[czsmithGT]

Originally Posted by GunHo198

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]

Originally Posted by czsmithGT

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...

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by greentriple

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]

Originally Posted by DOC44

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]

Originally Posted by Flintlocker

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]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

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]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

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]

Originally Posted by Gunnut 45/454

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]

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]

Originally Posted by syntaxerrorsix

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]

Originally Posted by Wake_jumper

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]

Originally Posted by doc44

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]

Originally Posted by czsmithGT

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...otus-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:

[QNman]

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]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

With all due respect, I call B.S.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/04/12...otus-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:

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]

Originally Posted by QNman

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.

[Goaltender66]

If anyone's interested: the affidavit. Both pages.

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

[juggy4711]

Originally Posted by QNman

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.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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

Might as well wait until enough is known.

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

[QNman]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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

Might as well wait until enough is known.

Yeah, I'm weird like that too.

[rgregoryb]

Originally Posted by Goaltender66

If anyone's interested: the affidavit. Both pages.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by DustyJacket

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by njl

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.