Zimmerman charged. What do you think will happen if he's found Not Guilty?

[Bill Nance]

I think he could definitely be guilty, but no real evidence has been released in public to indicate that yet. It may still exist and the state is holding onto it until the appropriate time, for obvious reasons.



Again, what you've missed for the 50th time is following someone and talking to them is not necessarily "starting a confrontation". You don't understand that what he did doesn't "count" unless he assaulted Martin- eg, by trying to initiate physical contact with Martin, or at least, made verbal threats to Martin.

If your standard of "initiating a confrontation" is following someone and then talking to them, by that logic every LEO in america is probably guilty of that at one point or another, and we should be able to beat them up simply because they "initiated a confrontation" by following and talking to us.



The state has an equally hard case to prove that it was not self defense on Zimmerman's part, particularly if there aren't a lot of reliable witnesses around to refute his accounting of what happened.

-Mike

You are dead wrong. In fact, stalking someone as Zimmerman did is called specifically, "criminal menacing" in a number of jurisdictions.

"Menacing is the criminal charge that arises if you "knowingly" place someone "in fear of imminent serious bodily injury." In other words, you try to make someone believe they are going to get seriously hurt right now – not at some future date. In Colorado, the District Attorney must prove that you knew your actions were likely to make the person afraid, even if the person was not actually afraid."

If you, you strange white-looking guy, tail me in your car and then exit your car to confront me about something NO ONE, not even ZIMMERMAN is even alleging was in any way criminal conduct, you may well have committed this act. Add to that the fact that he was armed according to the criminal complaint had been told by law enforcement TWICE to back off, and yes, you have one Hell of a hard case to make that you thought you were in imminent threat of death or greivous bodily injury from someone who was of roughly the same size and have no serious wounds to back it up.

How anyone here can continue to defend Zimmerman BLINDLY given the FACTS, UNDISPUTED, which we already know, astonishes me.

Disparity of force people. Know it, learn it, love it. It's the law of the land. And an unarmed 17-year-old with ZERO violent record who is killed by a 35 (ish) year-old of about the same size when no criminal activity is even SUGGESTED to start the confrontation? Yes, no SHIT Zimmerman is going to get convicted of something. If you clowns think anything different would happen to you in Texas or some other mythical nirvana, you're wrong. I live in a pretty pro-gun, pro-self-defense jurisdiction and even the cops and attorneys I've talked to in MY town have all come down in favor of manslaughter based on PUBLIC FACTS (of which there are few) alone.

Zimmerman will do very well to avoid serious jail time. If what I think happened is anything like accurate, rightfully so. You DON'T get to stalk in a car, then on foot, an innocent person, demand answers and then when someone takes objection with a punch in the nose, resort to deadly force and call it self-defense. It doesn't work that way ANYWHERE in this country and never has.

I'm not even a TINY bit out of the reservation on this. This is consistent with EVERY legal opinion I've ever heard in such cases.

It's why we teach AVOID, AVOID, AVOID.

There was no reason on earth for Zimmerman to initiate contact. The police had been called. He knew they were on their way. WHY in God's name did he get out of his car? This ios the question he'll be asking himself for the rest of his life. Some of which will probably be in a jail cell. -PSGWSP. This was a stupid game played by a stupid person. There is no right that enables you to confront, stop, detain or question anyone going about their lawful business, as Martin WAS.

 

[Shaft]

my money would be on there being too much doubt for anybody (or any jury) to say with confidence they can determine what went down...under those circumstances a conviction is an uphill battle, unless there's evidence out there that hasn't been released...to put a percentage on it i'm leaning at least 60/40 towards a not guilty verdict based on lack of evidence concerning the critical moments of the conflict...probably more like 70/30 or 80/20, really...better chance of a conviction with a manslaughter charge, in my absolutely amateur and irrelevant legal opinion...

what will happen if there's a not guilty verdict? bad stuff, probably, because a lot of people see this as a race issue only...

but hey, who knows...ron goldman's blood was found in the white bronco...nothing surprises me anymore!

