Why Florida Persists in the Zimmerman Prosecution

[Wehrwolfen]

By Jack Cashill
March 11, 2013



Prodded by a president with a weakness for racial agitation and enabled by a politically complicit media, the State of Florida persists in a prosecution that can come to no good end.

The defendant is neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman. The charge is the second-degree murder. The potential outcomes range from major injustice, if Zimmerman is convicted, to mayhem in the streets, if he's acquitted. And the state plods on as though the angels were on its side. They are not.

The witnesses to the February 2012 shooting of 17 year-old Trayvon Martin are proving even more troublesome than the angels. The state's case took a hit last week when Witness #8, Martin's alleged 16-year-old sweetheart "Dee Dee," was caught in falsehoods so flagrant that even the Trayvon-friendly Orlando Sentinel noticed them. Conceded the headline, "Lawyer: State's main witness in George Zimmerman murder case lied."

When Dee Dee was first introduced to the world last March, the state and the media presumed her testimony would nail Zimmerman's coffin shut. She had been on the phone with Martin during the incident. "Trayvon Martin told her that someone was following him," said CNN legal analyst Sunny Hostin on March 20. "He was nervous. He was concerned. She explained to him that he should run."

According to Hostin, Dee Dee heard Martin say to Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" Right after this exchange, "She felt that someone had pushed or tackled Trayvon and, at that point, the phone call dropped." Hostin summarized that this "was the last conversation that Trayvon Martin had with anyone, and it also, in my view, dispels the notion of self-defense."

CNN then cut to a press conference featuring Benjamin Crump, attorney for the Martin family. "She couldn't even go to his wake she was so sick," Crump said of Dee Dee."Her mother had to take her to the hospital." Given the trauma and the fact Dee Dee was a "minor," Crump asked the media to respect her privacy. The media did not need to be asked. Dee Dee, as filtered through Crump, provided the confirmation they needed to establish the narrative they wanted: racist thug kills innocent Skittles-bearing black boy.

As it turns out Dee Dee was neither hospitalized nor a minor. This did not surprise the blogging collective at theconservativetreehouse.com. The "Treepers" had begun deconstructing "Dee Dee" within days of her debut and were predicting months ago that she would never appear in court. The major media, as is their custom with contrary facts, chose not to look in places they might find them.

The State of Florida had no interest in looking either. On April 11, 2012, Angela Corey, the special prosecutor in the case, filed an affidavit of probable cause against Zimmerman for second-degree murder. Corey took Dee Dee's word that Martin "attempted to run home" but that Zimmerman stalked and "confronted" him. As to the screams, Corey relied solely on the insights of Martin's mother, "who reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's."

To come to these conclusions, Corey had to ignore Zimmerman's account and all the corroborating, on-the-scene testimony from eyewitnesses. "The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect & that an officer was on the way," Zimmerman wrote on the night of the shooting. "As I headed back to my vehicle the suspect emerged from the darkness and said, 'You got a problem?'"

When Zimmerman answered "No," the suspect said, "You do now." Zimmerman tried to grab his phone to dial 911, but Martin punched him in the face."I fell backwards onto my back," Zimmerman continued. "The suspect got on top of me. I yelled 'Help' several times. The suspect told me, 'Shut the f*** up.' As I tried to sit upright, the suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk several times. I continued to yell 'Help.'"


Read more:
Articles: Why Florida Persists in the Zimmerman Prosecution

 

[nitroz]

1. Zimmerman's Gun was infact ILLEGAL because he was a convicted felon.

2. Trayvon Martin DID NOT provoke Zimmerman to pursue him. Zimmerman did that on his own motivation, taking his illegally possessed weapon with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

So, lets asses the situation.

Zimmerman followed and possibly confronted him. Trayvon had the right to stand his ground until an officer arrived to trespass him after/without verbal confrontation WITHOUT THE ILLEGAL GUN.

Instead, things escalated. Both could have been charged with assault (It doesn't matter who the aggressor is. If they both duke it out without taking an opportunity to retreat, it's mutual assault)

Things were escalated further when the illegal weapon was brought into the conflict.

