trying to kill the hell out of someone based on sheer malice, doesn't it?

Witnesses there said Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him. Zimmerman was crying for help. The 911 call clearly has Zimmerman saying he lost Martin, so somehow they had to reconnect. Enough reasonable doubt there to drive a truck through. The mere fact that Martin wasn't letting Zimmerman get away is good enough support that self defence is the question, not SYG.

Murder 2 is a pretty heavy charge. Part of me is wondering if the prosecutor overcharged in the hopes of an acquittal.

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 06:33
Based on what evidence? You're clearly full of it if you're making declarations of fact based on things that are clearly unknowable except the hearsay you clearly want to believe.

The only real evidence so far is that Zimmerman followed Martin and they confronted each other in a walkway more than 200 feet from a roadway where Zimmerman could have parked his vehicle. Everything else is speculation.

Not according to the witness

"Martin was atop Zimmerman and punching him"

"circling back to confront Zimmerman"

"denied Zimmerman the opportunity to retreat"

"the midst of the beating"

"Martin was apparently going for Zimmerman's gun"

And here I was thinking that you were about the only rational, credible member of this forum. Where exactly is your evidence for all the speculation you proffered?

What a pants load.

And since we're clearly in the land of speculation, have you seen the video of Zimmerman being delivered to the Sanford PD? Keep in mind that footage was taken 35 minutes after he killed Martin. Does that man look like he had been in a fight for his life?

For all your lawyerly chatter, apparently you're just another ideologue.

Are you now suggesting the witness was lying?

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 06:39
So I assume you are not going to answer the question. That is OK.

I am left with the impression that you think it is OK to assault someone who is following you in a dark alley in the rain. Someone who has yet to assaulty YOU.

Thank you, and please do not get snippy with me. I am trying to be polite.


Snippy? You took the bait and confronted me thus proving part of the point I was making in the first place. Now I'm going to have revise that grade to a D. You have much to learn.

And if you really want an answer is that I'm a pretty laid back guy. When someone follows me at night and confronts me on a secluded walkway I would just chat them up. You and me both, right?

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 06:41
Snippy? You took the bait and confronted me thus proving part of the point I was making in the first place. Now I'm going to have revise that grade to a D. You have much to learn.

And if you really want an answer is that I'm a pretty laid back guy. When someone follows me at night and confronts me on a secluded walkway I would just chat them up. You and me both, right?

Once again, following someone is not a crime.

DOC44
04-12-2012, 06:41
Earlier I think you accused another member of only seeing what he wanted to see. I think you're actually projecting slightly.

One report said Zimmerman's Kel-Tec hadn't cycled. That says something prevented it from doing so, like, say, a struggle? Kind of explains why there was only one shot too. Not having the stats in front of me but a single shot seems pretty tame for a guy who was trying to kill the hell out of someone based on sheer malice, doesn't it?

Witnesses there said Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him. Zimmerman was crying for help. The 911 call clearly has Zimmerman saying he lost Martin, so somehow they had to reconnect. Enough reasonable doubt there to drive a truck through. The mere fact that Martin wasn't letting Zimmerman get away is good enough support that self defence is the question, not SYG.

Murder 2 is a pretty heavy charge. Part of me is wondering if the prosecutor overcharged in the hopes of an acquittal.

Had the same thought..... posted it somewhere in these twisted know it all posts.

Doc44

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 06:42
Earlier I think you accused another member of only seeing what he wanted to see. I think you're actually projecting slightly.

One report said Zimmerman's Kel-Tec hadn't cycled. That says something prevented it from doing so, like, say, a struggle? Kind of explains why there was only one shot too. Not having the stats in front of me but a single shot seems pretty tame for a guy who was trying to kill the hell out of someone based on sheer malice, doesn't it?

Witnesses there said Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him. Zimmerman was crying for help. The 911 call clearly has Zimmerman saying he lost Martin, so somehow they had to reconnect. Enough reasonable doubt there to drive a truck through. The mere fact that Martin wasn't letting Zimmerman get away is good enough support that self defence is the question, not SYG.

Murder 2 is a pretty heavy charge. Part of me is wondering if the prosecutor overcharged in the hopes of an acquittal.

"The mere fact that Martin wasn't letting Zimmerman get away is good enough support that self defence is the question"

One more assertion that has no basis in evidence in addition to all the others that you haven't answered for.

*shakes head*

expatman
04-12-2012, 06:43
Snippy? You took the bait and confronted me thus proving part of the point I was making in the first place. Now I'm going to have revise that grade to a D. You have much to learn.

And if you really want an answer is that I'm a pretty laid back guy. When someone follows me at night and confronts me on a secluded walkway I would just chat them up. You and me both, right?

Thanks for that clarification. I agree. I would "chat them up" as you say. More likely from me I would just ask them if they needed something. I would do it in a strong yet nonconfrontational voice and be prepared for any aggression. I feal that would be a reasonable response, since you asked.
:wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 06:43
"The mere fact that Martin wasn't letting Zimmerman get away is good enough support that self defence is the question"

One more assertion that has no basis in evidence in addition to all the others that you haven't answered for.

*shakes head*

Why do you discount the witness?

HexHead
04-12-2012, 06:43
Murder 2 is a pretty heavy charge. Part of me is wondering if the prosecutor overcharged in the hopes of an acquittal.

I also wonder if she was pressured by 0bama and Holder to file charges, so she came up with one it would be near impossible to get a conviction on? No way this is a "depraved disregard for human life" beyond a reasonable doubt case unless it's an all black jury.

eracer
04-12-2012, 06:44
Snippy? You took the bait and confronted me thus proving part of the point I was making in the first place. Now I'm going to have revise that grade to a D. You have much to learn.

And if you really want an answer is that I'm a pretty laid back guy. When someone follows me at night and confronts me on a secluded walkway I would just chat them up. You and me both, right?While I've got no dog in the tail-wagging romp you guys are enjoying, I would point out that admitting to being a troll by stating "You took the bait" is of questionable value to your future here. (Even if you didn't cast a line into the murky waters...)

DOC44
04-12-2012, 06:45
Why do you discount the witness?

cause he know ebertang.

Doc44

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 06:47
Not according to the witness



Are you now suggesting the witness was lying?

I'm willing to spend the time to analyze any direct evidence that's presented in this thread.

Keep in mind that I'm pretty well versed in this case. I've seen witness John's statements. I've also seen the statements of the four other major witnesses. They are conflicting, to say the least.

So knock yourself out. If you want to really be honest then gather up all the witness testimony, not just that which you want to hear.

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 06:48
cause he know ebertang.

Doc44

For someone that is all wound up over the lack of evidence and speculation I would think he could use the witness to his advantage in the argument as opposed to pretending he didn't exist.

rgregoryb
04-12-2012, 06:48
cause he know ebertang.

Doc44

noes u diddint..........................:supergrin:

Goaltender66
04-12-2012, 06:48
"The mere fact that Martin wasn't letting Zimmerman get away is good enough support that self defence is the question"

One more assertion that has no basis in evidence in addition to all the others that you haven't answered for.

*shakes head*

Why are you so studiously ignoring Syntaxerrorsix? You seem very determined to ignore the witnesses there who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him. Police report supports the claim that Zimmerman was on his back in a tussle. There is a contemporaneous 911 call where you can clearly hear Zimmerman calling for help.

Are the witnesses lying?

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 06:49
I'm willing to spend the time to analyze any direct evidence that's presented in this thread.

Keep in mind that I'm pretty well versed in this case. I've seen witness John's statements. I've also seen the statements of the four other major witnesses. They are conflicting, to say the least.

So knock yourself out. If you want to really be honest then gather up all the witness testimony, not just that which you want to hear.

Ok then let's start out with the witness that saw Trayvon straddling George while beating him.

DOC44
04-12-2012, 06:51
Ok then let's start out with the witness that saw Trayvon straddling George while beating him.

that one is lying....

Doc44

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 06:51
that one is lying....

Doc44

Rats..

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 06:55
Why are you so studiously ignoring Syntaxerrorsix? You seem very determined to ignore the witnesses there who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him. Police report supports the claim that Zimmerman was on his back in a tussle. There is a contemporaneous 911 call where you can clearly hear Zimmerman calling for help.

Are the witnesses lying?

The answer to your question can be understood in how the question was phrased. As in "the" witness, meaning one witness, as in the one you want to believe and repeat. There are other witness accounts that contradict the statements of "John". Unsurprisingly, no one here wants to speak about those statements at all.

DOC44
04-12-2012, 06:59
The answer to your question can be understood in how the question was phrased. As in "the" witness, meaning one witness, as in the one you want to believe and repeat. There are other witness accounts that contradict the statements of "John". Unsurprisingly, no one here wants to speak about those statements at all.

It was very dark............

The larger guy, Zimmerman, was on top

My thirteen year old little girl looked out the window and said

The officer told me that.......

:whistling:

Doc44

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 07:01
It was very dark............

