THIS JUST IN on the Zimmerman case....

[koshergrl]

And I've read Zimmerman confronted Martin, stating "What are doing here"? The State appears to have sorted it out, THUS FAR.

I don't buy that. My understanding is that there is no witness that initially saw the confrontation. Got a link? But even had Zimmerman initiated the rhetoric, that does not excuse an attack and the state appears to be grossly administering injustice, THUS FAR.

It comes from Martins girlfriend who heard the initial contact over Martins cell phone. That's her version of things anyway.

Link? Quotes? When did you talk to her?

 

[Vidi]

I don't buy that. My understanding is that there is no witness that initially saw the confrontation. Got a link? But even had Zimmerman initiated the rhetoric, that does not excuse an attack and the state appears to be grossly administering injustice, THUS FAR.

The National Review, not a famed "liberal" site:

Standing Your Ground and Vigilantism - Robert VerBruggen - National Review Online

Just an obscure liberal site. Gotcha.

I'm reading the article. It's claiming Zimmerman ran to follow Martin just b/c his breathing was slightly elevated. Right there they lose credibility. He was not doing a lot of running while on the phone with 9-1-1 (according to my recollection). It's hard to talk and run, but they're making it sound like he's chasing him.

Martin asked “Why are you following me?”; Zimmerman replied “What are you doing here?”

If Martin spoke first then how does that mean that Zimmerman confronted Martin? Sounds like the other way around. I'm glad I could show you how you're twisting your arguments.

And this article cherry picks. It totally leaves out Zimmerman's testimony after the fact.

You're desperately seeing what you want to see.

Dude,

National Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

National Review (NR) is a fortnightly magazine founded by the late author William F. Buckley, Jr., in 1955 and based in New York City. It describes itself as "America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion."[2]

Seriously.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Believe me they'll try.

On a side (and related) note: I was a juror in a double murder trial. Guy busted the heads of two people with a baseball bat. (including a Mother of 4. Just awful) No blood, no DNA, no footprint evidence. A tricky trial. Only circumstantial evidence. What did him in was his cell phone records.

It was a grueling time I and 13 other jurors had at the trial. (It was there I learned premeditation could be only a matter of a few seconds - difference between Murder One and Murder Two.)

After a difficult time in the jury room after the closing arguments were made, we all agreed it WAS Murder One. Life without parole. Hard, hard decision to come to; I'll never forget the feeling in my chest when I had to stand up and state: Guilty.

After that, we were released and told to wait in the jury chamber. The judge came to us afterwards and told us: 'We couldn't tell you this during the trial, but this man had TWICE been charged with slamming people with a baseball bat. One time even sent to prison for it...so if you had even a hint of doubt you did the right thing, know: this is how this guy deals with his anger, and you made the right decision."

So, here was a case where EVEN WITH A CONVICTION of violence - with that same weapon of choice - they couldn't allow it in the trial.

Sounds like the defendant got a trial that dealt with the charges and circumstances at hand and wasn't prejudiced about his past. Goes to show how important it is to find a jury that wasn't privy to his past through the media or other means, do you think human nature automatically would have had folks leaning to guilty right away had you all known about his past and conviction? Me thinks so, and that alone would have been grounds for an appeal.

On another topic, I believe that prosecutors should be held liable and not be immune from being prosecuted themselves for intentionally railroading defendants by suppressing evidence and going for the conviction at all costs first and foremost, the SA offices should be looking for justice and the truth to the best of their ability, so we don't have so many innocent people rotting in prison or death row.
As it is now in many places the SA offices seem to just want a high conviction rate instead of seeking the truth and they should be held responsible if they deliberately bypass, hide, or fail to disclose things in a case that may acquit or exonerate an innocent person.

 

[Foxfyre]

Believe me they'll try.

On a side (and related) note: I was a juror in a double murder trial. Guy busted the heads of two people with a baseball bat. (including a Mother of 4. Just awful) No blood, no DNA, no footprint evidence. A tricky trial. Only circumstantial evidence. What did him in was his cell phone records.

It was a grueling time I and 13 other jurors had at the trial. (It was there I learned premeditation could be only a matter of a few seconds - difference between Murder One and Murder Two.)

After a difficult time in the jury room after the closing arguments were made, we all agreed it WAS Murder One. Life without parole. Hard, hard decision to come to; I'll never forget the feeling in my chest when I had to stand up and state: Guilty.