 

[Bill Nance]

All Zimmerman needs to do is say he was in danger

Um, you don't know WTF you are talking about.

"In danger" doesn't even begin to get it under the FLORIDA statute. The standard is the same as in Mass or anywhere else: Imminent or immediate threat of death or "grievous (or grave) bodily injury." "IN DANGER" is some BS that you fevered brain came up with. It is NOT, in ANY state of which I'm aware, a defense to homicide.

I strongly suggest you put aside your CCW until you get a little more education on the laws. Especially in NH and Mass., one of which I assume you're a resident of. NE SHOOTERS would be a good place for you to start your criminal homicide prevention training at.

 

[Bill Nance]

Your assuming the jury will get instructions for manslaughter. If they don't then I believe he will walk or a mistrial will be declared after many hours of deliberations.

They automatically do in Florida. This was in all the major coverages of the story. Unlike some statres, the govt. doesn't have to prove the (overcharged IMO) 2nd degree murder. The jury can opt for a lesser charge. -I'm betting they will.

 

[Bill Nance]

I The Black panthers are just missing the white sheets, same racist crap different color racist

And if this was a white vs. black guy, would the fact that the KKK came up to defend the white (dead guy) be even brought up on this thread other than to briefly disparage it, not to mention the other threads?

Why is it that the Black Panther Party, a group who has at most 10,000 members nationwide even warrants a mention? Al Sharpton is Abrahaham Lincoln next to those idiots and everyone knows it. You might as well mention the KKK in every mention of Romney or Santorum. They have about as much to do with each other.

Trying to find false equivalency in everything is foolish, All kidding aside, this is a very serious subject that affects every gun-owner in this country in one way or another, in example if nothing else. It deserves that level of serious conversation. Talking about how all the ******s will Riot because the black KKK said to, and equivocating 30 years of LA inner-city rage over brutal LAPD tactics is pointless and doesn't address any issue remotely relevant. It DOES, however, denote a level of cynicism and alienation from 13% of the population that is sad among our community, who ought to be the first in supporting Black people's right to bear arms, since they, statistically, are vastly more likely to need a firearm than you or I. Maybe if we could come together on that common point, a lot of these stupid-assed questions wouldn't need to be asked.

I'm as disgusted as anyone else by the "usual suspects" making the "usual claims." But those clowns ALWAYS make those claims. WTF that has to do with this particular case is irrelevant when it gets to a jury, which this case was always destined to do.

 

[Len-2A Training]

The state has an equally hard case to prove that it was not self defense on Zimmerman's part, particularly if there aren't a lot of reliable witnesses around to refute his accounting of what happened.

-Mike

Mike, the most "reliable witness" in this case is (or should be) the forensics . . .

- grass embedded in head,
- wounds to the head (alleged that Martin smashed the coke into Z's head),
- blood on the grass/ground and whose blood is it,
- trajectory of bullet.
- etc.

That info won't lie and should tell the story of who was on top/bottom, who was being attacked vs. who attacked, etc.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

How anyone here can continue to defend Zimmerman BLINDLY given the FACTS, UNDISPUTED, which we already know, astonishes me.

I don't consider any news summary of a situation to be "undisputed facts". It's going to take hundreds of hours of work by those with direct access to investigative reports, forensics, witnesses, etc. for the actual truth (or an approximation thereof) to come out which may, or may not, be consistent with the version of the story promoted by the media.

It's amazing, for example, how a trial can go on for weeks - but someone who sees a 30 minutes news special on the trial can know more about the truth of the matter, and what the verdict should have been, than a jury that sat through an entire trial.

had been told by law enforcement TWICE to back off

While I don't consider his course of action advisable or the one I would have taken, it may not be as simple as this. Questions come to mind such as "Is 'we don't need you to do that'" a command or simply explaining that the action is not required? Is the dispatcher a sworn officer and, if so, does not following a dispatcher's instruction rise to the level of disobeying the lawful command of a police officer? If the dispatcher is not a sworn officer, what level of authorative weight do her commands bear, and is there a legal obligation to obey them?