The larger guy, Zimmerman, was on top

My thirteen year old little girl looked out the window and said

The officer told me that.......

:whistling:

Doc44

:poke:

MZBKA
04-12-2012, 07:04
The crucial piece of information missing is exactly what happened in between the time that the two men were aware of each other, and the gun was fired.

I don't know what happened. Maybe there is a good guy in this, maybe not.

I was pretty sure that he would be charged. Too much publicity. There will be a trial, and a lot of information will come out. Some will ignore the evidence to continue to hold their own foregone conclusions about the incident, and regardless of the outcome, there will be outrage. We live in interesting times.

I maintain a very strict policy that for me to have to shoot anyone, would be the second worst thing that could happen to me. It's still number two on the list. I'll avoid it if possible. It's much more expensive than most of us realize.
This is a very reasonable post.

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 07:04
Ok then let's start out with the witness that saw Trayvon straddling George while beating him.

Ok, knock yourself out. Of course this is "John's" anonymous witness testimony. There's also witness testimony stating from the elderly un-named school teacher that specifies Zimmerman straddling then rolling off of Martin after the gunshot.

Look, I'm aware of all this testimony. Some of it is contradictory. However none of it details what happened before or during the initial moments of the confrontation.

If you want to nitpick the perceivable details I suggest you go and fact check some of the ludicrous statements in this thread about motive and intent by other party. Most of them are completely unprovable.. but here you are challenging me.

DOC44
04-12-2012, 07:08
Concerning witnesses it all comes down to credibility.

Doc44

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 07:10
Ok, knock yourself out. Of course this is "John's" anonymous witness testimony. There's also witness testimony stating from the elderly un-named school teacher that specifies Zimmerman straddling then rolling off of Martin after the gunshot.

Look, I'm aware of all this testimony. Some of it is contradictory. However none of it details what happened before or during the initial moments of the confrontation.

If you want to nitpick the perceivable details I suggest you go and fact check some of the ludicrous statements in this thread about motive and intent by other party. Most of them are completely unprovable.. but here you are challenging me.

The only thing that matters is who the current aggressor is when the shot was fired.

If Trayvon was the aggressor then George's shoot is clean.

If George was the aggressor and beating Trayvon the shoot would not be clean.

According to the witness George was being straddled and beat by Trayvon. According to the PD and EMT George was treated for a cut on the back of his head and a broken nose. Other than the gunshot no other wounds were reported on Tryavon's body.

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 07:15
Concerning witnesses it all comes down to credibility.

Doc44

Actually, for most of the people here, it comes down to which witness affirms a preconceived notion of what they believe occurred. Certainly it hasn't eluded you that the only witness testimony offered up here is one that supports the concepts, as presented so artfully by Goaltendert66, that:

"Martin was atop Zimmerman and punching him"

"circling back to confront Zimmerman"

"denied Zimmerman the opportunity to retreat"

"Martin was apparently going for Zimmerman's gun"

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 07:19
Actually, for most of the people here, it comes down to which witness affirms a preconceived notion of what they believe occurred. Certainly it hasn't eluded you that the only witness testimony offered up here is one that supports the concepts, as presented so artfully by Goaltendert66, that:

"Martin was atop Zimmerman and punching him"

"circling back to confront Zimmerman"

"denied Zimmerman the opportunity to retreat"

"Martin was apparently going for Zimmerman's gun"

Are you going to present an argument or just stand there and bark at everyone else?

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 07:21
According to the PD and EMT George was treated for a cut on the back of his head and a broken nose. Other than the gunshot no other wounds were reported on Tryavon's body.

That's factually false. Zimmerman was not treated for a broken nose by the PD of FD at the scene.

And, assuming that everything else you said was true, it's a sad state of affairs. What you're saying is that getting in to a fight is a thing of the past. No more fist fights, no more brawls. Every confrontation is a life or death matter settled with a gun. But I guess that's the way you want it.

RC-RAMIE
04-12-2012, 07:23
The only thing that matters is who the current aggressor is when the shot was fired.

If Trayvon was the aggressor then George's shoot is clean.

If George was the aggressor and beating Trayvon the shoot would not be clean.

According to the witness George was being straddled and beat by Trayvon. According to the PD and EMT George was treated for a cut on the back of his head and a broken nose. Other than the gunshot no other wounds were reported on Tryavon's body.

IF George was the aggressor and Trayvon was acting in self defense does he not have the same right to use deadly force, even unarmed using his bare hands? If you were fighting somebody that was the aggressor and you got a advantage and ended up on top noticed a gun do you continue the fight until the guy and the gun is no longer a threat?

I don't know who the original aggressor was hopefully we find out in court but you shouldn't lose you right to use deadly force in self-defense because you are unarmed. Isn't who the original aggressor was more important then who was the aggressor when the shot fired?


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 07:24
Are you going to present an argument or just stand there and bark at everyone else?

Apparently you've lost the plot. If you have any evidence to provide I will address it... as I clearly stated above. You have not done so.

So are you going to present any evidence you just whine from the sidelines?

RC-RAMIE
04-12-2012, 07:25
DBL post

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 07:26
That's factually false. Zimmerman was not treated for a broken nose by the PD of FD at the scene.

Officer Timothy Smith arrived after shots were fired.... .....While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/02/Trayvon-Police-Reports

Zimmerman was treated by paramedics at the scene.....

..... a call from the scene for a second ambulance to treat Zimmerman was canceled.

His injuries were also apparently light enough for cops to take him to the station with his hands cuffed behind him.....

......funeral director who prepared Trayvon’s body for burial said the teenager had no bruising on his knuckles or any other sign that he had been in a brawl.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-04-02/news/31276964_1_enhanced-video-police-station-injuries



.....The report also said Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and the back of the head.

www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/30793540/detail.html#ixzz1rpinPztI

I have not seen any evidence to believe he was not treated at the scene. Do you have any?





And, assuming that everything else you said was true, it's a sad state of affairs. What you're saying is that getting in to a fight is a thing of the past. No more fist fights, no more brawls. Every confrontation is a life or death matter settled with a gun. But I guess that's the way you want it.

Yes, assaulting people is a thing of the past. If you do it you may end up dead. Here we agree.

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 07:29
IF George was the aggressor and Trayvon was acting in self defense does he not have the same right to use deadly force, even unarmed using his bare hands? If you were fighting somebody that was the aggressor and you got a advantage and ended up on top noticed a gun do you continue the fight until the guy and the gun is no longer a threat?

I don't know who the original aggressor was hopefully we find out in court but you shouldn't lose you right to use deadly force in self-defense because you are unarmed. Isn't who the original aggressor was more important then who was the aggressor when the shot fired?


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul


Yes, absolutely. If he was in fear for his life most certainly. There is no evidence presented so far to reflect that however.

DOC44
04-12-2012, 07:34
Yes, absolutely. If he was in fear for his life most certainly. There is no evidence presented so far to reflect that however.

Just Z's word .... he is the only witness that saw everything and knows what he thought.

Doc44

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 07:42
Yes, absolutely. If he was in fear for his life most certainly. There is no evidence presented so far to reflect that however.

Let's say I follow you, at night, back to your home. A confrontation occurs. We fight, I shoot you, and you die. God forbid anyone starts whining about evidence and whatnot. I've got a pretty good story. You're kind of a shady character. You probably deserved it.

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 07:43
Just Z's word .... he is the only witness that saw everything and knows what he thought.

Doc44

Agreed.

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 07:44
Let's say I follow you, at night, back to your home. A confrontation occurs. We fight, I shoot you, and you die. God forbid anyone starts whining about evidence and whatnot. I've got a pretty good story. You're kind of a shady character. You probably deserved it.

Who started the fight?

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 07:46
Just Z's word .... he is the only witness that saw everything and knows what he thought.

Doc44

Technically, he's the one of two people to live and tell their tale.

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 07:49
Who started the fight?

Since you're dead, I say you did it. After all, I was in a fight for my life. Please ignore the video taken 35 minutes after I shot you where I'm looking pretty normal at the PD intake.

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 07:51
Since you're dead, I say you did it. After all, I was in a fight for my life. Please ignore the video taken 35 minutes after I shot you where I'm looking pretty normal at the PD intake.

So we are discounting the witnesses again.

Got it.

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 07:52
I'd say that wraps things up. You asked for evidence I provided it and asked for yours and you provided nothing. Have a great day :wavey:

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 07:55
So we are discounting the witnesses again.

Got it.

The witness that saw you on top of me beating me or the witness that saw me straddling your dead body?

I've never ignored a witness in this case. In fact, I've implored people to honestly address all witness testimony with little success.

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 08:00
The witness that saw you on top of me beating me or the witness that saw me straddling your dead body?

I've never ignored a witness in this case. In fact, I've implored people to honestly address all witness testimony with little success.


I provided evidence from the EMT, Police Report, Funeral Director and the eye witness.