After that, we were released and told to wait in the jury chamber. The judge came to us afterwards and told us: 'We couldn't tell you this during the trial, but this man had TWICE been charged with slamming people with a baseball bat. One time even sent to prison for it...so if you had even a hint of doubt you did the right thing, know: this is how this guy deals with his anger, and you made the right decision."

So, here was a case where EVEN WITH A CONVICTION of violence - with that same weapon of choice - they couldn't allow it in the trial.

Sounds like the defendant got a trial that dealt with the charges and circumstances at hand and wasn't prejudiced about his past. Goes to show how important it is to find a jury that wasn't privy to his past through the media or other means, do you think human nature automatically would have had folks leaning to guilty right away had you all known about his past and conviction? Me thinks so, and that alone would have been grounds for an appeal.

On another topic, I believe that prosecutors should be held liable and not be immune from being prosecuted themselves for intentionally railroading defendants by suppressing evidence and going for the conviction at all costs first and foremost, the SA offices should be looking for justice and the truth to the best of their ability, so we don't have so many innocent people rotting in prison or death row.
As it is now in many places the SA offices seem to just want a high conviction rate instead of seeking the truth and they should be held responsible if they deliberately bypass, hide, or fail to disclose things in a case that may acquit or exonerate an innocent person.

That's one of the dynamics I'm seeing in the Zimmerman/Martin case currently being tried in the court of public opinion. If Martin had a history of attacking people--that has NOT been established in my opinion--it could affect how people felt about him. Evenmoreso if Zimmerman had a better 'apparent' case of being attacked by Martin. If Zimmerman has a history of inappropriate violence or racist attitudes--that also has not been established in my opinon--that could also color the verdict in the court of public opinion.

As it is, we don't have any hard facts as to the circumstances, but in the court of public opinion, there are far too many making the assumption that a white guy gunned down a black kid in cold blood for no other reason than the kid was black. To do that, however, they have to make him a WHITE guy. If he is seen as Hispanic or black, there is much more sympathy for him and/or we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

 

[Vidi]

I don't buy that. My understanding is that there is no witness that initially saw the confrontation. Got a link? But even had Zimmerman initiated the rhetoric, that does not excuse an attack and the state appears to be grossly administering injustice, THUS FAR.

It comes from Martins girlfriend who heard the initial contact over Martins cell phone. That's her version of things anyway.

Link? Quotes? When did you talk to her?

Don't be a dumbass. Did YOU speak with Zimmerman?

Aren't we ALL getting our info from news sources?

Trayvon s phone call actually explains WHY Zimmerman thought he was suspicious. It makes Zimmeans statement about Trayvon looking like he's "on drugs" a REASONABLE statement instead of a racist one. Because Trayvon was using an earpiece under his hoodie. Zimmerman never saw the earpiece, all he saw was some guy walking down the street talking to himself. That lends credence to Zimmermans case and helps him.

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."

Trayvon Martin Arrest Now After ABC Reveals Crucial Phone Call - ABC News

There's your link. Her statements have been linked to several times through all the Zimmerman/Martin threads which you have posted in repeatedly. So by now you should be aware of this if you're going to be so adamantly rude.

 

[FireFly]

I don't think Corey would take this to trial if she didn't think the guy committed a crime.

She's a very seasoned prosecutor, and has taken on controversial cases before. I don't think she's incompetent. I think she will do this the way it should be done.

I hope.

Based on witness & evidence released so far she does not have a case. I think the real genius was the Sanford Police Department not arresting Zimmerman or reading him his rights. Zimmerman gave over 5 hours of video taped police interrogation, interview & crime scene reenactment all without a lawyer. It is impossible for anyone innocent to talk that much & not contradict themselves. Had he clammed up & lawyered up imediatly after the shooting, he would be free due to witness statements. This is why you should never talk to police.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"]Dont Talk to Police[/ame]

You're wrong.

Had the Sanford police arrested Zimmerman, he would have had a stand your ground hearing and probably won it AND there would have been NO NATIONAL ATTENTION.

But because they didn't, the family turned to the media for help.

Now, everyone knows Zimmermans name, he has a bounty on his head and even if the charges get thrown out or he is found not guilty at trial, he's screwed for the rest of his life.

So the Sanford Police pretty much fucked George Zimmerman.