 

[bullseye]

I don't consider any news summary of a situation to be "undisputed facts". It's going to take hundreds of hours of work by those with direct access to investigative reports, forensics, witnesses, etc. for the actual truth (or an approximation thereof) to come out which may, or may not, be consistent with the version of the story promoted by the media.

It's amazing, for example, how a trial can go on for weeks - but someone who sees a 30 minutes news special on the trial can know more about the truth of the matter, and what the verdict should have been, than a jury that sat through an entire trial.

BUT,BUT It's reality TV.

 

[n1bsbri]

Why is it that the Black Panther Party, a group who has at most 10,000 members nationwide even warrants a mention? Al Sharpton is Abrahaham Lincoln next to those idiots and everyone knows it. You might as well mention the KKK in every mention of Romney or Santorum. They have about as much to do with each other.

The Black Panthers have the explicit support and encouragement of the US Attorney General. They operate with impunity backed by the current administration. The KKK never had that kind of horsepower.

 

[ShadeWPI]

The jury in Florida can opt to apply the lessor, included offense of man-slaughter if they decide Zimmerman was not acting in self defence, and the facts of the case do not meet the legal standard of Second Degree Murder. They can not, however, find him guilty of Criminal Menicing unless the state files additional charges against him because Criminal Menecing is not a lessor, included offense to the charge 2nd Degree Murder.

If the evidence suggests that Zimmerman approached Tyvon to question him about why is was there and what he was doing, then Tyvon threw a soda can, punched, knocked him to the ground and started to bang his head against the ground - the story presented by Zimmerman and thus far supported by his injuries and at least 1 witness' statements - he is not guilty of 2nd degree murder or man slaughter.
He may be guilty of stalking or criminal meancing for his actions prior to confronting Tyvon, but those actions do not authorize the use of force described above by Tyvon in self-defense and those actions do authorize Zimmerman's actions in self-defense. If this goes to trial and Zimmerman is only found guilty on a charge of criminal meancing (because the state decided to file additional charges against him between now and then), I suspect we'll still see massive public outrage.


Also, there is a case in Arizona right now where a black youth in a car encountered an older white hispanic pedestrian, then engaged in a heated dispute that ended with the black youth shooting the older white pedestrian. So far, the black youth is claiming self defense and has not been arrested.

You need to really hunt for the story despite it's striking similarities to the Martin-Zimmerman case because it is not getting attention from the national media. And the KKK are not out in force demanding the black youth be arrested.

 

[n1bsbri]

So much fail, where to begin...

How anyone here can continue to defend Zimmerman BLINDLY given the FACTS, UNDISPUTED, which we already know, astonishes me.

The "FACTS" are not out there yet, only biased media reports.

in favor of manslaughter based on PUBLIC FACTS (of which there are few) alone.

What about the "FACTS" that have not come out yet, that will show something else?

You DON'T get to stalk in a car, then on foot, an innocent person, demand answers and then when someone takes objection with a punch in the nose, resort to deadly force and call it self-defense.

How in the world do you come up with the conclusion that these are the facts? We have no idea whether Zimmerman made contact with Martin, or demanded answers, or anyone punched in the nose. This is all blind conjecture.

There is no right that enables you to confront, stop, detain or question anyone going about their lawful business, as Martin WAS.

None of us know for sure what Martin (or Zimmerman) was doing that night. There is no evidence that Zimmerman confronted, stopped, detained, or questioned Martin. Where do you get this information?

To address your comments in a previous post, Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. He is the defendant. Under our American justice system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to prove the things you have alleged (with no facts to back up the allegations) beyond a reasonable doubt. I learned all that in 8th grade I think, and I didn't get any memos that it has changed.

 

[mark056]

So much fail, where to begin...

The "FACTS" are not out there yet, only biased media reports.

What about the "FACTS" that have not come out yet, that will show something else?

How in the world do you come up with the conclusion that these are the facts? We have no idea whether Zimmerman made contact with Martin, or demanded answers, or anyone punched in the nose. This is all blind conjecture.

None of us know for sure what Martin (or Zimmerman) was doing that night. There is no evidence that Zimmerman confronted, stopped, detained, or questioned Martin. Where do you get this information?

