Zimmerman to be charged

[buddy]

I am surprised no one has mentioned the similarities between this and the Duke lacrosse players. That was racially charged prosecution to appease an angry black mob. Same here.
But it at least showed justice could be served. Maybe it can happen here too.

 

[BC1]

Yup. If that's how it happened. Big "if".

There is absolutely no evidence to say that's what happened. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. "Maybe" doesn't mean "Beyond a reasonable doubt". Remember - GZ doesn't have to prove anything. The prosecution has to disclose all of their evidence....they're not allowed to have secrets, no aces up their sleeve. I have yet to see an eyewitness that positively refutes anything GZ has said. I have yet to see any forensic evidence that contradicts his story, yet in both cases (eyewitness and forensic) there is evidence that supports it.

I believe the prosecution will have to concede the fact that Martin initiated the physical contact and was beating on Zimmerman. If they want to have any hope of a conviction (probably something less than murder 2) they'll have to show that, in spite of the attack, GZ had no reason to believe his life was in danger and that he overreacted. Tough to do.

Seems they may have overcharged as well. I was surprised to see second degree. It's a high bar for the prosecution.

 

[SR40c]

Seems they may have overcharged as well. I was surprised to see second degree. It's a high bar for the prosecution.

Not sure how it will work, but wouldn't that depend on if the jury is given instructions on Second Degree Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, and Involuntary Man Slaughter? You know, as in; Take your pick?

 

[nogods]

I am surprised no one has mentioned the similarities between this and the Duke lacrosse players. That was racially charged prosecution to appease an angry black mob. Same here.
But it at least showed justice could be served. Maybe it can happen here too.

The duke case was caused by an over zealous prosecutor. He was eventually disbarred from the practice of law.

Oh, and the matter was resolved after the state attorney general took over the matter.

So yes, it is similar to the Zimmerman case - local law enforcement doesn't do its job, then state prosecutor has to step in to clean up the mess. Just like in the Duke case.

 

[Dave Nowlin]

I'm really confused. Let's say for the purpose of arguement that I am a neighborhood watchman and see you wandering through private property that I am protecting and I simply follow you and watch you. You pull a hoodie over your head after I begin following you which seems suspicious to me. I lose sight of you and look on foot to see where you went and what you are doing. I don't see you and turn around and head back to my vehicle. At this point you approach me from behind and startle me then punch me in the nose breaking it. You knock me to the ground and get on top of me and start beating my head on the ground or pavement with sufficient force to cut open the back of my head. I repeatedly cry for help but receive none. You continue to assault me and I have no way of knowing whether or not you intend to kill me. At what point do I gain the right to draw my pistol to defend myself? Have any of you ever had anyone hit you in the nose and break it? When that happens your eyes tear so badly that you really aren't able to defend yourself very well as you can't see. The police officer's report which was released by the news media, stated that George's nose was bleeding as well as the back of his head. It also says that after he was seated in the back of the patrol car he told the officer that he had cried for help over and over but no one would help him. He had no way of knowing that the cries for help would later become an issue as folks tried to decide whose voice was calling for help. Therefore I am inclined to beleive it was George that was crying for help. I can't understand what stand your ground has to do with this. The other thing the police officer's report notes is that George's clothes were all wet on the back side. This would seem to verify that he had been on his back on the ground. What am I not understanding here?

 

[NavyLCDR]

