Zimmerman trial poll

[T-TownVol]

Obviously I was being intentionally hyperbolic.

Stand Your Ground

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Stand Your Ground

 

[RespectTradition]

People who vote now on whether he deserves x or not, and without the facts, should be killed.

People should have no opinion at this point.

Really? No opinion?

If there is someone dating teenage girls in your area and then raping/murdering them and you have a daughter, would you be ok with her going out with a guy who has been accused of being the perpetrator, even if you do not have all the evidence?

I think it is wrong to be willing to convict someone as a result of your opinion without it being substantiated by evidence. I think it is fine to have a working theory and an opinion that you are willing to revise as you learn more.

I think everyone here has heard enough that I cannot see how anyone has not formed an opinion. I also think most of us have watched the courts long enough to be able to guess how it will turn out. Just like guessing who will win the LSU Alabama game this year. It could go either way, but it is still interesting to guess about the outcome in advance.

Its not like I am asking people to condemn and execute him or something. Expressing opinions is the whole reason any of us are posting here.

 

[gsvol]

So you would be happier if Martin had pounded Zimmerman's brains out on the sidewalk, went around the corner to his dad's girlfriend's house and ate his skittles while watching dancing with the stars?

WTF???

And you call me crazy?

Um, if you think I said (or believe) anything like the above scenario, you're batshat crazy. But then, everyone except you knows that.

A moonbat like you calling anyone batshat crazy?

That's good for a belly laugh. lol:

George Zimmerman had bandages on nose and head after shooting, neighbors say - Crimesider - CBS News

According to his neighbors, George Zimmerman had bandages on his nose and head the day after he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on February 26th.

Zimmerman claims Martin jumped him, broke his nose and pounded his head into the ground inside a gated community in Sanford, Florida. He then fired one shot, hitting Martin in the chest because he feared for his life.

In a newly published report by Reuters, Zimmerman's next-door neighbor Jorge Rodriguez said that when he saw Zimmerman the day after the incident, "he had two big, butterfly bandages on the back of his head, and another big bandage...on the bridge of his nose," while he was talking to a police detective in his driveway.

Rodriguez's wife Audria also said she saw the bandages and a third neighbor, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said, "I saw two bandages on the back of his head, and his nose was all swollen-up."

The new accounts by Zimmerman's neighbors give support to his claims that he acted in self-defense.

CBS isn't a blog, for your immediate attention!

Question; If the media insists on calling Zimmerman a 'white' hispanic, why don't they call Obama a white black, or white afroamerican or more properly a white arab?

Inquisitive minds must know.

BTW, another media lie was that Zimmerman was much bigger that Martin, Zimmerman was 5' 8" and 180 lbs, Martin was 6' 2" and 175 lbs and had been working out in a weight room.

Obviously I was being intentionally hyperbolic.

As opposed to when you are being unintentially hyperbolic?

How does one tell the difference?

During a speech in Florida, President Obama said that all this government spending was "not some socialist dream."

True. When a dream is over, you relax in the knowledge that it didn't really happen.

Stand Your Ground

 

[Danl]

There, there, now. Bless your heart. Don't tell me those mean old nurses ran out of that green Jell-O that you like so much again! Well, I'll bet they will have plenty of it tomorrow. Now don't fret so.

 

[DC Vol]

As long as there is a recording of him talking to a 911 dispatch while in his car and the dispatch advising him to "stand down" and not pursue Martin.

That immediately, to me, goes against "Stand Your Ground". That law should protect those that, as a last result shoot someone in self-defense. You can't seek out an altercation and then kill someone when you get in over your head.

I can't just invite someone I don't like into my house and then kill them and cite the Castle Doctrine.

 

[hndog609]

As long as there is a recording of him talking to a 911 dispatch while in his car and the dispatch advising him to "stand down" and not pursue Martin.

That immediately, to me, goes against "Stand Your Ground". That law should protect those that, as a last result shoot someone in self-defense. You can't seek out an altercation and then kill someone when you get in over your head.

I can't just invite someone I don't like into my house and then kill them and cite the Castle Doctrine.

For starters I'd be pretty shocked if SYG, despite it's oft being cited, ever had any real chance of being used in this case. By it's very definition it's assumed if you "stood your ground" you had the option to retreat. In fact I've always much preferred "No Duty to Retreat" over SYG since it's easier to make that distinction.