To address your comments in a previous post, Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. He is the defendant. Under our American justice system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to prove the things you have alleged (with no facts to back up the allegations) beyond a reasonable doubt. I learned all that in 8th grade I think, and I didn't get any memos that it has changed.

The only problem with your analysis of Mr. Nance's post, is that you are biased in favor of the defendant. Your avatar says it all. Only two people really know what happened and one of them is dead. Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. All we really know is that Treyvon Martin was in a place where he was supposed to be, minding his own business and someone shot and killed him (by his own admission, George Zimmerman). Yes everything else is conjecture, but I have noticed an alarming trend that anyone suggesting that Treyvon Martin just might be a victim here, is immediately shot down with "we don't the facts"...when actually we have established two versions of the event. I hope that Len S is correct and that the forensic evidence can support the most likely series of events, but even then forensic evidence can be interpreted and challenged.

I guess I am tired of the fact that Martin is portrayed in the MSM as an innocent young lad, and here for the most part as a wannabe gangbanga. You might not like Treyvon Martin for any number of reasons, and I would probably not like him too much either simply because we have virtually nothing in common, but the facts are: 1. He was not committing any crime 2. He was not armed 3. At some point he had some kind of an encounter with Zimmerman and Zimmerman shot him. 4. We know (and this is documented) that Zimmerman was advised by the police not to continue to engage his surveillance of Martin.

I have my opinions as you do yours. This is strictly my opinion, but the next time you deal with the overzealous TSA Security Screener or Mall Cop, think George Zimmerman. That guy has "wannabe" written all over him, but that is just an opinion. The thing of it is, is now, even if Martin assaulted Zimmerman as he was returning to his car as Zimmerman alleges; it doesn't matter if that really happened or not, because that's what Zimmerman now believes.

I deplore the media circus which has tried Zimmerman in the court of public opinion. Once again n1sbsbri you talk theory about the American justice system, but Zimmerman is never going to get his real day in court, and to my way of thinking that is the second part of this tragedy, the first one being the death of Martin.

 

[n1bsbri]

I deplore the media circus which has tried Zimmerman in the court of public opinion. Once again n1sbsbri you talk theory about the American justice system, but Zimmerman is never going to get his real day in court, and to my way of thinking that is the second part of this tragedy, the first one being the death of Martin.

I agree with this statement. As to the rest of the post, I never stated that Martin was a gangbanger, or anything else. But to say he was minding his own business, and not doing anything illegal is entirely unsupported by the facts. You are just repeating the narrative that was put out by Martin's family, which clearly is biased to make Martin look like an angel. For obvious reasons, Zimmerman has not had his say yet.

I don't have any feelings for either one of these people, since I don't know them. However, the rush to judgement that Zimmerman did something wrong bothers me. We just don't know yet.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Interesting take by one of America's most liberal (but respected and fair) law professors:

Harvard Law prof.: Charges against Zimmerman won’t hold up

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz discusses the second-degree murder charges against George Zimmerman for Trayvon Martin’s death, and says that the court affidavit released Wednesday is “thin” and leaves out facts, and that the charges won’t hold up in court.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/47034974#47034974

 

[namedpipes]

Interesting take by one of America's most liberal (but respected and fair) law professors:

Harvard Law prof.: Charges against Zimmerman won’t hold up

They don't have to. If things are kept calm enough, long enough, the severity of any riots will likely be less. By promising a trial, they defuse the situation a little bit. A lot can happen between now and the end of the trial (the horse might learn to sing), but a riot NOW with the incident fresh in our minds with anger running high, people tweeting home addresses and others wondering why nobody has shot Zimmerman yet, a riot NOW will be more violent than the one we'll probably have when he he is found not guilty.

IMO

 

[n1bsbri]

Interesting take by one of America's most liberal (but respected and fair) law professors:

Harvard Law prof.: Charges against Zimmerman won’t hold up

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz discusses the second-degree murder charges against George Zimmerman for Trayvon Martin’s death, and says that the court affidavit released Wednesday is “thin” and leaves out facts, and that the charges won’t hold up in court.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/47034974#47034974

I don't agree with Dershowitz about much, but his take on the charges against Zimmerman are exactly what I have been saying. The evidence is thin at best.