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Stand your ground or not, the weapon was illegally in the possesion of Zimmerman because it was unregistered, unlicensed, and because he was a convicted felon. Therefore, it is illegal use which does not fall under the stand your ground law.
What does it mean since the Stand your ground law doesn't apply? It means that he committed murder.

 

[Avatar4321]

1. Zimmerman's Gun was infact ILLEGAL because he was a convicted felon.

2. Trayvon Martin DID NOT provoke Zimmerman to pursue him. Zimmerman did that on his own motivation, taking his illegally possessed weapon with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

So, lets asses the situation.

Zimmerman followed and possibly confronted him. Trayvon had the right to stand his ground until an officer arrived to trespass him after/without verbal confrontation WITHOUT THE ILLEGAL GUN.

Instead, things escalated. Both could have been charged with assault (It doesn't matter who the aggressor is. If they both duke it out without taking an opportunity to retreat, it's mutual assault)

Things were escalated further when the illegal weapon was brought into the conflict.

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Stand your ground or not, the weapon was illegally in the possesion of Zimmerman because it was unregistered, unlicensed, and because he was a convicted felon. Therefore, it is illegal use which does not fall under the stand your ground law.
What does it mean since the Stand your ground law doesn't apply? It means that he committed murder.

You might have a point if you didn't have to lie about the facts as told by the credible eye witnesses.

 

[nitroz]

1. Zimmerman's Gun was infact ILLEGAL because he was a convicted felon.

2. Trayvon Martin DID NOT provoke Zimmerman to pursue him. Zimmerman did that on his own motivation, taking his illegally possessed weapon with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

So, lets asses the situation.

Zimmerman followed and possibly confronted him. Trayvon had the right to stand his ground until an officer arrived to trespass him after/without verbal confrontation WITHOUT THE ILLEGAL GUN.

Instead, things escalated. Both could have been charged with assault (It doesn't matter who the aggressor is. If they both duke it out without taking an opportunity to retreat, it's mutual assault)

Things were escalated further when the illegal weapon was brought into the conflict.

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Stand your ground or not, the weapon was illegally in the possesion of Zimmerman because it was unregistered, unlicensed, and because he was a convicted felon. Therefore, it is illegal use which does not fall under the stand your ground law.
What does it mean since the Stand your ground law doesn't apply? It means that he committed murder.

You might have a point if you didn't have to lie about the facts as told by the credible eye witnesses.

1. Was zimmerman's weapon not illegal?

2. Did martin give probable cause to zimmerman to pursue him, besides because he existed?

 

[bripat9643]

1. Zimmerman's Gun was infact ILLEGAL because he was a convicted felon.

Wrong. Zimmermann doesn't have any felonies on his record. Furthermore, he has a concealed carry permit. You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

2. Trayvon Martin DID NOT provoke Zimmerman to pursue him. Zimmerman did that on his own motivation, taking his illegally possessed weapon with him.

THere's no law against following someone, so the issue of provocation is a non sequitur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

So, lets asses the situation.

Zimmerman followed and possibly confronted him. Trayvon had the right to stand his ground until an officer arrived to trespass him after/without verbal confrontation WITHOUT THE ILLEGAL GUN.

The gun wasn't illegal, and there's no evidence that Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin.

Instead, things escalated. Both could have been charged with assault (It doesn't matter who the aggressor is. If they both duke it out without taking an opportunity to retreat, it's mutual assault)

Yeah, they escalated when Treyvon punched Zimmerman in the face and started bashing his head against the ground

Things were escalated further when the illegal weapon was brought into the conflict.

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Stand your ground or not, the weapon was illegally in the possesion of Zimmerman because it was unregistered, unlicensed, and because he was a convicted felon. Therefore, it is illegal use which does not fall under the stand your ground law.
What does it mean since the Stand your ground law doesn't apply? It means that he committed murder.

You don't need to register or license guns in any state in the union, so you obviously don't know what the fuck your talking about. Zimmerman had no felonies on his record. Zimmerman still has a concealed carry permit. You can't get one of those without passing a background check.

You are so full of shit your eyes are brown.

 

[Avatar4321]

1. Was zimmerman's weapon not illegal?

2. Did martin give probable cause to zimmerman to pursue him, besides because he existed?

1) No clue what type of weapon was used, let alone the legallity of it. I like to know that information before I make comments.