I'm really confused. Let's say for the purpose of arguement that I am a neighborhood watchman and see you wandering through private property that I am protecting and I simply follow you and watch you. You pull a hoodie over your head after I begin following you which seems suspicious to me. I lose sight of you and look on foot to see where you went and what you are doing. I don't see you and turn around and head back to my vehicle. At this point you approach me from behind and startle me then punch me in the nose breaking it. You knock me to the ground and get on top of me and start beating my head on the ground or pavement with sufficient force to cut open the back of my head. I repeatedly cry for help but receive none. You continue to assault me and I have no way of knowing whether or not you intend to kill me. At what point do I gain the right to draw my pistol to defend myself? Have any of you ever had anyone hit you in the nose and break it? When that happens your eyes tear so badly that you really aren't able to defend yourself very well as you can't see. The police officer's report which was released by the news media, stated that George's nose was bleeding as well as the back of his head. It also says that after he was seated in the back of the patrol car he told the officer that he had cried for help over and over but no one would help him. He had no way of knowing that the cries for help would later become an issue as folks tried to decide whose voice was calling for help. Therefore I am inclined to beleive it was George that was crying for help. I can't understand what stand your ground has to do with this. The other thing the police officer's report notes is that George's clothes were all wet on the back side. This would seem to verify that he had been on his back on the ground. What am I not understanding here?

Who is to say that Zimmerman did not attack Martin first, and the wounds that Zimmerman suffered were not due to Martin defending himself against Zimmerman's attack? Yes, the state must prove murder. But why all this rushing to simply believe what Zimmerman ALLEGES happened?

I'm just saying, at this point in time, it seems to me like there is just as much indication that Zimmerman attacked Martin first as there is that Zimmerman was a victim. The only indication that Zimmerman is the "victim" is Zimmerman's own verbal account of what happened. I would hope that if someone attacks me, especially if they are armed, that they will be left with defensive wounds on them, hopefully fatal defensive wounds. There is just as much indication that Zimmerman suffered his wounds while attacking Martin as there is Martin attacking Zimmerman.. which is basically none.

Hopefully there is real evidence of what happened in existence.

 

[nogods]

I'm really confused. Let's say for the purpose of arguement that I am a neighborhood watchman and see you wandering through private property that I am protecting and I simply follow you and watch you. You pull a hoodie over your head after I begin following you which seems suspicious to me. I lose sight of you and look on foot to see where you went and what you are doing. I don't see you and turn around and head back to my vehicle. At this point you approach me from behind and startle me then punch me in the nose breaking it. You knock me to the ground and get on top of me and start beating my head on the ground or pavement with sufficient force to cut open the back of my head. I repeatedly cry for help but receive none. You continue to assault me and I have no way of knowing whether or not you intend to kill me. At what point do I gain the right to draw my pistol to defend myself? Have any of you ever had anyone hit you in the nose and break it? When that happens your eyes tear so badly that you really aren't able to defend yourself very well as you can't see. The police officer's report which was released by the news media, stated that George's nose was bleeding as well as the back of his head. It also says that after he was seated in the back of the patrol car he told the officer that he had cried for help over and over but no one would help him. He had no way of knowing that the cries for help would later become an issue as folks tried to decide whose voice was calling for help. Therefore I am inclined to beleive it was George that was crying for help. I can't understand what stand your ground has to do with this. The other thing the police officer's report notes is that George's clothes were all wet on the back side. This would seem to verify that he had been on his back on the ground. What am I not understanding here?

Let's say for the purpose of argument that I am a wannabe cop who has a history of playing Joe Friday, has been involved in a domestic violence matter, was arrested for assaulting a police officer, and is thought of by co-workers as someone who can't control himself in tense situations while working as a security guard.

Oh, then throw in the fact that I believed that the "suspect" was a "punk" before I approached him.

Now, are you going to swallow hook, line, and sinker the rest of the story I tell or are you going to be a wee bit skeptical?

 

[buddy]

The duke case was caused by an over zealous prosecutor. He was eventually disbarred from the practice of law.

Oh, and the matter was resolved after the state attorney general took over the matter.

So yes, it is similar to the Zimmerman case - local law enforcement doesn't do its job, then state prosecutor has to step in to clean up the mess. Just like in the Duke case.

And he was overzealous because he allowed race to color his thinking. As appears to be the case here. You are naive if you don't see this. Do you honestly believe this would have happened if not for the uproar from the black community? and that the uproar was based on anything but race?