The defense (as I understand it) that Zimmerman is claiming is he was basically blindsided, unprepared and unaware, then set upon by Martin. Where in this story would Zimmerman have given ground? With no ground to give there's no ground to "stand". Once in court of course there's no telling who will try what ploy but (again, this is predicated on what I understand Zimmerman's story to be) I don't see anything here but a simple self defense claim with no real ties to the SYG language.

 

[gsvol]

Nifong was disbarred and found guilty of criminal contempt for his actions. Angela Corey’s affidavit against George Zimmerman looks to be treading dangerously close to that same path.


PJ Media » Walking Papers? The Incredibly Thin, Speculative Zimmerman Affidavit

The link above provides numerous links, excerpts:

Angela Corey's filing against George Zimmerman bears the hallmarks of a career-ender.

Last week, Florida prosecutor Angela Corey stunned many within the legal establishment when she announced her office was filing a second-degree murder charge against George Zimmerman. The four-page affidavit of probable cause filed by Corey’s office shocked legal experts, ranging from liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and liberal law bloggerJeralyn Merritt to conservative former prosecutorAndrew McCarthy and talk show host Mark Levin, among others.

The affidavit starts out typically, listing the names and qualifications of the two investigators used by the special prosecutor. It then begins to build a case against George Zimmerman:

On Sunday 2/26/12, Trayvon Martin was temporarily living at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. That evening Martin walked to a nearby 7-11 Store where he purchased a can of iced tea and some Skittles. Martin then walked back to and entered the gated community and was on his way back to the townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by George Zimmerman. Martin was unarmed and was not committing a crime.

Not one paragraph into the “meat” of the affidavit, Corey’s team already made two unsubstantiated claims.

First: there is no publicly known evidence that supports the contention that Zimmerman “profiled” Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman’s 911 call made no reference to skin color or apparel until the the police dispatcher started pressing for a better description. If Corey’s team had evidence that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin, they should have included it here. They did not, which not only undermines the profiling charge in this case, but in any federal civil rights case the U.S. Department of Justice may have been considering.

The second unsubstantiated claim: they say Martin was not committing or preparing to commit a crime.

Zimmerman became suspicious because he saw a figure who struck him as a person casing houses for burglary potential. Unbeknownst to Zimmerman at the time was the fact that Martin had been suspended from school for the possession of a “ burglary tool.” We don’t know what Martin was thinking, but his actions were erratic enough to prompt George Zimmerman to want police to investigate.

That represents a lot of unsubstantiated speculation by a prosecutor trying to build an affidavit to support a second-degree murder charge, and that’s just from the first substantive paragraph.

Martin took over an hour to make what should have been a fifteen minute walk and was leaving the sidewalk to appoach houses more closely, Martin was guilty of illegal tresspassing to say the least all this during a heavy rain storm.

Remember this small community had bee experiencing burglaries at the rate of nearly one per month for the previous year.

What is unclear to me is why the special prosecuter even filed an affidavit if the rumors were true that this had been sent to a grand jury.

If a grand jury had indicted then why would Corey not use the indictment? If a grand jury came back with a no true bill then the prosecution's case must have been weaker than water, as the old saying goes; 'you can indict the average ham sandwich.'

The next troublesome claim is the lead sentence of the following paragraph:

Zimmerman, who also lived in the gated community and was driving his vehicle, observed Martin and assumed he was a criminal.

Perhaps it is hair-splitting, but there is no evidence to support Corey’s claim that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a criminal. In his first comments on the 911 call, Zimmerman claims he saw “a real suspicious guy” acting erratically: “Like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about.”

Zimmerman was merely reporting suspicious behavior, just as our own Department of Homeland Security advocates with its “ If You See Something, Say Something” campaign, which has been created and promoted by cabinet officials appointed by the Obama Administration. Zimmerman saw someone acting suspiciously, and did precisely what DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano wants citizens to do in that situation.

The prosecutor then made another claim not supported by the recorded evidence:

The police dispatcher then informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer.

The second half of that claim is a complete and apparently willful misrepresentation of the conversation between George Zimmerman and the police dispatcher.

The closest the dispatcher ever gets to telling Zimmerman to “wait for the officer” was when Zimmerman was attempting to follow Martin, and the dispatcher told him, precisely: “Okay, we don’t need you to do that.”

