Free George Zimmerman

[Intense]

An unarmed man about his lawful business was shot to death.

Yeah, this has to go to trial.

Bond hearing next week it is reported.

Zimmerman may be safer in jail for now.

 

[The Gadfly]

Trying the victim is despicable.

That's what the defense has to do, and he's not necisarily the victim.

but an anonymous racist like TGG isn't the defense attorney. plus, you just can't throw mud at a victim b/c there is prejudice that would attach which outweighs the probative value. they would be allowed to talk only about what occurred THEN...

I doubt they'll be able to bring up the nonsense about him having tats and giving the finger to the camera on twitter...

neither of those things justifies someone being hunted down.

True, but you, yourself, and a lot of others here, have also assumed the truth of a narrative based on "facts" not in evidence (so far as we know), and both sides in this case have offered up material about past misconduct of both parties that is most likely inadmissible in a court proceeding in this case. NONE of us have seen all of the evidence, or even knows definitively what the SPD did and did not collect the night of the incident, and the following day. We can opine and speculate; what we can't do, is make a definitive judgement in this case.

 

[The Gadfly]

An affidavit supporting an information does not contain information about any defenses. The proecution does not make the defense case for them. If both had guns and Martin shot and wounded Zimmerman there would not be a word of it in an affidavit supporting an information. So don't rely on the affidavit being a document purporting to be the entire facts of the case. It is the prosecution case, not the defense case. The affidavit might state that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a criminal and didn't belong in the gated communiity but these are not facts because they have not been proved at all. The gated community was only 47% white so it is not a fact at all that merely by being black, Martin didn't belong there.

Whatever is in the affidavit filed by the prosecution will have to be proved in court. It has not already been proved and are accepted facts.

True. A prosecutor can (and often does) put ANYTHING in an affidavit or information that has the smallest shred of evidence to support it. The prosecutor can offer up any theory of a crime he/she wants to, however far-fetched; it's an ALLEGATION, not a set of probative facts, and may be based in whole or in part on evidence which may not be admissible at trial. The case may be a slam dunk, or so flimsy a judge will dismiss it on a motion; at this point, we simply have no way of knowing..

 

[Intense]

An affidavit supporting an information does not contain information about any defenses. The proecution does not make the defense case for them. If both had guns and Martin shot and wounded Zimmerman there would not be a word of it in an affidavit supporting an information. So don't rely on the affidavit being a document purporting to be the entire facts of the case. It is the prosecution case, not the defense case. The affidavit might state that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a criminal and didn't belong in the gated communiity but these are not facts because they have not been proved at all. The gated community was only 47% white so it is not a fact at all that merely by being black, Martin didn't belong there.

Whatever is in the affidavit filed by the prosecution will have to be proved in court. It has not already been proved and are accepted facts.

True. A prosecutor can (and often does) put ANYTHING in an affidavit or information that has the smallest shred of evidence to support it. The prosecutor can offer up any theory of a crime he/she wants to, however far-fetched; it's an ALLEGATION, not a set of probative facts, and may be based in whole or in part on evidence which may not be admissible at trial. The case may be a slam dunk, or so flimsy a judge will dismiss it on a motion; at this point, we simply have no way of knowing..

Translation: Nothing has changed.

 

[jillian]

That's what the defense has to do, and he's not necisarily the victim.

but an anonymous racist like TGG isn't the defense attorney. plus, you just can't throw mud at a victim b/c there is prejudice that would attach which outweighs the probative value. they would be allowed to talk only about what occurred THEN...

I doubt they'll be able to bring up the nonsense about him having tats and giving the finger to the camera on twitter...

neither of those things justifies someone being hunted down.

must be proven, right?

you think that isn't already clear? what happened AFTER isn't clear.. but he had no business pursing the kid.

i see certain types of people trying to claim that b/c the 911 dispatcher didn't have the "authority" to ORDER him not to follow the kid, that somehow justifies it.

is anyone claiming that zimmerman didn't pursue him?

 

[Rocko]

but an anonymous racist like TGG isn't the defense attorney. plus, you just can't throw mud at a victim b/c there is prejudice that would attach which outweighs the probative value. they would be allowed to talk only about what occurred THEN...