 

[nogods]

And he was overzealous because he allowed race to color his thinking. As appears to be the case here. You are naive if you don't see this. Do you honestly believe this would have happened if not for the uproar from the black community? and that the uproar was based on anything but race?

He wasn't overzealous because of race. He was white. He was an oportunist. He didn't give a damn about the color of the skin of the alleged victim - he wanted to advance his political career.

In the Zimmerman case, the state attorney general would probably not have reviewed the matter if there had not been an uproar.

That's a lot different from concluding that the state attorney general's office decided to charge because of the uproar. The state attorney general has nothing to gain if a judge dismisses the case because of lack of probable cause. In fact, if the attorney general didn't think there was probable cause, she could have simply sent it to a grand jury and let it die there.

If there is probable cause to prosecute Zimmerman then he should have been prosecuted by the local authorities in the first place. Thankfully Martin's family didn't let the matter die by local blunder.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I'm really confused. Let's say for the purpose of arguement that I am a neighborhood watchman and see you wandering through private property that I am protecting and I simply follow you and watch you. You pull a hoodie over your head after I begin following you which seems suspicious to me. I lose sight of you and look on foot to see where you went and what you are doing. I don't see you and turn around and head back to my vehicle. At this point you approach me from behind and startle me then punch me in the nose breaking it. You knock me to the ground and get on top of me and start beating my head on the ground or pavement with sufficient force to cut open the back of my head. I repeatedly cry for help but receive none. You continue to assault me and I have no way of knowing whether or not you intend to kill me. At what point do I gain the right to draw my pistol to defend myself? Have any of you ever had anyone hit you in the nose and break it? When that happens your eyes tear so badly that you really aren't able to defend yourself very well as you can't see. The police officer's report which was released by the news media, stated that George's nose was bleeding as well as the back of his head. It also says that after he was seated in the back of the patrol car he told the officer that he had cried for help over and over but no one would help him. He had no way of knowing that the cries for help would later become an issue as folks tried to decide whose voice was calling for help. Therefore I am inclined to beleive it was George that was crying for help. I can't understand what stand your ground has to do with this. The other thing the police officer's report notes is that George's clothes were all wet on the back side. This would seem to verify that he had been on his back on the ground. What am I not understanding here?

Let's say for the purpose of argument that I am a wannabe cop who has a history of playing Joe Friday, has been involved in a domestic violence matter, was arrested for assaulting a police officer, and is thought of by co-workers as someone who can't control himself in tense situations while working as a security guard.

Oh, then throw in the fact that I believed that the "suspect" was a "punk" before I approached him.

Now, are you going to swallow hook, line, and sinker the rest of the story I tell or are you going to be a wee bit skeptical?

Are you talking about Zimmerman? I must be reading about a different Zimmerman because this case doesn't have anyone with charges like those on his record. I know he shares restraining orders with his ex, and he was charged for resisting without violence. Can you link that shows assaulting an officer and domestic violence charges?

You can always pull a low speed and claim he is a rapist and child abuser too, if it helps you prove your points. Might as will throw in some more bogus charges like robbery and drug possession, its fun that way.

 

[alternety]

It is tough to make a rational decision with as little hard evidence as the authorities have shared. And filtering media extrapolation.

My questions from day one:

Was a thorough examination made of the body and Zimmerman to examine the hands of each to see if there was evidence of hitting someone else? I read an anecdotal report of someone claiming to have talked to the mortician. It stated that there was no indications that Martin had damage caused by hitting Zimmerman.

Is there blood evidence that Martin was on top. If that was the case there should be blood spatter on Zimmerman.

Angle and distance when shot fired.

The "fact" that Zimmerman had a wet back (no - not a racist slur) posted somewhere above is the first time I have heard that said.

Is there any evidence that Zimmerman was returning to his car.

Location of Zimmerman's blood trace, if any.