In response to the dispatcher’s comment — which isn’t a command, but an ambiguous statement — Zimmerman’s response is “Okay,” and an immediate termination of his attempt to follow Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman spends the next 93 seconds — more than enough time for Trayvon Martin to reach where he is staying, even at a walking pace — in one location talking to the police dispatcher, informing the dispatcher that he is on the way back to his truck, and that he will meet the responding officer by the mailboxes.

Angela Corey’s team is misrepresenting the actual events as they occurred in order to fabricate a claim that George Zimmerman disobeyed police orders. Proving her behavior is one matter, but to be found deliberately misrepresenting the evidence is certainly grounds for considering disbarment.

Corey is an elected official and is obviously playing politics with this case.

The affidavit contained further problematic statements. The next one:

During the recorded call Zimmerman made reference to people he felt had committed and gotten away with break-ins in his neighborhood. Later while talking about Martin, Zimmerman stated “these a**holes, they always get away” and also said “these f***ing punks.”

John Work, a multi-decade law enforcement veteran, caught something in this prejudicial paragraph that I’d missed on my first reading:

Either Zimmerman and the investigators who wrote the affidavit knew there had been burglaries in the neighborhood, or they did not know about any burglaries. It’s not possible to credibly say that anyone, including the defendant, felt that crimes had been committed. If, in fact, there was or was not a series of unsolved burglaries in that neighborhood, the cops should have included that fact in the affidavit. It’s a lie of omission, either way.

Corey’s affidavit then made even more unsubstantiated claims:

Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.

The affidavit’s claim is in direct opposition to the facts as recorded on the 911 call.

Zimmerman was not “instructed” of anything. The use of that particular word creates the impression that Zimmerman was affirmatively told — commanded — not to do something. That isn’t what occurred. The dispatcher spoke ambiguously: “We don’t need you to do that.”

Then, the affidavit makes the completely unsupported claim that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin, even as the 911 call indicates that he stopped following Martin and was stationary for more than a minute and a half before attempting to return to his truck to meet with the responding officer. This, again, appears to be a misrepresentation by the prosecutor, unsupported (and possibly refuted) by the known evidence.

The affidavit also makes the completely unsupported claim at the end of that paragraph that Martin “was trying to return to his home.”

There is no evidence of the sort. The timeline strongly suggests that — having evaded Zimmerman initially and with Zimmerman terminating his pursuit and then heading back the way he came — Martin had plenty of time and a direct, unobstructed path home had he chosen to return directly home. We don’t know where Martin was or what he was doing between the time he fled Zimmerman and when the confrontation began. What we do know is that Martin had an opportunity to make it home, and chose not to do so for reasons we may never know.

Even the most liberal of judges look askance at any prosecutor that misrepresents evidence to the court.

This whole charade may not go so well for Corey.

The affidavit continues:

Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued. Witnesses heard people arguing and what sounded like a struggle. During this time period witnesses heard numerous calls for help and some of these were recorded in 911 calls to police. Trayvon Martin’s mother has reviewed the 911 and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin’s voice.

However, Martin's father when first interviewed said the 'help, help' calls WERE NOT the voice of his son.

“Zimmerman confronted Martin.”

This is supposition, apparently based upon the recollection of Martin’s girlfriend. There is no physical evidence or eyewitness supporting this charge.

The next part of that crucial sentence has already been ripped apart by legal experts — the passive “and a struggle ensued.”

This entire case hinges upon who started the confrontation and then escalated it into a deadly force event that left a young man dead. If the prosecution has evidence that Zimmerman indeed triggered the confrontation and initiated the struggle, then Zimmerman’s self-defense claim becomes much harder to support. If the events occurred as Zimmerman described it — with the confrontation initiated by Martin, the physical assault initiated by Martin, and Martin then escalating the fight to assault with a deadly weapon by attempting to smash Zimmerman’s head on the concrete — and the evidence supports Zimmerman’s claims, then we have a justified use of deadly force in self-defense.

Sybrina Fulton’s contention that the voice she heard crying for help on the 911 calls was her son certainly adds emotional pain to the case; her claim is not one I would personally wish to challenge at a trial if she is called as a witness. However, competent attorneys routinely cast doubt on such testimony, perhaps by citing confirmation bias and the trauma of losing a child. No known audio experts have come forth to claim they can confirm with any degree of certainty that the voice calling for help is Martin. I would venture that Fulton’s claim is included in the affidavit only to elicit an emotional response from the public, which would be a grandstanding ploy, and perhaps an especially cynical one by a veteran prosecutor seeking reelection just a few months from now.