2) Zimmerman didn't need probable cause. He wasn't a government official. Besides, it's a moot point since Martin attacked Zimmerman as he was walking back to his vehicle.

When someone jumps you, knocks you to the ground, and starts beating your head against the cement, you aren't committing a crime if you shoot them. Stand your ground doesn't even need to apply. It's straight up self defense.

Do you guys even know what Stand your ground is? You keep acting as though it's a big part of this case. It isn't.

Now what evidence do you have that this firearm was illegal? and why would you think the legallity of the fire arm has anything to do with whether the Stand your Ground rule applies? It just tells me that you dont have a clue what Stand your ground is.

 

[hunarcy]

1. Zimmerman's Gun was infact ILLEGAL because he was a convicted felon.

2. Trayvon Martin DID NOT provoke Zimmerman to pursue him. Zimmerman did that on his own motivation, taking his illegally possessed weapon with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

So, lets asses the situation.

Zimmerman followed and possibly confronted him. Trayvon had the right to stand his ground until an officer arrived to trespass him after/without verbal confrontation WITHOUT THE ILLEGAL GUN.

Instead, things escalated. Both could have been charged with assault (It doesn't matter who the aggressor is. If they both duke it out without taking an opportunity to retreat, it's mutual assault)

Things were escalated further when the illegal weapon was brought into the conflict.

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Stand your ground or not, the weapon was illegally in the possesion of Zimmerman because it was unregistered, unlicensed, and because he was a convicted felon. Therefore, it is illegal use which does not fall under the stand your ground law.
What does it mean since the Stand your ground law doesn't apply? It means that he committed murder.

Sorry, you're not able to CREATE your own facts.

First, Zimmerman was never convicted of a felony, and his weapon was not illegal. If it were, he'd be facing charges and he's not.

Second, according to Zimmerman (what he told the dispatcher) Martin had run away and Zimmerman had lost sight of him, so how is it that Martin came to be confronted by Zimmerman?

Finally, Zimmerman isn't using Florida's "Stand your ground" law as a defense. He's claiming self defense, which applies under any circumstance if you are reasonably in fear of your life.

Your facts are wrong, your interpretation is faulty and your claims are unworthy of attention. Good luck!

 

[kyzr]

Trayvon was a burglar who got caught and attacked the neighborhood watchman. Zimmerman should be given an award, not arrested.

SANFORD: Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

 

[velvtacheeze]

Zimmerman's wounds are just evidence that Martin was 'standing his ground' against the aggressiveness of a previously responsible gun-owner, which was Martin's right under Florida law. Zimmerman was a previously responsible gun-owner who made a few consecutive errors that evening.

He called the cops on someone despite not witnessing a crime. He ignored the request of an experienced police dispatcher to stay in his car and not follow Martin. He then physically confronted Martin instead of waiting for the cops, which he himself called. One poor decision after another from the 30-something community college student. How is he not already convicted? What a disgrace.

 

[Lakhota]

Why Florida Persists in the Zimmerman Prosecution

Because he murdered an unarmed kid?

 

[mudwhistle]

1. Zimmerman's Gun was infact ILLEGAL because he was a convicted felon.

2. Trayvon Martin DID NOT provoke Zimmerman to pursue him. Zimmerman did that on his own motivation, taking his illegally possessed weapon with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

So, lets asses the situation.

Zimmerman followed and possibly confronted him. Trayvon had the right to stand his ground until an officer arrived to trespass him after/without verbal confrontation WITHOUT THE ILLEGAL GUN.

Instead, things escalated. Both could have been charged with assault (It doesn't matter who the aggressor is. If they both duke it out without taking an opportunity to retreat, it's mutual assault)

Things were escalated further when the illegal weapon was brought into the conflict.

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Stand your ground or not, the weapon was illegally in the possesion of Zimmerman because it was unregistered, unlicensed, and because he was a convicted felon. Therefore, it is illegal use which does not fall under the stand your ground law.
What does it mean since the Stand your ground law doesn't apply? It means that he committed murder.

Let's Asses the situation????????