Much of that information may well be lost forever if no reasonable information gathering took place after the incident (which sounds possible). Body evidence, if there was no autopsy/exam, could possibly be recovered if the body was exhumed. The sum of the information could provide some real insight into just what transpired and give the jury something to work on. The question of incitement remains a serious factor in determining guilt. Zimmerman was not "ordered" to back off based on the 911 tape. It is what he did after that point that will probably at least determine what the final charge will be.

 

[Nightmare45]

Words of special prosecutor, after speaking to TM's Family, I am here to seek justice for TM, not just justice or the truth. Sounds like a witch hunt from the get go.

 

[meatsandwich]

It's funny. I'll bet you a paycheck against a doughnut that if Martin had pulled a lawfully carried gun and shot Zimmerman, 3/4 of the members of gun forums like this would be squarely behind Martin. Seems like all it takes to garner support from a bunch of "us" is to shoot someone and throw up the hands and scream "SELF DEFENSE!"

Well yea if there is some proof of self defense, then it wouldnt matter of color of skin. If something happened and you had to use your firearm in defense you would want people to support you. There is to many anti gun people out there, we need to stand behind other gun owners. I dont really know if Zimmerman was really defending himself or not because I was not there and the media says all different things and other parties get involved so the truth will always be twisted.

 

[onetuza]

Help Z at http://legalboom.org/blog/

 

[S&W645]

He has a good chance of being found not guilty in Florida because Second Degree Murder in this case is a ridiculous charge - with an exceptionally high burden of proof that is going to be exceedingly difficult to meet.

For people who want 'justice' they should be outraged that this is what the state decided to pursue. This case is set up for failure. Can you imagine the riots that will go down from those crying racial crime if/when he gets acquitted?

Just because the charge currently is 2nd Degree Murder does not mean that will be the final charge to the jury. If the prosecutor at a later date during the trial ( if it gets there ) decides to lower the charge, that is possible. The current charge does not have to be what the jury gets or that the jury finally votes on. 2nd degree is just the highest that it can be in this case. The lessor charge of Manslaughter is also an option.

 

[Bttbbob]

Just because the charge currently is 2nd Degree Murder does not mean that will be the final charge to the jury. If the prosecutor at a later date during the trial ( if it gets there ) decides to lower the charge, that is possible. The current charge does not have to be what the jury gets or that the jury finally votes on. 2nd degree is just the highest that it can be in this case. The lessor charge of Manslaughter is also an option.

There my friend is the key..........I am thinking, unless they have a real smoking gun, this doesn't make it through the immunity hearing.....

 

[BluesStringer]

Was a thorough examination made of the body and Zimmerman to examine the hands of each to see if there was evidence of hitting someone else? I read an anecdotal report of someone claiming to have talked to the mortician. It stated that there was no indications that Martin had damage caused by hitting Zimmerman.

There was an autopsy on Martin's body. Presumably, it is routine to collect gunpowder evidence. If not, surely it will be in the future.

I don't know if there's any distinction between a "mortician" and a "funeral director," but the person making statements about the condition of Martin's hands etc. was his family's funeral director. While that fact in and of itself doesn't mean he couldn't or wouldn't be objective in his analysis, the interview in which he uttered the statement struck me as him wandering unsuccessfully for a cogent thought that would tend to make Zimmerman guilty as sin. Link Removed. (Not my link - linked to from a Yahoo! article that was posted by jhodge83 earlier in the thread.)

Is there blood evidence that Martin was on top. If that was the case there should be blood spatter on Zimmerman.

While what you say here is at least possible, maybe even probable, I think it's stated more unequivocally than the premise is entitled to. Martin was wearing a sweatshirt and the shot happened during the fight when they were in very close proximity, so yeah, one would think there'd be spatter, but the simple presence of spatter on Zimmerman wouldn't speak to who started the fight, or why, or where, or when. I have not seen any suggestion anywhere that Zimmerman and Martin weren't in very close proximity to each other when the shot was fired though, so I don't really know why the simple existence of spatter on either party would support either side's version of events.