I don't know what else you would like. You never responded to post #122 so I figured you were done. Do you have something to add or is it time for more barking?

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 08:11
I provided evidence from the EMT, Police Report, Funeral Director and the eye witness.

I don't know what else you would like. You never responded to post #122 so I figured you were done. Do you have something to add or is it time for more barking?

You said Zimmerman was treated for a broken nose, on scene, by the PD or FD. That's clearly not true.

The timing of the aftermath may be of interest to you. As would the actual staging of the even but that's for another post.

Zimmerman was first met by SPD, on scene, at approximately 7:22pm. During the next 35 minutes he was, detained, questioned by the police, treated breifly and transported to the PD headquarters approximately 5.5 miles away, a 12 minute drive. No report suggests that he was identified with or treated for a broken nose in the 23 odd minutes after he shot Martin until he was transported to the police station.

sr556m9
04-12-2012, 08:13
This whole thing just shows how our once great nation is going right down the toilet. The media in this country is our worst enemy. All they do is spread lies and incite violence. People better get their heads out of their asses and start voting these people who are running our country out of office. Look for a HUGE assault on the Stand your ground laws and CCW in general. And I do believe the prosecutor folded to public pressure on this one. They don't want any trouble out of the black community. Basically, our nation is full of absolute cowards these day.

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 08:15
You said Zimmerman was treated for a broken nose, on scene, by the PD or FD. That's clearly not true.

The timing of the aftermath may be of interest to you. As would the actual staging of the even but that's for another post.

Zimmerman was first met by SPD, on scene, at approximately 7:22pm. During the next 35 minutes he was, detained, questioned by the police, treated breifly and transported to the PD headquarters approximately 5.5 miles away, a 12 minute drive. No report suggests that he was identified with or treated for a broken nose in the 23 odd minutes after he shot Martin until he was transported to the police station.

That's it? That's what you are going with? It wasn't broken? Ok I'll concede, his nose wasn't broken he was only treated for the cut on his head and a bloody nose not a broken nose.

Well that certainly clears things up. Totally changes my outlook of the story and the evidence presented so far

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 08:25
That's it? That's what you are going with? It wasn't broken? Ok I'll concede, his nose wasn't broken he was only treated for the cut on his head and a bloody nose not a broken nose.

Well that certainly clears things up. Totally changes my outlook of the story and the evidence presented so far

That's very big of you. It only took about 3 posts for you to admit that your exaggeration was untrue.

syntaxerrorsix
04-12-2012, 08:27
Alright I'm tagging out, time for someone else to feed him. Amazing.

Flintlocker
04-12-2012, 08:39
Alright I'm tagging out, time for someone else to feed him. Amazing.

Ahh, I didn't realize that you edited a post 30 minutes later adding news sources from breitbart and dailynews, and that that was your basis for your claim of having provided evidence from "EMT, Police Report, Funeral Director and the eye witness."

Did you know that you can actually find the real police reports online at the Sanford Police website? Did you know that there's been no public release of a report from any EMT agency? Did you realize that you actually didn't provide any evidence whatsoever from the Funeral Director? Do you realize that you've only intimated about the anonymous testimony of a single eye-witness (note: you haven't provided any direct reporting) and have ignored all others? Do you realize you're out of your depth?

QNman
04-12-2012, 08:45
How bout we don't and wait till all the evidence is revealed before we jump to conclusions? I know pure insanity right.

That's just insane. Next you'll be suggesting we let a jury decide!

callihan_44
04-12-2012, 09:15
This whole thing just shows how our once great nation is going right down the toilet. The media in this country is our worst enemy. All they do is spread lies and incite violence. People better get their heads out of their asses and start voting these people who are running our country out of office. Look for a HUGE assault on the Stand your ground laws and CCW in general. And I do believe the prosecutor folded to public pressure on this one. They don't want any trouble out of the black community. Basically, our nation is full of absolute cowards these day.

I agree, there are people today still believe that EVERYTHING you hear from the media IS the truth and dont bother even looking further. The days of the mainstream media actually digging for the truth is LONG GONE.

Big Mad Dawg
04-12-2012, 09:16
Alright I'm tagging out, time for someone else to feed him. Amazing.

I doubt anyone cares to argue further with him as he is blind to any other point of view but his own interpretation of the limited information.
No need to waste any time on a closed mind.:yawn:

SCmasterblaster
04-12-2012, 10:37
I welcome the news of Zimmerman's arrest with open arms. If we remove race and the fact that Zimmerman is a member of the CCW fraternity. Most of us would probably find him guilty. However, I am very interested in knowing more about the facts of this case. Let's not forget that an arrest doesn't necessarily mean a guilty verdict. Plus, the "hold your ground" law shouldn't only apply to gun owners. It sound like Travon "held his ground" and kicked Zimmerman's @$$ after being chased by him. Which led to his death after a well whooped Zimmerman "held his ground" by shooting him.

However, as one poster mentioned, it is a sad day for this country. I wonder at times if Zimmerman was black and Travon was white, would this be handled and viewed differently by all of us.

GOOD post. :cool::wavey:

greentriple
04-12-2012, 10:59
Actually, as a defense attorney, who would gladly represent Mr. Zimmerman, I have to agree with Flintlocker. I read all 8 pages of this and I'm not shocked one bit at the ideological and emotional rants.

The person who started the fight is relevant, and from what is available to date it's unclear who did. Once the fight is on the "victim" may only use reasonable force in defense. In other words, if in a fist fight you can not escalate with a weapon, unless doing so is reasonable under the circumstances. The reasonableness of the action is a jury question. Now if you, in defending yourself use deadly force you must prove that you reasonably feared for your life. If you are confronted by less than lethal force or you unreasonably believe the force is lethal you do not have the right to use deadly force, you can not avail yourself of perfect self-defense.

A jury will decide:

1) who was the initial aggressor.
2) if self defense was justified - was there real fear.
3) was the use of deadly force reasonable.

Remember the prosecution must prove that the right to self defense (SD) was not justified, and they must do so beyond a reasonable doubt. However, even if the right to SD existed the "victim" must be in reasonable fear and the degree of force must be reasonable and he must establish that by a preponderance of the evidence.

An example: a defendant was ambushed by 3 larger men, one of whom sucker punched him in the face, knocking him to the ground. (mind you all is is all captured on video) The puncher, who is 30 lbs heavier and 6 inches taller straddles the Defendant and begins to pummel him as the other two throw a couple of kicks to the Defendant's legs. The defendant fearing for his life pulls a gun, the puncher gets off and begins to back away, during his movement off the defendant a single shot is fired one of the three men, not the puncher is killed. The others flee.

The jury found that the defendant was entitled to self defense, and to defend himself was reasonable, however they felt the use of a gun and thus deadly force was unreasonable in a fist fight. Several jurors said in interviews, "you can't kill some one just because your getting your butt kicked."

Food for thought.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

czsmithGT
04-12-2012, 12:01
Remember the prosecution must prove that the right to self defense (SD) was not justified, and they must do so beyond a reasonable doubt. However, even if the right to SD existed the "victim" must be in reasonable fear and the degree of force must be reasonable and he must establish that by a preponderance of the evidence.

An example: a defendant was ambushed by 3 larger men, one of whom sucker punched him in the face, knocking him to the ground. (mind you all is is all captured on video) The puncher, who is 30 lbs heavier and 6 inches taller straddles the Defendant and begins to pummel him as the other two throw a couple of kicks to the Defendant's legs. The defendant fearing for his life pulls a gun, the puncher gets off and begins to back away, during his movement off the defendant a single shot is fired one of the three men, not the puncher is killed. The others flee.

The jury found that the defendant was entitled to self defense, and to defend himself was reasonable, however they felt the use of a gun and thus deadly force was unreasonable in a fist fight. Several jurors said in interviews, "you can't kill some one just because your getting your butt kicked."

Food for thought.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Being aware that some jurors could have the type of mindset shown here, couldn't the defense attorney have presented evidence of other incidents of unarmed people having been beaten to death by a larger, stronger attacker thus proving the use of a gun in self defense in this situation was not unreasonable?

greentriple
04-12-2012, 12:25
Nope. It's restricted to the particular defendant and the particular "victim", and what's in their head and heart at the moment although the D need not personally know of the V history of violence. The V history of violence is relevant, but what others did or experienced is not, unless you can present a valid expert with valid studies and it passes particular rules of evidence. It's a reasonable person standard at that moment


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
04-12-2012, 12:27
Being aware that some jurors could have the type of mindset shown here, couldn't the defense attorney have presented evidence of other incidents of unarmed people having been beaten to death by a larger, stronger attacker thus proving the use of a gun in self defense in this situation was not unreasonable?

The problem is more clearly explained like this: for every piece of evidence showing that a big guy killed a smaller guy with his bare hands you could present the opposite. Not useful to a jury in deciding if the D acted reasonably in the case in point they are deciding.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

GunHo198
04-12-2012, 13:09
So of a kid comes into my shop and points a gun at me and demands money... Me being a shooter and having been through this before, and being cool headed and well trained, not feeling scared for my life as I've again been through this 3 other times, I draw my side arm and shoot and kill the kid because he's pointing a gun at me...