I doubt they'll be able to bring up the nonsense about him having tats and giving the finger to the camera on twitter...

neither of those things justifies someone being hunted down.

must be proven, right?

you think that isn't already clear? what happened AFTER isn't clear.. but he had no business pursing the kid.

i see certain types of people trying to claim that b/c the 911 dispatcher didn't have the "authority" to ORDER him not to follow the kid, that somehow justifies it.

is anyone claiming that zimmerman didn't pursue him?

There's been conflicting information in regards to that. Some reports have Zimmerman retreating to his car after speaking with the dispatcher. I would like clarification on that as well. I hope the trial can sufficently answer these kind of questions. As for now, I will not speculate.

 

[Katzndogz]

The question will turn on whether Zimmerman had abandoned the pursuit when he returned to his car and whether it was Zimmerman then followed by Martin.

I thought you were a lawyer. Surely you know this?

If Zimmerman had no justification whatsoever for following Martin, does this allow Trayvon Martin to then follow Zimmerman who had given up pursuit? Would Martin be justified in following Zimmerman home to attack him in his driveway?

The defense will show that Zimmerman had abandoned pursuit and returned to his car. This was effectively communicated to Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin became the agressor, followed George Zimmerman and attacked the unsuspecting Zimmerman from behind causing him to be in fear of his life.

There will be no offer of proof that the 911 dispatcher ordered Zimmerman to stop following Martin. It is VERY clear that there was no such order, whether valid or not. "You don't need to do that" is not, by any stretch of comprehension an "order". The prosecution will not say it was. It was information given to Zimmerman that following Martin was unnecessary. Zimmerman at that point claims that he said "okay" and returned to his car. There's the issue.

This case has been prepared for appeal, not trial. The judge chosen to try the case is very inexperienced. He has only been on the bench for 16 months. Every ruling will be scrutinized for inexperience and incompetence.

 

[jillian]

There were many people, including myself, who didn't think there wasn't enough evidence out there for an indictment, and race was NOT a factor in coming to that conclusion. Having said that. The decision for a trial could have come based on evidence not available to the public yet, and was made by a person more qualified than me to make that judgement.

It does seem strange to me that it took so long for a arrest....A cynic could suggest it was motivated by politics. I'm not going to jump to that conclusion.

It may be a cliche, to say we have the best justice system in world. I'm guilty as charged. No pun intended.

there wasn't evidence b/c the police didn't do their job.

i think that's the problem.

i don't think it's cliche... i think it's just something you say b/c you've heard it said. you don't know how the system is in the UK, in NZ, in Australia... and giving the continued problems in our system, i'd say we're good, and improving, and still need to always strive to do better.

if we were perfect, our death penalty wouldn't be unevenly enforced against black people.if we were perfect, we wouldn't need the Innocence Project... if we were perfect, we wouldn't have situations like this one where a PD intentionally didn't do it's job.
ultimately, i think that's where the liability here will lie... in the failure to do even the basics that should have been done for any young man who was killed.

any evidence?

I don't think I said it was perfect BTW.

that our death penalty is unevenly distributed? that's a known known... i mean, i could probably google it for you, but it's pretty much a given.

i know you didn't say perfect. you said "best". and i don't know if that's true. i only know we're better than most and should strive to always be better.

 

[koshergrl]

The death penalty is unevenly distributed.
Another good reason for getting rid of it.

I don't see that happening though.

 

[Contumacious]

Whatever is in the affidavit filed by the prosecution will have to be proved in court. It has not already been proved and are accepted facts.

If George Zimmerman Loses a Pretrial Motion to Dismiss, He Can Still Be Acquitted

Jacob Sullum | April 12, 2012

Judging from a sidebar in today's New York Times, there is some confusion about how Florida's self-defense law applies to George Zimmerman's case. The law, as amended in 2005, states that someone who justifiably uses force in self-defense "is immune from criminal prosecution." Under a 2010 decision by the Florida Supreme Court, that means Zimmerman has a right to a pretrial hearing where he can get the second-degree murder charge against him dismissed if he can show, by "a preponderance of the evidence," that he reasonably believed deadly force was necessary to prevent Trayvon Martin from killing or seriously injuring him. In other words, he has to convince a judge it is more likely than not that his use of force was lawful. But if he loses that motion, he can still argue at trial that he acted in self-defense, and the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the judge allows it. The judge permits the defense, Contumacious. The defendent cannot simply demand it.