 

[richc]

Listening to the radio this morning and learned this tidbit. Below I've pasted a transcript of Zimmerman's conversation with 911.

They ask Zimmerman where he lives and he says the following:

"oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is."

Does this mean at that point in time Zimmerman had lost track of the kid? That their encounter had ended?

Zimmerman has said as much, and said the kid came back and confronted him. If Zimmerman had given up pursuit and the kid came back and confronted Zimmerman and hit Zimmerman, it sounds like a very different case.

Thoughts?

Rich




Dispatcher

Okay do you live in the area?

Zimmerman

Yeah, I...[unintelligible]

Dispatcher

What's your apartment number?

Zimmerman

It's a home it's [house number removed], (knocking sound) oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.

Dispatcher

Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?

Zimmerman

Yeah that's fine.

Dispatcher

Alright George, I'll let them know to meet you around there, okay?

Zimmerman

Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?

 

[cekim]

All we really know is that Treyvon Martin was in a place where he was supposed to be, minding his own business and someone shot and killed him (by his own admission, George Zimmerman).

Well now if you really want to be objective, we don't know that either... You are not allowing for Zimmerman to have been a jerk (as we hear on the tapes), but walked away when he realized he was wrong. IF (big giant IF - I don't know) he was then attacked after he disengaged from the Martin, then Martin was no longer "where he was supposed to be."

That would still leave Zimmerman open to charges of menacing, harassment or whatever they call it for the first instance, of course, but it creates a problem with your analysis.

Again, we don't have all the facts and with what little we do have, drawing a conclusion one way or the other is biased - sorry, but that is why we have due process. Bill brought up the disparity of force concept, but pounding someone's head on a pavement is assault with a deadly, so there you go - it is not inevitable that lack of a "gun" means you cannot bring "deadly force" to an engagement - far from it.

Where such confusing issues sometimes end up is that criminal activity cannot be clearly identified in either party, but "negligence" (or at least a preponderance of evidence showing it can). It is cold comfort to someone who has lost a loved one, but the arguments being made about who "created the whole situation" are, outside of felony murder charges, general found in a wrongful death civil lawsuit rather than criminal charges.

 

[MichaelJR]

Doesn't matter, it's starting to be apparent that we are on the verge of a perfect storm. This case, newly kindled race tensions, a media that will sensationalize anything they can get their dirty hands on, the return of OWS (if they get violent, which is inevitable), destruction of the constitution and those who will fight to restore it, Obama losing the election.....half this country will be on fire within the next year. Perpetual state of rioting.

Can anyone remember the last time (if ever) it's been this bad all at once?

 

[namedpipes]

...Can anyone remember the last time (if ever) it's been this bad all at once?

'bout four years ago.

 

[cekim]

Can anyone remember the last time (if ever) it's been this bad all at once?

Been discussed, this isn't the first time, but certainly it hasn't been so uniformly bad in quite some time.

 

[Mike S]

Heard this morning that Al Sharpton visits the WH more than the head of the CIA.

I now believe that the Zimmerman case grew to the proportion that it did, a month after the fact b/c the WH decided to use it to push against stand your ground, and for a gun control rallying cry. The fact that it had a bunch of side benefits was just icing on the cake for them. They are clearly directing the dialogue of the loony leftists - MSNBC et al.

 

[ShadeWPI]

My issue with the arrest and charging of Zimmerman isn't that he was arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder for what might have been a case of self-defense. My issue is that the county attorney reviewed the evidence from the police and determined that there was not sufficient evidence to warrent prosecution, so a special prosecutor was brought in to take over the investigation and "get justice for Travon". Then, rather than presenting the evidence to a Grand Jury to attempt to demonstrate a desire for justice and "the truth" the special prosecutor decided to bypass a Grand Jury and unilaterially charge him with 2nd degree murder. The decision to bypass the Grand Jury, and thus remove political influence from the decision process has only served to fuel speculation of the special prosecutor's motive and question whether "justice" is being done. Having the Attorney General state that the federal government would step in if charges were not filed only adds to the speculation that this is driven more by politics than justice.