I could be found guilty of second degree murder?

Just asking, cause I often think about this. I'm more concerned for my staff than myself. I dont talk to the suspects anymore, I just shoot...


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

RC-RAMIE
04-12-2012, 13:29
So of a kid comes into my shop and points a gun at me and demands money... Me being a shooter and having been through this before, and being cool headed and well trained, not feeling scared for my life as I've again been through this 3 other times, I draw my side arm and shoot and kill the kid because he's pointing a gun at me...

I could be found guilty of second degree murder?

Just asking, cause I often think about this. I'm more concerned for my staff than myself. I dont talk to the suspects anymore, I just shoot...


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Somebody pointing a gun at you is reasonable fear of your life, just because you are some badass like Raylan Givens does not change that.

GunHo198
04-12-2012, 13:49
Not bad ass, but I do have the right skill set. I anticipated robberies and built the store accordingly. The first time it happened I wasn't even opened a year. My partner had me retain a lawyer just in case. I kinda felt I wasted money for an attorney. The 3rd time I just happened to swing by the shop at closing and my employee buzzed the door to let someone in, when the held the door opened she shouted to me that it didn't look right. Another kid ran in with a mask and a shotgun. I drew and shot 3 times he dropped the gun and both ran off.

Later he turned up at a friends house with 2 bullet wounds and told the cops he was robbed for his crack at the street corner. Ballistics showed it was me that shot him.

I wasn't in fear for my life but for my staff. Employees start dropping when they get robbed....

But I often wonder that in court, of a prosecutor can prove because I have training and wasn't in fear for my life, and could have taken the kid at any point that they could charge me even though the kid was armed with an unloaded shotgun...


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

czsmithGT
04-12-2012, 14:08
prosecutor can prove because I have training and wasn't in fear for my life,

No prosecutor could prove that with a gun pointed at you, you were not in fear for your life. Well, at least as long as you didn't run around shouting that you were never worried.

GunHo198
04-12-2012, 14:22
No prosecutor could prove that with a gun pointed at you, you were not in fear for your life. Well, at least as long as you didn't run around shouting that you were never worried.

Well... Like Zimmerman, I would never admit it at the time...


:whistling:

Kingarthurhk
04-12-2012, 15:58
Nope. It's restricted to the particular defendant and the particular "victim", and what's in their head and heart at the moment although the D need not personally know of the V history of violence. The V history of violence is relevant, but what others did or experienced is not, unless you can present a valid expert with valid studies and it passes particular rules of evidence. It's a reasonable person standard at that moment


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Well, let's review. There was no evidence to arrest Zimmerman, no one was going to prosecute. so they had to employ a "special prosecutor". Moreover, they have not moved to change venue despite the clear bias against Zimmerman in the area.

All these actions are very telling. This trial is about fear and race, not the facts or evidence.

Kingarthurhk
04-12-2012, 16:01
Just Z's word .... he is the only witness that saw everything and knows what he thought.

Doc44

Wrong, there were other people who witnessed the altercation and made 911 calls of their own.

Kingarthurhk
04-12-2012, 16:05
You're out of your depth. "Jumped the guy"? Maybe you'll show me the evidence for that statement. Oh, that's right, you can't because it doesn't exist.

You hear what you want to hear and discard the things you don't. You're an ideologue defending a political position. There's no way you can be taken seriously when you make declarations about things that are unknowable. My advice to you: sit in your corner and be quiet.

You hear what you are spoon fed. Rather, than looking at all the various sources, you sent with the lame stream media like NBC who is currently being investigated for altering the 911 call to put a racial bias that was not present.

I will not sit in the corner, or in the back of the bus.

I guess I am just the Rosa Parks of justice on this one.

No one should be allowed to ambush a man at his vehicle, punch him the face and apply a deadly force action of slamming someone's skull against the concrete and not expect a defensive action that may result in their own demise.

This wasn't some 11 year old, that you surely have digested from Time Magazine. It was a 6'3 150 pound mound of muscle jumping a much smaller and weaker man.

So, why don't you get your facts some place other than Time, NBC, and the Black Panthers.

DOC44
04-12-2012, 16:09
Wrong, there were other people who witnessed the altercation and made 911 calls of their own.

Wrong. Reread my post. The key word is "everything".

Z is the ONLY person that knows everything about what happened and the only person who know if he was in fear of his life.

Doc44

czsmithGT
04-12-2012, 16:25
no one was going to prosecute. so they had to employ a "special prosecutor".

With all due respect, you have your facts wrong. The prosecutor was going to present his case to a grand jury and in fact had already scheduled that for last Tuesday. In the meantime, the Governor replaced the prosecutor with someone who decided to forgo the grand jury (not in any way unusual).

So to say "no one was going to prosecute" is simply not in any way close to being true.

madbaumer
04-12-2012, 16:34
I ask those from FL -does not the Stand your ground law prevent charges unless the evidence say otherwise. So if thats the case how can charges be filed with evidence being presented to a judge to show a crime other then a selfdefense action occured?

I agree she was way to happy about the whole thing ! I guess we wait for the very public hearing.

Well I found it!

"In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful."

FL better have some very good evidence or like I said Zimmerman is going to be a very rich man!

Which is why a 2nd degree murder charge may not stick.

Wake_jumper
04-12-2012, 16:48
The most interesting testimony will be that of the girlfriend who was supposedly on the phone with Tray at the time. I bet that they will take whatever she says as gospel. And she can say whatever she wants to, there isn’t any way to corroborate her story.

mt920
04-12-2012, 17:09
Yes, absolutely. If he was in fear for his life most certainly. There is no evidence presented so far to reflect that however.

You're absolutely right. There is no evidence supporting that Trayvon feared for his life. In addition, there's no evidence supporting that he didn't fear for his life.

There's a lot of speculation out there, which, leads to everyone including me to draw our own conclusion.

But what if...

• Zimmerman's broken nose wasn't a result of the fight with Trayvon. He did refuse EMS attention. At least that what the liberal media reported...

• Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, as a result of having the perceived upper hand during a struggle for control of the gun.

• The cut behind Zimmerman's head was a result of grabbing Trayvon; which, led to Zimmerman landing on his head after Trayvon hit him in the face.

• Screaming means nothing to me.... I can scream for help and point a gun at someone at the same time. I can push the nose of a pistol in someone chest and scream for help. I can pull the trigger of a pistol and scream for help in the process. The question is why am I screaming for help. Am I screaming for help because the prey quickly turned the table (by standing his ground) and became the aggressor.

Regardless, we all drew our on conclusion to the story for whatever reason (e.g. race related matters, support for a member of the CCW frat, etc...). But one thing we can count on is the truth may never be told. There's two sides of the story, and I'm pretty sure Zimmerman may not be completely honest (e.g. He looks like he's on drugs...) here.

mt920
04-12-2012, 17:11
The most interesting testimony will be that of the girlfriend who was supposedly on the phone with Tray at the time. I bet that they will take whatever she says as gospel. And she can say whatever she wants to, there isn’t any way to corroborate her story.


Should they discount her testimony, and fully accept Zimmerman's?

mt920
04-12-2012, 17:13
wrong. Reread my post. The key word is "everything".

Z is the only person that knows everything about what happened and the only person who know if he was in fear of his life.

Doc44

bingo!!!!!

Kingarthurhk
04-12-2012, 17:28
With all due respect, you have your facts wrong. The prosecutor was going to present his case to a grand jury and in fact had already scheduled that for last Tuesday. In the meantime, the Governor replaced the prosecutor with someone who decided to forgo the grand jury (not in any way unusual).

So to say "no one was going to prosecute" is simply not in any way close to being true.

With all due respect, I call B.S.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/04/12/heres-who-democrat-hitwoman-hilary-rosen-visited-at-the-white-house-including-at-least-5-potus-meetings/

The "Special Prosecutor" Rosen, is an Obama schill who spent a great deal of her time in the White House.

This guy Zimmerman, who never should have been arristed in the first place, has as much chance at justice as this:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/tcr/lowres/tcrn36l.jpg

QNman
04-12-2012, 17:37
It would appear to me that BOTH sides have jumped to conclusions that support their preferred position in this matter. However, the simple truth is NONE of us has all the information.

I hope this prosecution is not political hay. But I have my doubts. It fails the sniff test. Only trial will tell for sure.

czsmithGT
04-12-2012, 18:54
With all due respect, I call B.S.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/04/12/heres-who-democrat-hitwoman-hilary-rosen-visited-at-the-white-house-including-at-least-5-potus-meetings/

The "Special Prosecutor" Rosen, is an Obama schill who spent a great deal of her time in the White House.