 

[Katzndogz]

The death penalty is unevenly distributed.
Another good reason for getting rid of it.

I don't see that happening though.

Crime is unevenly distributed.

Periodically states ban the death penalty, usually not for long.

 

[Contumacious]

If the judge allows it. The judge permits the defense, Contumacious. The defendent cannot simply demand it.

Mr Dumb ASS, Sir : read the following and weep:

Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277 (Fla.App. 09/13/2006)

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT July Term 2006

In this case the State charged defendant with aggravated battery. He sought to avoid culpability with the legal justification of self-defense, claiming that his deadly force against the roommate was legally permitted because the roommate was already committing an aggravated battery against him. Under Florida law a defendant may claim this defense if there is evidence indicating that initially he was the object of a "forcible felony" such as aggravated battery

He did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense."

.

 

[BDBoop]

An unarmed man about his lawful business was shot to death.

Yeah, this has to go to trial.

If you throw them hard enough, like Neo in the Matrix hard enough - Skittles are deadly.

 

[Contumacious]

An unarmed man about his lawful business was shot to death.

Yeah, this has to go to trial.

If you throw them hard enough, like Neo in the Matrix hard enough - Skittles are deadly.

I gets your drift - at that tender age - they don't know how to use their arms, legs and teeth to inflict damage.

.

 

[koshergrl]

Sorry, man, not a liberal. Just don't subscribe the clinical insanity that passes for "conservatism" these days.

Guy, I don't care about the whole "2nd Amendment" thing one way or the other. The Amendment was about militias, not gun ownership, but as a practical matter you can't ban guns after there are already 100 million+ of them out there. And I think most gun owners are responsible and should be allowed the privilage of gun ownership.

But the point you guys who support gun "rights" (there are no rights, only privilages the rest of us let you have) always make is that we should hold the gunowner responsible for his or her actions when they do something wrong.

Fair enough.

Shooting an unarmed kid who was committing no crime. Can't imagine it getting more "wrong" than that.

You gun nuts should be screaming as loudly for Zimmerman being held accountable as anyone.

Liar.

And you have no way of knowing he wasn't committing a crime.

And the use of kid is disengenuous. His own mother called him a young man...

Sorry, at my age, a 17 year old is a kid. And, nope, he wasn't committing a crime. He was buying Skittles.

What's with the weird underlinging shit? That's kind of obsessive.

Underlinging?

I'm sorry, I missed something. He was at the store buying skittles when he died?

Nope. You weren't there and you're a liar.

 

[BDBoop]

An unarmed man about his lawful business was shot to death.

Yeah, this has to go to trial.

If you throw them hard enough, like Neo in the Matrix hard enough - Skittles are deadly.

I gets your drift - at that tender age - they don't know how to use their arms, legs and teeth to inflict damage.

.

Not against a gun, no.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liar.

And you have no way of knowing he wasn't committing a crime.

And the use of kid is disengenuous. His own mother called him a young man...

Sorry, at my age, a 17 year old is a kid. And, nope, he wasn't committing a crime. He was buying Skittles.

What's with the weird underlinging shit? That's kind of obsessive.

Underlinging?

I'm sorry, I missed something. He was at the store buying skittles when he died?

Nope. You weren't there and you're a liar.

You were not there, and you are not clear on what happened, koshergirl.

 

[Contumacious]

If you throw them hard enough, like Neo in the Matrix hard enough - Skittles are deadly.

I gets your drift - at that tender age - they don't know how to use their arms, legs and teeth to inflict damage.

.

Not against a gun, no.

Zimmerman's gun was CONCEALED .

.

 

[BDBoop]

Do tell. You're a spiffy eye witness, you know that.