The special prosecutor _should_ have insisted that this case go before a Grand Jury specifically to reduce the political influence over the application of justice.

 

[mark056]

My issue with the arrest and charging of Zimmerman isn't that he was arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder for what might have been a case of self-defense. My issue is that the county attorney reviewed the evidence from the police and determined that there was not sufficient evidence to warrent prosecution, so a special prosecutor was brought in to take over the investigation and "get justice for Travon". Then, rather than presenting the evidence to a Grand Jury to attempt to demonstrate a desire for justice and "the truth" the special prosecutor decided to bypass a Grand Jury and unilaterially charge him with 2nd degree murder. The decision to bypass the Grand Jury, and thus remove political influence from the decision process has only served to fuel speculation of the special prosecutor's motive and question whether "justice" is being done. Having the Attorney General state that the federal government would step in if charges were not filed only adds to the speculation that this is driven more by politics than justice.

The special prosecutor _should_ have insisted that this case go before a Grand Jury specifically to reduce the political influence over the application of justice.

What does justice have to do with it? This is all about politics...it won't be the first trial with political overtones and it won't be the last.

 

[Broc]

I imagine that line of reasoning changes very quickly when your intended target begins firing in your direction.

Yes, we just return the favor Unless you say the safety word NES.

 

[MA_Shooter]

What does justice have to do with it? This is all about politics...it won't be the first trial with political overtones and it won't be the last.

Fast-n-Furious wasn't working as planned so time to find someone else to carry the water.

 

[cekim]

What does justice have to do with it? This is all about politics...it won't be the first trial with political overtones and it won't be the last.

Yeah, I think it was pretty clear when they brought her on that the whole point was that she had handled dog and pony shows before.

 

[mark056]

Fast-n-Furious wasn't working as planned so time to find someone else to carry the water.

Ya know there is something to what you are saying here. Remember too, that we have long said that the Obama administration has been waiting for that one "incident" that might galvanize people against guns and laws that favor the use of firearms (this may or may not be a successful ploy). Kinda funny how much exposure this whole case is getting, esp during an election year.

 

[drgrant]

You are dead wrong. In fact, stalking someone as Zimmerman did is called specifically, "criminal menacing" in a number of jurisdictions.

Without knowing the context and exactly what happened, it is unclear as to how Zimmerman actually approached Martin. The only "evidence" so far is the testimony of some kid that Martin was talking to on a cell phone- a witness who has already proved herself to be not so reliable, from what I understand. In order for something to be "criminal menacing" it probably has to meet some sort of legal test. Unless Zimmerman has admitted to doing things which satisfy this test, then this claim is thin at best.

Even then, this still doesn't address the problem of Zimmerman disengaging from Martin. If it is true that Zimmerman disengaged from Martin, and then Martin comes back and attacks him, any legal claims of Zimmerman being an "instigator" don't really mean a whole hell of a lot. (Not to mention, unless someone is actually assaulted/touched, this notional of "instigating" a confrontation is a somewhat nebulous concept to begin with. a**h***s like the WBC anti-gay types verbally instigate confrontation all the time, and I don't see any of those douchebags in jail. )

Add to that the fact that he was armed according to the criminal complaint had been told by law enforcement TWICE to back off,

You mean a civilian dispatcher telling him nicely? Where was the 2nd occurrence? Zimmerman being armed is completely irrelevant unless there is some evidence that indicates he was using his gun to threaten or intimidate Martin.

and yes, you have one Hell of a hard case to make that you thought you were in imminent threat of death or greivous bodily injury from someone who was of roughly the same size and have no serious wounds to back it up.

You have to have visible open wounds to justify a deadly force response?

How anyone here can continue to defend Zimmerman BLINDLY given the FACTS, UNDISPUTED, which we already know, astonishes me.