This guy Zimmerman, who never should have been arristed in the first place, has as much chance at justice as this:

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/tcr/lowres/tcrn36l.jpg

With all due respect, what you posted has nothing to do with what I said which was the original prosecutor in the case had scheduled to take his case to the grand jury. That means your assertion in the post I was responding to was in error. As for the special prosecutor, she was appointed by a Republican Governor, not by Obama.

Ps: Geeze I just noticed you don't even know who the Special Prosecutor is. What a bufoon!

Cavalry Doc
04-12-2012, 19:22
It would appear to me that BOTH sides have jumped to conclusions that support their preferred position in this matter. However, the simple truth is NONE of us has all the information.

I hope this prosecution is not political hay. But I have my doubts. It fails the sniff test. Only trial will tell for sure.

Well, at least there is another guy out there waiting to take sides.

Might as well wait until enough is known. :dunno:

Goaltender66
04-12-2012, 20:08
If anyone's interested: the affidavit. Both pages. :upeyes:

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

juggy4711
04-12-2012, 20:13
That's just insane. Next you'll be suggesting we let a jury decide!

I wouldn't go that far, I might end up being committed by the State.

Well, at least there is another guy out there waiting to take sides.

Might as well wait until enough is known. :dunno:

I suspect most of those taking sides already have chips on their shoulders for some reason or another.

QNman
04-12-2012, 20:40
Well, at least there is another guy out there waiting to take sides.

Might as well wait until enough is known. :dunno:

Yeah, I'm weird like that too.

rgregoryb
04-12-2012, 20:51
If anyone's interested: the affidavit. Both pages. :upeyes:

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

I read the affidavit, it read like a third grade school report...it would not be sufficient for an arrest in many places. It was either written to help the defense or hastily put together to placate the masses.

This is going to be a goat rope.

DustyJacket
04-12-2012, 20:58
So, the affidavit quotes Martin's mother's statement as evidence about who was yelling for help?

wow

Did Z-man say he "profiled" anyone?

The affidavit is juvenile and I would hate to be associated with it. Also biased, rather than just relating facts.

czsmithGT
04-12-2012, 21:04
So, the affidavit quotes Martin's mother's statement as evidence about who was yelling for help?

wow

Did Z-man say he "profiled" anyone?

The affidavit is juvenile and I would hate to be associated with it. Also biased, rather than just relating facts.

The affidavit got the job done while showing a minimal peek at the State's case. What else would you prefer the prosecutor to have done?

njl
04-12-2012, 21:53
From the 911 tapes I've listened to, the affidavit actually lies. "we don't need you to do that" != "do not follow him".

The affidavit contradicts Zimmerman's account of what happened. With no witnesses to the initial confrontation (if there was one), I don't see how the state is going to prove beyond reasonable doubt that things happened that way.

What could be very interesting is the ballistics...i.e. the path the bullet took through Martin, if it exited, where it ended up (assuming it was recovered). That should give pretty good evidence as to whether Zimmerman was on his back on the ground, shooting up at Martin, or if it happened differently. Of course, if the state is going to maintain that Zimmerman started the altercation that ultimately resulted in the shooting, they'll argue the ballistics are irrelevant. But how will they prove that, beyond a reasonable doubt?

snerd
04-12-2012, 22:43
The case is decided already. Better for 1 man (guilty or innocent) to suffer than the whole state burn. Any other discussion is a waste of breath.

czsmithGT
04-12-2012, 22:56
From the 911 tapes I've listened to, the affidavit actually lies. "we don't need you to do that" != "do not follow him".


Actually the affidavit doesn't say "do not follow him". The affidavit says "When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin he instructed Zimmerman not to do that ..." which is true. The affidavit quotes what Zimmerman said a couple times, but it does not quote the dispatcher's exact words.

Fortunately Zimmerman will get his days in court or possibly have an opportunity to plead to a lesser charge.

DocCasualty
04-12-2012, 23:34
Actually the affidavit doesn't say "do not follow him". The affidavit says "When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin he instructed Zimmerman not to do that ..." which is true. The affidavit quotes what Zimmerman said a couple times, but it does not quote the dispatcher's exact words.

Fortunately Zimmerman will get his days in court or possibly have an opportunity to plead to a lesser charge.
As another poster in some thread here on GT pointed out, the burden of "probable cause" is fairly low. It has a basis in fact but specifically "only are presented for a determination of a Probable Cause for Second Degree Murder". Thus, the factual nature is yet to be determined.

saxconnection
04-13-2012, 03:15
Actually the affidavit doesn't say "do not follow him". The affidavit says "When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin he instructed Zimmerman not to do that ..." which is true. The affidavit quotes what Zimmerman said a couple times, but it does not quote the dispatcher's exact words.

Fortunately Zimmerman will get his days in court or possibly have an opportunity to plead to a lesser charge.

This is what I thought was happening as well. I would love to see him plead not guilty to the 2nd Degree Murder charge and wait for the acquittal.

I also opine that if he pleads to a lesser charge, he is playing right into the hands of everyone who wants him convicted. This may be the ploy of the 2nd degree charge in the first place; to scare him into pleading out.

Adam

Goaltender66
04-13-2012, 05:29
Fortunately Zimmerman will get his days in court or possibly have an opportunity to plead to a lesser charge.
Do you think the affidavit is strong enough to get past a judge? It's pretty sparse and there's nothing in there that really supports murder 2.

If a judge allows a trial to go forward based on the "strength" of that affidavit, that would be as nuts as the affidavit itself, IMO.


ETA: Just heard on the radio (AP News) that Zimmerman is going to reach out and apologize to Martin's parents. Remorse is one thing, but at this stage it's usually not a good idea for the D to talk at all. I'm beginning to think that Zimmerman needs new legal representation.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

certifiedfunds
04-13-2012, 05:56
Do you think the affidavit is strong enough to get past a judge? It's pretty sparse and there's nothing in there that really supports murder 2.

If a judge allows a trial to go forward based on the "strength" of that affidavit, that would be as nuts as the affidavit itself, IMO.


ETA: Just heard on the radio (AP News) that Zimmerman is going to reach out and apologize to Martin's parents. Remorse is one thing, but at this stage it's usually not a good idea for the D to talk at all. I'm beginning to think that Zimmerman needs new legal representation.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I wonder where the ACLU is?

For that matter, where is the NRA or 2A attorneys?

certifiedfunds
04-13-2012, 06:04
I like how it says Zimmerman falsely assumed Martin was going to commit a crime.

Amazing that they prosecutor has managed to salvage the hard drive in Martin's brain.

callihan_44
04-13-2012, 06:22
Do you think the affidavit is strong enough to get past a judge? It's pretty sparse and there's nothing in there that really supports murder 2.

If a judge allows a trial to go forward based on the "strength" of that affidavit, that would be as nuts as the affidavit itself, IMO.


ETA: Just heard on the radio (AP News) that Zimmerman is going to reach out and apologize to Martin's parents. Remorse is one thing, but at this stage it's usually not a good idea for the D to talk at all. I'm beginning to think that Zimmerman needs new legal representation.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
apologizing makes me think he is guilty of something or else he realizes he is getting thrown under the bus no matter what and wants to soften the blow

bear62
04-13-2012, 06:39
I can't believe any judge will buy into this affidavit........:faint:

Arc Angel
04-13-2012, 06:48
This is what I thought was happening as well. I would love to see him plead not guilty to the 2nd Degree Murder charge and wait for the acquittal. I also opine that if he pleads to a lesser charge, he is playing right into the hands of everyone who wants him convicted. This may be the ploy of the 2nd degree charge in the first place; to scare him into pleading out. Adam

:thumbsup: Good! That's exactly what I've been thinking, too.

I wonder where the ACLU is? For that matter, where is the NRA or 2A attorneys?

It would be extremely unusual for the ACLU to take on Zimmerman's defense. As for the NRA? They're doing what they usually do in cases like this: Limiting their exposure and holding onto your 2A money by keeping their distance until AFTER they know, 'which way the wind is blowing'. The NRA will, quite possibly, do the same thing here that they did in the Grant Kuenzli shooting in Arizona: They'll sample gun owners' opinions and, if popular enough, wait until the appeal before stepping in.

...... Just heard on the radio (AP News) that Zimmerman is going to reach out and apologize to Martin's parents. Remorse is one thing, but at this stage it's usually not a good idea for the D to talk at all. I'm beginning to think that Zimmerman needs new legal representation.

Yeah, the political/legal situation is already beginning to stink; Zimmerman isn't handling himself all that well, either. He seems to be following either weak emotional impulses, or taking the wrong legal advice. (I'll bet he wishes he'd listened to that police dispatcher now, huh!)

In any case I, also, think George Zimmerman might do better with a more savvy attorney. (Where did his present lawyer come from, anyway?) It wouldn't be a good idea for Zimmerman to remain publicly silent right now; it would be an excellent idea! Now is NOT the right time for him to express any personal opinion, whatsoever.