 

[TheOldSchool]

Could Zimmerman win the 2016 republican primary?

 

[The Rabbi]

1. Was zimmerman's weapon not illegal?

2. Did martin give probable cause to zimmerman to pursue him, besides because he existed?

1) No clue what type of weapon was used, let alone the legallity of it. I like to know that information before I make comments.

2) Zimmerman didn't need probable cause. He wasn't a government official. Besides, it's a moot point since Martin attacked Zimmerman as he was walking back to his vehicle.

When someone jumps you, knocks you to the ground, and starts beating your head against the cement, you aren't committing a crime if you shoot them. Stand your ground doesn't even need to apply. It's straight up self defense.

Do you guys even know what Stand your ground is? You keep acting as though it's a big part of this case. It isn't.

Now what evidence do you have that this firearm was illegal? and why would you think the legallity of the fire arm has anything to do with whether the Stand your Ground rule applies? It just tells me that you dont have a clue what Stand your ground is.

Zimmerman had a Kel Tec PF9, single stack compact 9mm pistol. He was a lawful permit holder. He was faced with the immediate threat of death or severe bodily harm and used his pistol to neutralize the threat. That is what self defense shootings are all about. There is no issue of "stand your ground" here. Even under common law in every state in the union he was justified in using deadly force.
The prosecution is occurring because the authorities are succumbing to racial pressure from the usual suspects. If Zimmerman were black this wouldn't even be news.

 

[Avatar4321]

Zimmerman's wounds are just evidence that Martin was 'standing his ground' against the aggressiveness of a previously responsible gun-owner, which was Martin's right under Florida law. Zimmerman was a previously responsible gun-owner who made a few consecutive errors that evening.

He called the cops on someone despite not witnessing a crime. He ignored the request of an experienced police dispatcher to stay in his car and not follow Martin. He then physically confronted Martin instead of waiting for the cops, which he himself called. One poor decision after another from the 30-something community college student. How is he not already convicted? What a disgrace.

1) Trials take time.
2) That's not how it happened.

 

[WUN]

Zimmerman is not a convicted felon and he had a valid concealed weapons permit. If the weapon was illegal that would have been front page news and he would have been charged with a weapons crime in addition to the 2nd degree murder, but he wasn't. If you have an official source, provide it. Following someone in public property is not illegal. I know this because I've had people follow me and the police could do nothing about it. Now if Trayvon had a restraining order against Zimmerman, that would be a different story. So 'provoke' is meaningless because Zimmerman was within his right to follow someone, even if it was just to report the person's whereabouts until the police arrived. As far as who confronted who, there were only two witnesses to that fact and one of them is dead. All of the other witnesses are *after* the fight had already started, so no third party saw who approached who nor who assaulted who first. The only possible witness (audio only) is the young woman that Trayvon was on the phone with that evening. However, some of her statements not relating to the phone call itself have proven to be outright falsehoods, which greatly diminishes her credibility. Obviously she is not impartial and might omit or change things, just as Zimmerman could have done. You're going to have to let the court figure this out and try to piece the facts together and let the jury decide if it was a case of self-defense or if it was 2nd degree murder or even a lesser charge like manslaughter.

 

[WUN]

Zimmerman's wounds are just evidence that Martin was 'standing his ground' against the aggressiveness of a previously responsible gun-owner, which was Martin's right under Florida law. Zimmerman was a previously responsible gun-owner who made a few consecutive errors that evening.

He called the cops on someone despite not witnessing a crime.

<As have countless people who have seen someone they deem as suspicious, including people they don't recognize in their neighborhood>

He ignored the request of an experienced police dispatcher to stay in his car and not follow Martin.

<It wasn't a request, a suggestion or a requirement - "We don't need you to do that", which is like saying "it's unnecessary". >

He then physically confronted Martin instead of waiting for the cops

<this is nothing but conjecture on your part - you have no proof of who confronted who>

, which he himself called. One poor decision after another from the 30-something community college student.

How is he not already convicted?

<It's called due process, but apparently you've never heard of it>


What a disgrace.

<Yes, your lack of knowledge and inability to use logic is a disgrace>

see above

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1. Zimmerman's Gun was infact ILLEGAL because he was a convicted felon.