No, KissMy is saying what you are. Sanford PD screwed Zimmerman. But in a different way than you are saying. They lured him into entrapping himself so they could get a conviction instead of charging him so he would lawyer up & exercise his 5th amendment right to remain silent.

KissMy says "I think the real genius was the Sanford Police Department not arresting Zimmerman or reading him his rights. Zimmerman gave over 5 hours of video taped police interrogation, interview & crime scene reenactment all without a lawyer."

Sanford PD had Zimmerman thinking they were buddies & he spilled out his story. It is nearly impossible to talk about a crime & not contradict a witness, evidence or yourself. They gave Zimmerman all the rope he needed to hang himself.

 

[Peach]

It comes from Martins girlfriend who heard the initial contact over Martins cell phone. That's her version of things anyway.

Link? Quotes? When did you talk to her?

Don't be a dumbass. Did YOU speak with Zimmerman?

Aren't we ALL getting our info from news sources?

Trayvon s phone call actually explains WHY Zimmerman thought he was suspicious. It makes Zimmeans statement about Trayvon looking like he's "on drugs" a REASONABLE statement instead of a racist one. Because Trayvon was using an earpiece under his hoodie. Zimmerman never saw the earpiece, all he saw was some guy walking down the street talking to himself. That lends credence to Zimmermans case and helps him.

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."

Trayvon Martin Arrest Now After ABC Reveals Crucial Phone Call - ABC News

There's your link. Her statements have been linked to several times through all the Zimmerman/Martin threads which you have posted in repeatedly. So by now you should be aware of this if you're going to be so adamantly rude.

I don't this scenario helping Zimmerman.

 

[Vidi]

Link? Quotes? When did you talk to her?

Don't be a dumbass. Did YOU speak with Zimmerman?

Aren't we ALL getting our info from news sources?

Trayvon s phone call actually explains WHY Zimmerman thought he was suspicious. It makes Zimmeans statement about Trayvon looking like he's "on drugs" a REASONABLE statement instead of a racist one. Because Trayvon was using an earpiece under his hoodie. Zimmerman never saw the earpiece, all he saw was some guy walking down the street talking to himself. That lends credence to Zimmermans case and helps him.

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."

Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.

"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."

Trayvon Martin Arrest Now After ABC Reveals Crucial Phone Call - ABC News

There's your link. Her statements have been linked to several times through all the Zimmerman/Martin threads which you have posted in repeatedly. So by now you should be aware of this if you're going to be so adamantly rude.

I don't this scenario helping Zimmerman.

Her testimony doesn't. But...the fact that Trayvon appeared to be walking in the rain talking to himself gives Zimmerman proper reason to be suspicious and make the 911 call. This KILLS the accusation that Zimmerman targeted Trayvon because of racism, which makes the 2nd degree murder requirememt "of depraved mind" that much harder to prove.

 

[Peach]

Don't be a dumbass. Did YOU speak with Zimmerman?

Aren't we ALL getting our info from news sources?

Trayvon s phone call actually explains WHY Zimmerman thought he was suspicious. It makes Zimmeans statement about Trayvon looking like he's "on drugs" a REASONABLE statement instead of a racist one. Because Trayvon was using an earpiece under his hoodie. Zimmerman never saw the earpiece, all he saw was some guy walking down the street talking to himself. That lends credence to Zimmermans case and helps him.


There's your link. Her statements have been linked to several times through all the Zimmerman/Martin threads which you have posted in repeatedly. So by now you should be aware of this if you're going to be so adamantly rude.

I don't this scenario helping Zimmerman.

Her testimony doesn't. But...the fact that Trayvon appeared to be walking in the rain talking to himself gives Zimmerman proper reason to be suspicious and make the 911 call. This KILLS the accusation that Zimmerman targeted Trayvon because of racism, which makes the 2nd degree murder requirememt "of depraved mind" that much harder to prove.

Walking in the DARK, talking to himself gave Zimmerman a reasonable fear of deadly harm? C'mon!

 

[paperview]

I don't this scenario helping Zimmerman.

Her testimony doesn't. But...the fact that Trayvon appeared to be walking in the rain talking to himself gives Zimmerman proper reason to be suspicious and make the 911 call. This KILLS the accusation that Zimmerman targeted Trayvon because of racism, which makes the 2nd degree murder requirememt "of depraved mind" that much harder to prove.