While I am of the opinion that Martin was an active - and, perhaps, culpable - participant in his own demise, is anyone else starting to think that Zimmerman might be equally unable to recognize good advice when he hears it?

DOC44
04-13-2012, 06:50
I can't believe any judge will buy into this affidavit........:faint:

look at the judge that was randomly selected.

and this special prosecuter is running for re-election on this case.

Doc44

Arc Angel
04-13-2012, 08:00
look at the judge that was randomly selected; and this special prosecuter is running for re-election on this case. Doc44

So, you noticed that too! Answer me this: There was reported to be some, 'mysterious jewelry' of unknown origin in Martin's backpack. Has anyone heard anything more about this jewelry; and does anybody know what's happened to it? I only heard one report and then the organized news media went completely silent about it. :dunno:

czsmithGT
04-13-2012, 09:47
Do you think the affidavit is strong enough to get past a judge? It's pretty sparse and there's nothing in there that really supports murder 2.



Yes because it did get past the judge.

Zimmerman's next steps will be a bail hearing and discovery where the state will need to start showing the defense all their evidence.

After that he can try to get the case dismissed based on the Stand Your Ground law but that would be a separate exercise that will require the defense and prosecution to present evidence and make arguments to a different judge. If that fails or he doesn't go that route he will go to trial on the 2nd degree murder charge unless he pleads out.

At least that is how I understand what will happen.

czsmithGT
04-13-2012, 09:48
So, you noticed that too! Answer me this: There was reported to be some, 'mysterious jewelry' of unknown origin in Martin's backpack. Has anyone heard anything more about this jewelry; and does anybody know what's happened to it? I only heard one report and then the organized news media went completely silent about it. :dunno:

All I heard was a report on one of the news shows that it wasn't determined to have been stolen.

czsmithGT
04-13-2012, 09:51
I can't believe any judge will buy into this affidavit........:faint:

The judge already did it. That is what happened at Zimmerman's hearing. He is still in jail and has not yet requested a bail hearing.

czsmithGT
04-13-2012, 09:53
ETA: Just heard on the radio (AP News) that Zimmerman is going to reach out and apologize to Martin's parents. Remorse is one thing, but at this stage it's usually not a good idea for the D to talk at all. I'm beginning to think that Zimmerman needs new legal representation.



It has seemed to me for a while that Zimmerman needed/needs to keep his mouth shut.

Goaltender66
04-13-2012, 10:34
Yes because it did get past the judge.

Zimmerman's next steps will be a bail hearing and discovery where the state will need to start showing the defense all their evidence.

After that he can try to get the case dismissed based on the Stand Your Ground law but that would be a separate exercise that will require the defense and prosecution to present evidence and make arguments to a different judge. If that fails or he doesn't go that route he will go to trial on the 2nd degree murder charge unless he pleads out.

At least that is how I understand what will happen.

I thought yesterday was the initial appearance and the preliminary hearing has yet to take place.

czsmithGT
04-13-2012, 10:37
I thought yesterday was the initial appearance and the preliminary hearing has yet to take place.

There is a formal arraignment on May 29. If he decides to go for acquittal based on the "Stand Your Ground" law I don't know if that would happen before of after the arraignment.

Goaltender66
04-13-2012, 10:44
There is a formal arraignment on May 29. If he decides to go for acquittal based on the "Stand Your Ground" law I don't know if that would happen before of after the arraignment.

Not knowing Florida rules, but IIRC generally if an indictment is done without a grand jury, there is a preliminary hearing where the probable cause is checked, defense can challenge the PC, etc. I don't believe that preliminary hearing was yesterday. If it was then that's awfully fast, given when the Affidavit of Probable Cause was filed.

The arraignment may be scheduled but that could be on the assumption that the case will pass the preliminary hearing stage.

czsmithGT
04-13-2012, 10:47
Not knowing Florida rules, but IIRC generally if an indictment is done without a grand jury, there is a preliminary hearing where the probable cause is checked, defense can challenge the PC, etc. I don't believe that preliminary hearing was yesterday. If it was then that's awfully fast, given when the Affidavit of Probable Cause was filed.

The arraignment may be scheduled but that could be on the assumption that the case will pass the preliminary hearing stage.

Well I think what you are talking about happened yesterday. Unless he requests and is granted bail he will be in jail until the arraignment on May 29.

Goaltender66
04-13-2012, 10:51
Well I think what you are talking about happened yesterday. Unless he requests and is granted bail he will be in jail until the arraignment on May 29.

Usually at preliminary hearings the defense can challenge PC. If his attorney didn't do that then he's a moron.

I'm kind of thinking yesterday was his initial appearance, not the prelim. Focus of the initial appearance is determining if he's going to be held until PC is validated, not a determination of probable cause in and of itself and vis a vis allowing the prosecution to continue.

czsmithGT
04-13-2012, 12:18
Usually at preliminary hearings the defense can challenge PC. If his attorney didn't do that then he's a moron.

I'm kind of thinking yesterday was his initial appearance, not the prelim. Focus of the initial appearance is determining if he's going to be held until PC is validated, not a determination of probable cause in and of itself and vis a vis allowing the prosecution to continue.

I think this is a summary of the legal path that will be followed. The arraignment was scheduled for May 29

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/justice/florida-teen-shooting-next/index.html

DustyJacket
04-13-2012, 13:13
The affidavit got the job done while showing a minimal peek at the State's case. What else would you prefer the prosecutor to have done?

Who knows.
My experience stems from the other side of the arrest (i.e. BEFORE the arrest) where affidavits contain facts.

if opinions or conclusions are present, they are labeled as such.

Clearly the DA/prosecutor's office does it differently.

snerd
04-13-2012, 13:45
Dershowitz: Zimmerman Affidavit ‘Irresponsible And Unethical’
Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz made an appearance on on MSNBC’s Hardball to discuss the Zimmerman arrest affidavit (http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/affidavit.pdf), and had some incredibly harsh language for Angela Corey concerning her actions in the George Zimmerman prosecution.

Dershowitz is a well-known Democrat with a column on the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/the-rorschach-facts-in-th_b_1418441.html), but seemed stunned by how poorly written the affidavit was, going so far as to call it “irresponsible and unethical,” as well as Corey’s actions politically motivated. He also said that if the prosecution didn’t have more evidence for the case than what we’ve seen, “a good judge would throw it out.”

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/dershowitz-zimmerman-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical

greentriple
04-13-2012, 17:02
So of a kid comes into my shop and points a gun at me and demands money... Me being a shooter and having been through this before, and being cool headed and well trained, not feeling scared for my life as I've again been through this 3 other times, I draw my side arm and shoot and kill the kid because he's pointing a gun at me...

I could be found guilty of second degree murder?

Just asking, cause I often think about this. I'm more concerned for my staff than myself. I dont talk to the suspects anymore, I just shoot...


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Unlikely.
1) a gun pointed at u I a presumption that you are confronted by deadly force.
2) Its a question if a reasonable person would be in fear for their life, which they would be.
3) And a reasonable response would be defend with deadly force.

Remember the reasonable person standard is a legal one. Your conduct is measured against this "objective" measure.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
04-13-2012, 17:11
I read the affidavit, it read like a third grade school report...it would not be sufficient for an arrest in many places. It was either written to help the defense or hastily put together to placate the masses.

This is going to be a goat rope.

Written to help the defense? Are you nuts? Prosecutors don't help defendants.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
04-13-2012, 17:13
From the 911 tapes I've listened to, the affidavit actually lies. "we don't need you to do that" != "do not follow him".

The affidavit contradicts Zimmerman's account of what happened. With no witnesses to the initial confrontation (if there was one), I don't see how the state is going to prove beyond reasonable doubt that things happened that way.

What could be very interesting is the ballistics...i.e. the path the bullet took through Martin, if it exited, where it ended up (assuming it was recovered). That should give pretty good evidence as to whether Zimmerman was on his back on the ground, shooting up at Martin, or if it happened differently. Of course, if the state is going to maintain that Zimmerman started the altercation that ultimately resulted in the shooting, they'll argue the ballistics are irrelevant. But how will they prove that, beyond a reasonable doubt?

Not CSI pal. Trajectory is cool in movies and TV, almost always useless in real life.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
04-13-2012, 17:18
I like how it says Zimmerman falsely assumed Martin was going to commit a crime.

Amazing that they prosecutor has managed to salvage the hard drive in Martin's brain.

Man you are way off again. Both the circumstantial evidence and direct evidence lead to the conclusion that Z presumed the youth was going to commit a crime. Which he was not or there is no reasonable evidence that he was. This Z's conclusion/opinion was wrong or false.

Use urge noodle before typing, please.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information

rgregoryb
04-13-2012, 17:25
Written to help the defense? Are you nuts? Prosecutors don't help defendants.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

if they are trying to placate the mob with an arrest, but realize the prosecution of the case is a judicial loss..why not to save face?