2. Trayvon Martin DID NOT provoke Zimmerman to pursue him. Zimmerman did that on his own motivation, taking his illegally possessed weapon with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

So, lets asses the situation.

Zimmerman followed and possibly confronted him. Trayvon had the right to stand his ground until an officer arrived to trespass him after/without verbal confrontation WITHOUT THE ILLEGAL GUN.

Instead, things escalated. Both could have been charged with assault (It doesn't matter who the aggressor is. If they both duke it out without taking an opportunity to retreat, it's mutual assault)

Things were escalated further when the illegal weapon was brought into the conflict.

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Stand your ground or not, the weapon was illegally in the possesion of Zimmerman because it was unregistered, unlicensed, and because he was a convicted felon. Therefore, it is illegal use which does not fall under the stand your ground law.
What does it mean since the Stand your ground law doesn't apply? It means that he committed murder.

Zimmerman was a felon?

 

[The Rabbi]

1. Zimmerman's Gun was infact ILLEGAL because he was a convicted felon.

2. Trayvon Martin DID NOT provoke Zimmerman to pursue him. Zimmerman did that on his own motivation, taking his illegally possessed weapon with him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first.

So, lets asses the situation.

Zimmerman followed and possibly confronted him. Trayvon had the right to stand his ground until an officer arrived to trespass him after/without verbal confrontation WITHOUT THE ILLEGAL GUN.

Instead, things escalated. Both could have been charged with assault (It doesn't matter who the aggressor is. If they both duke it out without taking an opportunity to retreat, it's mutual assault)

Things were escalated further when the illegal weapon was brought into the conflict.

Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. Stand your ground or not, the weapon was illegally in the possesion of Zimmerman because it was unregistered, unlicensed, and because he was a convicted felon. Therefore, it is illegal use which does not fall under the stand your ground law.
What does it mean since the Stand your ground law doesn't apply? It means that he committed murder.

Zimmerman was a felon?

Reality is a rare visitor in Nitroz's world.

 

[bripat9643]

Zimmerman's wounds are just evidence that Martin was 'standing his ground' against the aggressiveness of a previously responsible gun-owner, which was Martin's right under Florida law. Zimmerman was a previously responsible gun-owner who made a few consecutive errors that evening.

Yeah, Zimmerman attacked Martin with his nose, and Martin had to defend himself. Hence the bruises on his knuckles.

He called the cops on someone despite not witnessing a crime.

He didn't accuse Martin of any crime, so there was no foul.

He ignored the request of an experienced police dispatcher to stay in his car and not follow Martin.

It wasn't really a request, and it certainly wasn't an order. The dispatcher replied "we don't need you to do that." Furthermore,tThe fact simply isn't relevant to the case.

He then physically confronted Martin instead of waiting for the cops, which he himself called.

There's no evidence of that. You're simply making assumptions. In a trial, the prosecution doesn't get to assume a thing.

One poor decision after another from the 30-something community college student. How is he not already convicted? What a disgrace.

He hasn't even had a trial yet, numbnuts. However, we understand that race baiting turds like you have already convicted him.

 

[hunarcy]

Zimmerman's wounds are just evidence that Martin was 'standing his ground' against the aggressiveness of a previously responsible gun-owner, which was Martin's right under Florida law. Zimmerman was a previously responsible gun-owner who made a few consecutive errors that evening.

He called the cops on someone despite not witnessing a crime.

<As have countless people who have seen someone they deem as suspicious, including people they don't recognize in their neighborhood>

He ignored the request of an experienced police dispatcher to stay in his car and not follow Martin.

<It wasn't a request, a suggestion or a requirement - "We don't need you to do that", which is like saying "it's unnecessary". >

He then physically confronted Martin instead of waiting for the cops

<this is nothing but conjecture on your part - you have no proof of who confronted who>

, which he himself called. One poor decision after another from the 30-something community college student.

How is he not already convicted?

<It's called due process, but apparently you've never heard of it>


What a disgrace.

<Yes, your lack of knowledge and inability to use logic is a disgrace>

see above

Based on our experiences with him on PE2K, vel was the second person I put on ignore when I learned there was an ignore function here...his performance here is no better than there.