Angle and distance when shot fired.

I would think the autopsy would cover that to some degree. Hopefully it is covered fully. If not, then exhuming the body would seem appropriate. If it's virtually a point-blank shot, it seems to me to support Zimmerman's version. If it were to show some distance between them, that would be the.....ahem....smoking gun I would think.

The "fact" that Zimmerman had a wet back (no - not a racist slur) posted somewhere above is the first time I have heard that said.

The City of Sanford posted at least two of the first-responding LEO's initial reports. Someone else asked the same question some pages back, and I quoted from one of their reports. That link is dead now, probably because the police reports are now evidence in an ongoing criminal case, but below is a verbatim quote from Officer Timothy Smith from the same night of the shooting:

"Located on the inside of Zimmerman's waistband, I removed a black Kel-Tek 9mm PF9 semi auto handgun and holster. While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from his nose and back of his head."

Is there any evidence that Zimmerman was returning to his car.

We, the public, don't have the answer to that question. Seems to me though, considering every defendant's protections of a presumption of innocence, that there needs to be evidence that he wasn't returning to his car when the fight started before that piece of information would serve to show guilt. It is, after all, the state's burden to prove the charges, not Zimmerman's to prove that they're untrue.

Much of that information may well be lost forever if no reasonable information gathering took place after the incident (which sounds possible). Body evidence, if there was no autopsy/exam, could possibly be recovered if the body was exhumed. The sum of the information could provide some real insight into just what transpired and give the jury something to work on. The question of incitement remains a serious factor in determining guilt. Zimmerman was not "ordered" to back off based on the 911 tape. It is what he did after that point that will probably at least determine what the final charge will be.

While I generally agree with this analysis, remember, evidence is usually a double-edged sword. Both sides can put forth perfectly valid explanations and theories on what a given piece of evidence shows and/or proves. If the competing theories are indeed "perfectly valid," they cancel each other out in many cases, which means in a juror's mind, it's nothing more than useless information. With Zimmerman being the only living person to have witnessed the sequence of events from beginning to end, and being the defendant in the criminal case, the jury will be instructed to give him the benefit of the doubt on all issues where competing theories are given equal credibility by them.

Blues

 

[Dave Nowlin]

ABC news released a report that was supposed to be speaking to the initial police investigation. Prior to that report Jesse Jackson had stated the the Sanford police didn't even care enough to put up yellow tape. jesse's words. The police report say the crime scene was taped off and named the two officers who put up the tape. If my memory serves me correctly there was one male and one female who put up the tape. The original responding officer's report said that Zimmerman's back side was wet. It said he escorted Zimmerman to the back seat of his car where he administed some aid as Zimmerman's nose was bleeding and the back of his head was also bleeding. The officer said that at that time Zimmerman told him he had called for help multiple times but no one came to his aid. The officer in the report said that a six hour investigation of the crime scene occurred at that time. ABC didn't reveal any further details of the report which they claimed to have a copy of. So at least if this report is true, the police did more to investigate what happened than most people are giving them credit for. It should also be noted that they wanted to arrest him at that time but the D.A, said no. Am I saying the Sanford Police did a perfect job? Not really! I am saying they did far more than most of the media is giving them credit for. I can understand the police not giving out all the details in the interest of a fair trial. I can't understand the news media making up news when they have none. If reporters are under such pressure that they feel the need to fabricate things and present them as truth, then we have a real problem here that needs to be dealt with. Our right to freedom of speech doesn't give us the right to stir up racial hatred that may later lead to violence. This is especially true when the things that were said that inspired the hatred aren't even true. What happened to responsible journalism?

 

[rifleshooter474]

i can't see him ever getting a fair trial now,just to many people have got their noses involved.

 

[nogods]

Zimmerman will get a much fairer trail than Martin got.

Remind me - what was it Martin was doing illegally when Zimmerman confronted him?