Kingarthurhk
04-13-2012, 17:27
Unlikely.
1) a gun pointed at u I a presumption that you are confronted by deadly force.
2) Its a question if a reasonable person would be in fear for their life, which they would be.
3) And a reasonable response would be defend with deadly force.

Remember the reasonable person standard is a legal one. Your conduct is measured against this "objective" measure.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Far from objective. What is a reasonable person? A reaonable liberal or a reasonable conservative? A reasonable citizen, or a reasonable foreigner? Who decides what is "reasonable"?

You shoot a guy pointing a pellet gun at you. You argue that is unreasonable. However, some pelet rifles are powerful enough to hunt game with and can be fatal.

What is reasonable. To assume you will be injured, or that you may actually be killed?

In this case we have witness reports 6'3 150 17 years old was trying to crack Zimmerman's head open on the sidewalk like Humpty Dumpty.

Apparently, an armed response to that situation was viewed by Obama and his henchwoman Rosen, along with Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson to be unreasonable based on the ethnicity of Martin who was treating Zimmerman's skull like a pinata.

So, again, who decides what is reasonable? Not objective whatsoever.

rgregoryb
04-13-2012, 17:32
by the way I am a retired homicide detective, if I had submitted an affidavit like that I would have been assigned to writing parking tickets. That was juvenile in composition and substance.

Cavalry Doc
04-13-2012, 18:24
I wonder where the ACLU is?

For that matter, where is the NRA or 2A attorneys?


Texas lawyers offer $10,000 for George Zimmerman's legal defense (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-30/news/os-george-zimmerman-lawyers-offer-10000-20120330_1_shooting-death-legal-expenses-legal-defense)



Hey dude, you need to start leaning on those Louisiana shysters to belly up to the bar.

bear62
04-13-2012, 18:37
Far from objective. What is a reasonable person? A reaonable liberal or a reasonable conservative? A reasonable citizen, or a reasonable foreigner? Who decides what is "reasonable"?

You shoot a guy pointing a pellet gun at you. You argue that is unreasonable. However, some pelet rifles are powerful enough to hunt game with and can be fatal.

What is reasonable. To assume you will be injured, or that you may actually be killed?

In this case we have witness reports 6'3 150 17 years old was trying to crack Zimmerman's head open on the sidewalk like Humpty Dumpty.

Apparently, an armed response to that situation was viewed by Obama and his henchwoman Rosen, along with Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson to be unreasonable based on the ethnicity of Martin who was treating Zimmerman's skull like a pinata.

So, again, who decides what is reasonable? Not objective whatsoever.

This can't be ....... I've seen pictures of this little boy all over the 'net ... and he can't be over 12 years

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Cavalry Doc
04-13-2012, 18:57
This can't be ....... I've seen pictures of this little boy all over the 'net ... and he can't be over 12 years

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs39/f/2008/333/1/b/spin_by_MenInASuitcase.gif


If justice does prevail, NBC & ABC will ensure that all of Zimmerman's offspring get a fully funded education through the masters level, and that the Bill O'Reilly rule applies to the courtroom.


Just the facts, and I really do hope that the right thing happens here.

greentriple
04-13-2012, 21:20
Far from objective. What is a reasonable person? A reaonable liberal or a reasonable conservative? A reasonable citizen, or a reasonable foreigner? Who decides what is "reasonable"?

You shoot a guy pointing a pellet gun at you. You argue that is unreasonable. However, some pelet rifles are powerful enough to hunt game with and can be fatal.

What is reasonable. To assume you will be injured, or that you may actually be killed?

In this case we have witness reports 6'3 150 17 years old was trying to crack Zimmerman's head open on the sidewalk like Humpty Dumpty.

Apparently, an armed response to that situation was viewed by Obama and his henchwoman Rosen, along with Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson to be unreasonable based on the ethnicity of Martin who was treating Zimmerman's skull like a pinata.

So, again, who decides what is reasonable? Not objective whatsoever.

Please stop posting unrelated nonsensical posts. Your ranting has nothing to do with what I posted. For the love of God and Country, think and then rethink what u r going to type and then don't. Unless, you can stay on point of the post you are responding to.

I was discussing traditional legal standards based on case history and normal codified definitions. I WAS NOT comparing nor offering an opinion on the validity of deadly force by a firearm vis a vi an unarmed attacker. Nor was I implying or trying to imply anything in or our of he Z v. M discourse.

And FYI - THE JURY DECIDES WHAT IS REASONABLE! It's always a jury question. Pay attention and quit with the knee-jerk emotional posts.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

snerd
04-14-2012, 05:43
Another article on the affidavit.......

Problems with the Zimmerman Affidavit (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/problems_with_the_zimmerman_affidavit.html)

Ruble Noon
04-14-2012, 06:06
Another article on the affidavit.......

Problems with the Zimmerman Affidavit (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/problems_with_the_zimmerman_affidavit.html)

when he was profiled by George Zimmerman


How is this an issue? If he was a cop it would be but, he is not.

QNman
04-14-2012, 09:06
Another article on the affidavit.......

Problems with the Zimmerman Affidavit (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/problems_with_the_zimmerman_affidavit.html)

I spent nearly eight years as a civilian investigator and expert witness. I have read many affidavits from police and civilians alike. Many are full of BS, hyperbole, second-guessing and unsubstantiated opinion. But none of that should be in an arrest affidavit.

Whoever filed this is an idiot, was in a hurry, or is an idiot who was in a hurry. I'm going with the latter.

Hyksos
04-14-2012, 10:04
That Affidavit is a steaming pile. Whoever wrote that should be ashamed.

DOC44
04-14-2012, 12:37
That Affidavit is a steaming pile. Whoever wrote that should be ashamed.

The affidavit could have just as well been a second grader's book report on "Squanto and the Pilgrams". THEY were gonna lock him up and put him on trial reguardless of the evidence and witnesses.

Its like Big Al said, "Is this one may worth your city?"

Doc44

czsmithGT
04-14-2012, 12:48
Apparently, an armed response to that situation was viewed by Obama and his henchwoman Rosen, along with Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson to be unreasonable based on the ethnicity of Martin who was treating Zimmerman's skull like a pinata.



Rosen? What does she have to do with the Martin case? Did she make some sort of statement on that case? If so I missed it.

czsmithGT
04-14-2012, 13:19
I spent nearly eight years as a civilian investigator and expert witness. I have read many affidavits from police and civilians alike. Many are full of BS, hyperbole, second-guessing and unsubstantiated opinion. But none of that should be in an arrest affidavit.

Whoever filed this is an idiot, was in a hurry, or is an idiot who was in a hurry. I'm going with the latter.

Any idea why Zimmerman's attorney didn't challenge it at the probable cause hearing? Does he now have to wait until the May 29 hearing to file a motion to dismiss based on the defective affidavit?

Kingarthurhk
04-15-2012, 07:37
Please stop posting unrelated nonsensical posts. Your ranting has nothing to do with what I posted. For the love of God and Country, think and then rethink what u r going to type and then don't. Unless, you can stay on point of the post you are responding to.

I was discussing traditional legal standards based on case history and normal codified definitions. I WAS NOT comparing nor offering an opinion on the validity of deadly force by a firearm vis a vi an unarmed attacker. Nor was I implying or trying to imply anything in or our of he Z v. M discourse.

And FYI - THE JURY DECIDES WHAT IS REASONABLE! It's always a jury question. Pay attention and quit with the knee-jerk emotional posts.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Then why has the venue not been changed? It is obvious that he can't receive a fair hearing in that town. But, then again, I think that is the point.

Also, welcome to the First Amendment freedom of speach, it cuts both ways; not just for the elite or those that are the current social darlings.

DustyJacket
04-15-2012, 10:55
Any idea why Zimmerman's attorney didn't challenge it at the probable cause hearing?

Look at it this way, a not-guilty verdict insulates the defendant from some possible future charges......

steveksux
04-15-2012, 11:02
Then why has the venue not been changed? It is obvious that he can't receive a fair hearing in that town. But, then again, I think that is the point.I don't think they change the venue until trial. Venue change gets you an unbiased jury pool in theory. Until you get to the point of jury selection, venue change is irrelevant.

Maybe they'll change the venue to an Inuit village that doesn't have internet access. :supergrin:

Randy

Gunhaver
04-15-2012, 12:17
I wonder if Zimmerman had been unarmed, and Martin had been 21 and legally armed with a pistol, would this be handled and viewed differently by all of us.

(Regardless of which of the two had ended up dead.)

Oh, of course it would have been. Aside from the few here that made their judgment based on skin color or the presence of a hoodie. What's really going on is that we need to defend the CCW permit holder. That's the person we really need to be innocent because it harms our near perfect record of CCW holders not being the aggressor. But we forget that he broke the cardinal rule of CCW which is that YOU TAKE YOUR GUN AWAY FROM THE CONFRONTATION, NOT INTO IT!

For that mistake alone I won't lose any sleep over Zimmerman's treatment by the media or anyone else.