Walking in the DARK, talking to himself gave Zimmerman a reasonable fear of deadly harm? C'mon!

Yeah. I didn't get that one either.

 

[Foxfyre]

Early on, Si Modoat least twice posted a reliable photocopy of the initial partial police report filed the night of the shooting. Since then, internet hackers have hacked the police report and included inflammatory statements that were not on the original. If I get time later, I'll go looking for the good copy she posted.

Meanwhile there is this statement/press release by the Sanford City Manager. It would be a good thing for everybody to read as there are a LOT of misconceptions about a lot of things that happened the night of the shooting.

Fellow Citizens:

There has been a lot of media attention to the recent incident where George
Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. This is indeed a tragic situation and has
caused a flood of questions and strong emotions from within our community, the region
and nation. On behalf of the employees of the City of Sanford, Our deepest sympathy
and prayers go out to the family and friends of Trayvon Martin. As a father, I can only
image the pain Trayvon’s family must be going through. The City of Sanford is
committed to insuring that justice is served and, therefore, the City of Sanford has
contacted the United States Attorney General’s Office for assistance in this matter.

In an effort to continue to be as responsive as possible to the public seeking information on
the incident, I have asked Chief Lee to provide answers to some of the most frequently
asked questions regarding this matter. Below are his responses. Please understand that
since this is still an ongoing investigation, the Police Department is limited in what
information it can publicly release.

The men and women of the Sanford Police Department extend our heartfelt
sympathies to the Martin family. This is indeed a tragic situation. The death of
anyone due to violence, especially a 17 year old young man, is morally appalling. As
this incident has generated a lot of media attention, we wanted to provide answers to
some of the most frequently asked questions.

Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?
When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr.
Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time
was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law
enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and
circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an
arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the
arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in
bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.

According to Florida Statute 776.032 :
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use
of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is
justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action
for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law
enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance
of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance
with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have
known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the
term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or
prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the
use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the
person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the
force that was used was unlawful.

Why weren’t the 911 tapes initially released?
There are exemptions to the public records laws for active criminal intelligence and
for ongoing investigations. In this instance, the 911 calls made by neighbors in the
subdivision, and the non-emergency call made by Mr. Zimmerman are all key to the
investigation by Sanford Police Department. In consultation with the Office of the
State Attorney, the Sanford police department had decided not to release the audio
recordings of the 911 calls due to the ongoing investigation. Many times, specific
information is contained in those recordings which is vital to the integrity of the
investigation. At the time, it was determined that if revealed, the information may
compromise the integrity of the investigation prior to its completion. The 911 tapes
have since been released.

Why did Mr. Zimmerman have a firearm in his possession while acting in the
role of a neighborhood watch member?
Mr. Zimmerman holds a concealed weapon permit issued from the State of Florida.
He is authorized to carry the weapon in a concealed manner wherever Florida
Statute dictates. Neighborhood Watch programs are designed for members of a
neighborhood to be “eyes and ears” for police and to watch out for their neighbors.
They are not members of the Police Department nor are they vigilantes. Training
provided by law enforcement agencies to Neighborhood Watch organizations
stresses non-contact surveillance of suspicious situations and notifying police of
those situations so that law enforcement can respond and take control of the
situation.

Mr. Zimmerman was not acting outside the legal boundaries of Florida Statute by
carrying his weapon when this incident occurred. He was in fact on a personal
errand in his vehicle when he observed Mr. Martin in the community and called the
Sanford Police Department.

If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be
considered in this investigation?
Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you
following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do
that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be
required to follow. Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and
was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by
Trayvon.

Why was George Zimmerman labeled as “squeaky clean” when in fact he has
a prior arrest history?
In one of the initial meetings with the father of the victim the investigator related to
him the account that Mr. Zimmerman provided of the incident. At that time the
investigator said that Mr. Zimmerman portrayed himself to be “squeaky clean”. We
are aware of the background information regarding both individuals involved in this
event. We believe Mr. Martin may have misconstrued this information.

What about media reenactments of the shooting incident?
Any media reenactments of the shooting incident are purely speculation. To date the
Sanford Police Department has not released any rendition of the events of the
evening to anyone other than the Office of the State Attorney. The renditions we
have seen are not consistent with the evidence in this case.