I don't think most here are defending the guy. I haven't seen a lot of things that would constitute "facts" in my book other than that, some idiot got out of a car, followed a kid, then (as far as we know) lost track of the kid, then some point after that him and the kid got into an altercation of some sort, and the kid got shot. Everything else and all the details is pretty much a murky pile of crap.

Disparity of force people. Know it, learn it, love it. It's the law of the land. And an unarmed 17-year-old with ZERO violent record who is killed by a 35 (ish) year-old of about the same size when no criminal activity is even SUGGESTED to start the confrontation?

Since when is a criminal record of an assailant relevant in determining whether or not self defense is legitimate? It isn't, at least not in this case. You know better than that, Bill.

Yes, no SHIT Zimmerman is going to get convicted of something. If you clowns think anything different would happen to you in Texas or some other mythical nirvana, you're wrong. I live in a pretty pro-gun, pro-self-defense jurisdiction and even the cops and attorneys I've talked to in MY town have all come down in favor of manslaughter based on PUBLIC FACTS (of which there are few) alone.

I don't think nearly all the facts are on the table, for starters. I also think that if we swapped out Martin with an older person,
(say mid 20s), at that point regardless of that person's race, we wouldn't even be here talking about this. Everyone has their head inserted into their rectum because one of the actors is a kid. There is prevailing, insanely idiotic assumption that someone who is "just a kid" could not possibly ever be a threat to an adult. There is the wailing and gnashing of teeth because of the depiction that Martin is "A good, innocent kid who would have neeeeever possibly assaulted someone." etc.

Zimmerman will do very well to avoid serious jail time. If what I think happened is anything like accurate, rightfully so. You DON'T get to stalk in a car, then on foot, an innocent person, demand answers and then when someone takes objection with a punch in the nose, resort to deadly force and call it self-defense. It doesn't work that way ANYWHERE in this country and never has.

The facts are not in evidence yet that this is how this altercation panned out. You're just assuming, again, like the DemNSBC and Nancy Grace fapper types are, based on fluff and bloviation extrapolated from the 911 call and the few conflicting witness statements floating around.

I agree with Len on this, the forensic info will be more trustworthy than any of the crap we've heard so far.

It's why we teach AVOID, AVOID, AVOID.

There was no reason on earth for Zimmerman to initiate contact. The police had been called. He knew they were on their way. WHY in God's name did he get out of his car? This ios the question he'll be asking himself for the rest of his life. Some of which will probably be in a jail cell. -PSGWSP. This was a stupid game played by a stupid person. There is no right that enables you to confront, stop, detain or question anyone going about their lawful business, as Martin WAS.

I won't dispute any of that, but Zimmerman being an idiot does not address the legal question of whether or not he was legally justified in defending himself or not. His actions show poor judgement, but there are likely hundreds of people exonerated in self defense cases every year who displayed some level of poor judgement leading up to the incident which required the force response. Being dumb in and of itself doesn't, by default, automatically invalidate someone's self defense claim.

-Mike

 

[rwl1955]

Does it not occur to ANY of you that Zimmerman could in fact be guilty as charged?

At BEST, being charitable, I look at this case and think he has one Hell of a case to make: That he was at imminent threat of death or grievous bodily injury by a single unarmed assailant AFTER having initiated the confrontation in the first place. (That last isn't in doubt at all, even by Zimmerman's account).

In the BEST of circumstances, even with a sympathetic jury I'd give 70/30 that Zimmerman would be convicted of some degree of manslaughter. He's got one Hell of a hard case to prove.

But since the usual suspects are saying the usual crap, many people on this board are assuming it's Rodney King all over again. -It's not the same thing. Not even a little bit. -I fail to see any reason for the original question. -Unless you're stupid enough to think that the Black Panther party speaks for anything but the same fringe of the country that the KKK speaks for.

No. According to Atty. Wendy Murphy on the Michael Graham show yesterday the Prosecutor would have to prove Zimmerman left his house with the intention of killing someone that night. The killing would have to be premeditated. Graham thinks they overcharged him so he would plea down to manslaughter and receive minimum jail time.