FLIPPER 348
04-15-2012, 12:43
What's really going on is that we need to defend the CCW permit holder. That's the person we really need to be innocent because it harms our near perfect record of CCW holders not being the aggressor. But we forget that he broke the cardinal rule of CCW which is that YOU TAKE YOUR GUN AWAY FROM THE CONFRONTATION, NOT INTO IT!




Should he 'defend' him if he is guilty of breaking all the CCW rules??

DOC44
04-15-2012, 13:32
the cardinal rule of CCW which is that YOU TAKE YOUR GUN AWAY FROM THE CONFRONTATION, NOT INTO IT!

What is this???

I carry everywhere the law allows....daily.... I take my gun with me and if confrontation confronts me I don't take is away from the confrontation.

Doc44

Jonesee
04-15-2012, 13:48
What is this???

I carry everywhere the law allows....daily.... I take my gun with me and if confrontation confronts me I don't take is away from the confrontation.

Doc44

WTH??

Step away from the computer and go back to 4th grade english class.

lol

DOC44
04-15-2012, 13:56
WTH??

Step away from the computer and go back to 4th grade english class.

Why the hell do you carry or do you even carry? If carrying dictates where you go and how often you have to tuck you tail and avoid going somewhere because you are afraid you may run into a confrontation and you have your Cobra 22 in your pocket. Maybe you need to have some confidence in your ability to know how and when to use your gun.

I don't go looking for trouble but I go where I want too.

Doc44

Jonesee
04-15-2012, 14:27
Why the hell do you carry or do you even carry? If carrying dictates where you go and how often you have to tuck you tail and avoid going somewhere because you are afraid you may run into a confrontation and you have your Cobra 22 in your pocket. Maybe you need to have some confidence in your ability to know how and when to use your gun.

I don't go looking for trouble but I go where I want too.

Doc44


You attacked the wrong premise of my statement. It had nothing to do with your stance on carrying a personal weapon.

It was all about the convoluted, unintelligible way you stated it.

Possibly, your reading comprehension goes hand in hand with your writing skills.

LOL....................

Gunhaver
04-15-2012, 15:07
What is this???

I carry everywhere the law allows....daily.... I take my gun with me and if confrontation confronts me I don't take is away from the confrontation.

Doc44

For example, I'm in the parking lot of a restaurant when some angry drunk walks up and starts mouthing off to me. I know that there is now a confrontation and that there's at least one gun present at that confrontation, my gun. As I'm not a police officer nor do I have any desire to be one my main priority should be to put pride second and diffuse the situation by removing myself and my firearm from the scene. This greatly increases the odds that I won't get hurt but also that I don't face media scrutiny, the court of public opinion and possible legal charges. As an added bonus it also keeps a pretty little thousand dollar carry gun off the rusty evidence shelf.

I carry knowing that it means that more often than not I may have to tuck tail and run but I have no problem with that. I'm out to survive by any dastardly means possible, hence the reason I carry in the first place.

But Zimmerman felt like a big man that night with his little KelTec 9 and he got himself into a spot where he felt he needed to use it. Bad judgment for sure and while lots of mistakes were made he made the first several mistakes and set off the chain of events.

DOC44
04-15-2012, 15:11
You attacked the wrong premise of my statement. It had nothing to do with your stance on carrying a personal weapon.

It was all about the convoluted, unintelligible way you stated it.

Possibly, your reading comprehension goes hand in hand with your writing skills.

LOL....................

Oh, I see you had difficulty understanding my post. Yes, it did have a typo; "is" instead of "it". Retired, old maid English teachers are hard to please. However, typos do happen, wss tole.

Doc44

Jonesee
04-15-2012, 15:17
Oh, I see you had difficulty understanding my post. Yes, it did have a typo; "is" instead of "it". Retired, old maid English teachers are hard to please. However, typos do happen, wss tole.

Doc44

The 2 previous posts and now sophomoric name calling.

Kind of says it all.
Have a great day.

expatman
04-15-2012, 17:05
Well, you did insult his reading and writing skills.

Just sayin.

greentriple
04-15-2012, 18:16
Then why has the venue not been changed? It is obvious that he can't receive a fair hearing in that town. But, then again, I think that is the point.

Also, welcome to the First Amendment freedom of speach, it cuts both ways; not just for the elite or those that are the current social darlings.

Ok King, here we go again,I love the 1st, but it does not give you permission to post without thinking!!!

A change of venue is a complicated motion his lawyer files. It's not a foregone conclusion and the judge will rule, when if one is filed, if a change is required.

Sit in your favorite chair, grab your favorite lite beer and sit back and relax, this case is going to be a slow and long and painful process.

And while you are ranting and raving for good old Captain American Z, remember there is a mother and father with a dead child. Put yourself in their shoes if you dare,mic only for a second.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
04-15-2012, 18:18
What is this???

I carry everywhere the law allows....daily.... I take my gun with me and if confrontation confronts me I don't take is away from the confrontation.

Doc44

But knowing there could be a confrontation you don't go looking or pursuing it do you?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Guss
04-15-2012, 18:42
But knowing there could be a confrontation you don't go looking or pursuing it do you?

Was it "pursuit" with intent to capture or was it just "trailing" to tell police where to find Trayvon? Let's wait until we hear the other side of the story.

greentriple
04-15-2012, 19:05
Was it "pursuit" with intent to capture or was it just "trailing" to tell police where to find Trayvon? Let's wait until we hear the other side of the story.

Fair enough.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

expatman
04-15-2012, 19:11
Has anyone else besides me heard the supposed reason why Z got out of his truck? I heard on TV, I think it was a friend or family member say that Z got out of his truck so as to find the house number in order to pass on an address to the 911 dispatcher.

If, IF, I say again, if that is what happened, would that be a good enough resaon to get out of his vehicle in the opinion of those who think he shouldn't have?

DOC44
04-15-2012, 20:04
But knowing there could be a confrontation you don't go looking or pursuing it do you?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I never go looking for trouble.... but when it finds me I handle it diplomaticly as possible.

Was a captain of a neighbor watch for 9 years. Always carrying. Only drew it once when I confronted a bg who was hitting an elderly couple up for money one night and he drew a knife on me. Had called the police before leaving the house. Told the bg to leave and he drew his knife and opened it. I drew my pistol and he left. Cops arrived. Told them what happened and which way he went and what he looked like. In about 10 minutes they returned and asked if this looked like the knife and if the guy in the back seat was the guy. Yep that is him. They left and another cop took statements.

Doc44

4Rules
04-16-2012, 13:59
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2012/04/16/front-sights-monday-blog-zimmerman-versus-martin/

czsmithGT
04-16-2012, 14:40
If, IF, I say again, if that is what happened, would that be a good enough resaon to get out of his vehicle in the opinion of those who think he shouldn't have?

He put himself into a position to get into a jackpot where his future life and liberty is on the line. I'd say that would be a good reason to not exit his vehicle.

4Rules
04-18-2012, 11:33
April 17, 2012
Michelle Obama Takes on Trayvon Tragedy: 'There Isn't a One-Shot Solution to This' (http://nation.foxnews.com/michelle-obama/2012/04/17/michelle-obama-dives-trayvon-tragedy)

4Rules
04-18-2012, 11:34
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Kyk3EVoPv8U#!

Bren
04-18-2012, 12:16
http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2012/04/16/front-sights-monday-blog-zimmerman-versus-martin/

That's a good video on the site. Basically repeats what has been said many times here by those who bother to base their opinions on the actual evidence.

greentriple
04-18-2012, 14:10
That's a good video on the site. Basically repeats what has been said many times here by those who bother to base their opinions on the actual evidence.

And in the end, assuming Z account is true and corroborated by the evidence the jury must still decide if deadly force was warranted under the circumstances. I don't know the answer, and I'm sure many of you have an opinion. Are you right, maybe, but remember it's going to depend on what 12 people decide a reasonable response to being punched, knocked down and then being straddled and hit, assuming that is what happened.

QNman
04-18-2012, 18:09
And in the end, assuming Z account is true and corroborated by the evidence the jury must still decide if deadly force was warranted under the circumstances. I don't know the answer, and I'm sure many of you have an opinion. Are you right, maybe, but remember it's going to depend on what 12 people decide a reasonable response to being punched, knocked down and then being straddled and hit, assuming that is what happened.

Yep.

Thing is, we don't have the "actual evidence". Unless, of course, I am mistaken and we have someone from the prosecution or the defense here in this thread. And if we DO, there are ethics violations galore for speaking of that evidence here on a public website.

Everyone wants their opinions to be right. Everyone makes snap decisions based upon the evidence they have heard, tempered and strained through their own experience, prejudice, and outlook on life.

The whole reason we have the system of justice we have is to hopefully offer enough argument from both sides that 12 people will be able to set aside all that and attempt to get to the truth of the matter.

Any offers of conclusions by we, the spectators, is pure conjecture and speculation. Let the jury try the case.