The Sanford Police Department has conducted a complete and fair investigation of
this incident. We have provided the results of our investigation to the Office of the
State Attorney for their review and consideration for possible criminal prosecution.

Although the Police Department is the target of the troubling questions, let me
assure you we too feel the pain of this senseless tragedy that has dramatically
affected our community. Therefore, as we move forward and strive to answer the
questions that are a point of controversy in the community, we ask for your patience,
understanding and assistance in getting the correct information to the community
We trust that this information is helpful to you.

Norton N. Bonaparte, Jr., ICMA-CM
City Manager
March 23, 2012

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

 

[Peach]

Her testimony doesn't. But...the fact that Trayvon appeared to be walking in the rain talking to himself gives Zimmerman proper reason to be suspicious and make the 911 call. This KILLS the accusation that Zimmerman targeted Trayvon because of racism, which makes the 2nd degree murder requirememt "of depraved mind" that much harder to prove.

Walking in the DARK, talking to himself gave Zimmerman a reasonable fear of deadly harm? C'mon!

Yeah. I didn't get that one either.

I'd stay AWAY from him myself.................

 

[Vidi]

I don't this scenario helping Zimmerman.

Her testimony doesn't. But...the fact that Trayvon appeared to be walking in the rain talking to himself gives Zimmerman proper reason to be suspicious and make the 911 call. This KILLS the accusation that Zimmerman targeted Trayvon because of racism, which makes the 2nd degree murder requirememt "of depraved mind" that much harder to prove.

Walking in the DARK, talking to himself gave Zimmerman a reasonable fear of deadly harm? C'mon!

That's not what I said.

It gives GZ reasonable suspicion to follow Martin and to make the 911 call. This can be argued by his lawyer that he was NOT "of depraved mind" when he left his car.

I did not say nor did I imply that it gave Zimmerman liscense to shoot and kill an unarmed 17 year old kid.


The second part of my post, the quoted part, made a different point entirely: That it could be argued that from Martins perspective, it was Zimmerman that posed the threat.

So I can understand the confusion. The two points are separate.

 

[Vidi]

Walking in the DARK, talking to himself gave Zimmerman a reasonable fear of deadly harm? C'mon!

Yeah. I didn't get that one either.

I'd stay AWAY from him myself.................

Lol. No I get the confusion. I was trying to answer two points and it seemed like I was speaking on one. Hard to do all this from my phone sometimes.

 

[Peach]

Maybe reason to call 911, and a reason to take the advice GIVEN: "We don't need you to do that".

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe reason to call 911, and a reason to take the advice GIVEN: "We don't need you to do that".

At which time, according to the 9/11 transscript and the City Manager's statement, Zimmerman broke off any further efforts to follow Martin and was returning to his car to wait for the police. He had lost sight of Martin at that time.

 

[Peach]

Maybe reason to call 911, and a reason to take the advice GIVEN: "We don't need you to do that".

At which time, according to the 9/11 transscript and the City Manager's statement, Zimmerman broke off any further efforts to follow Martin and was returning to his car to wait for the police. He had lost sight of Martin at that time.

All i read was him saying OK; the body of Martin was found WHERE in relation to the vehicle? The City Manager's statement I discount, he represents the CITY, thus has an interest.

 

[koshergrl]

Maybe reason to call 911, and a reason to take the advice GIVEN: "We don't need you to do that".

English lesson:

Saying "I don't need you to wash your hands now" is not the same as "Don't wash your hands now".

"We don't need you to do that" is not the same as "Don't do that."

Thank you. You may continue. Please return to your sixth 6th grade classroom and review.

 

[Vidi]

Maybe reason to call 911, and a reason to take the advice GIVEN: "We don't need you to do that".

Which Zimmerman did.

At that point, we only have Zimmermans story and the girlfriends story until the voice analysis is complete and/or released.

Based on the burden of proof in this case, barring some amazing still secret evidence I just don't see any way that Zimmerman can be convicted of anything.

Personally, I don't think he is innocent, but the way the law is written, I honestly don't think it can be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"

 

[Peach]

Maybe reason to call 911, and a reason to take the advice GIVEN: "We don't need you to do that".

English lesson:

Saying "I don't need you to wash your hands now" is not the same as "Don't wash your hands now".

"We don't need you to do that" is not the same as "Don't do that."

Thank you. You may continue. Please return to your sixth 6th grade classroom and review.

Yes, as I wrote, ADVICE.