There are simply no facts in this affidavit to remotely support the charge of second-degree murder according to Florida’s statute, which reads :

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree …

There is nothing in this affidavit nor among the publicly known facts about the case — nor even among the allegations from the victim’s family or their attorneys — that comes even remotely close to reaching the “depraved mind” standard. At most, the prosecutor would face making a difficult manslaughter case, and even then would risk having the lesser charge thrown out for insufficient evidence.

I am comfortable with saying that Corey’s multiple references to “Justice for Trayon” during her press conference combined with this breathtaking affidavit strongly suggest a political motivation.

 

[gsvol]

Wagist

Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz made an appearance on on MSNBC’s Hardball to discuss the Zimmerman arrest affidavit, and had some incredibly harsh language for Angela Corey concerning her actions in the George Zimmerman prosecution.

Dershowitz is a well-known Democrat with a column on the Huffington Post, but seemed stunned by how poorly written the affidavit was, going so far as to call it “irresponsible and unethical,” as well as Corey’s actions politically motivated. He also said that if the prosecution didn’t have more evidence for the case than what we’ve seen, “a good judge would throw it out.”

Here’s the interview:
---------------------


............... if the evidence is no stronger that what appears in the probable-cause affidavit, this case will result in an acquittal.

Very strongly worded statements from Dershowitz, who basically stopped just short of directly claiming Corey engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by her actions.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Houston we have a problem

George Zimmerman Case: Exclusive New Photo Shows Bloodied Back of Head - ABC News

 

[n_huffhines]

What I find interesting is these new mug shots of Zimmerman make him appear a lot different. First of all, he's way closer to 200 lbs, than 230 or 250 like has been reported. Second, he looks more clean shaven, and generally just nicer than the standard photo that's floated around for months. I wonder if using the old photo was intentional, like people suggested with regard to using a younger pic of Trayvon.

vs

 

[volved]

Houston we have a problem

George Zimmerman Case: Exclusive New Photo Shows Bloodied Back of Head - ABC News

Dershowitz Blasts Zimmerman Prosecution: 'Not Only Immoral, But Stupid'

The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans’ head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”

After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”

Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."

 

[hndog609]

Dershowitz Blasts Zimmerman Prosecution: 'Not Only Immoral, But Stupid'

If Corey isn't careful she's going to end up Nifong-ing herself.

 

[dreVol]

If Corey isn't careful she's going to end up Nifong-ing herself.

what a system. the prosecutor can charge someone with scant evidence, thereby forcing the defendant/accused to expend money in attorney's fees, court costs, etc. and the only defense to abuses of power like this are (a) vote the person out and/or (b) hope they face some professional discipline.

prosecutorial immunity is a wonderful thing. ruin a guy's life and finances, only to go "LOL! we were just trolling you, n00b"

 

[n_huffhines]

what a system. the prosecutor can charge someone with scant evidence, thereby forcing the defendant/accused to expend money in attorney's fees, court costs, etc. and the only defense to abuses of power like this are (a) vote the person out and/or (b) hope they face some professional discipline.

prosecutorial immunity is a wonderful thing. ruin a guy's life and finances, only to go "LOL! we were just trolling you, n00b"

Nifong's career was ruined.

I'm more concerned with the media. People like Selena Roberts got promotions after they were exposed as hacks.

 

[RespectTradition]

Our system allows for two verdicts (I think). They are guilty and not-guilty.

We need to add a third: innocent.


My plan:

Guilty is for when we know you did it and can prove it.

Not-guilty is for when we think you are guilty but it wasn't proven conclusively.

Innocent is for when we know you did not do it.

Then, if a person is found innocent, then they should be able to sue the police and DA-types personally and take everything they own.

 

[dreVol]

Nifong's career was ruined.

I'm more concerned with the media. People like Selena Roberts got promotions after they were exposed as hacks.

these are high profile cases that get media attention. what about the undocumented instances? I don't have statistics, but I wouldn't surprise me to find that it happens more often than we'd like to believe.

 

[therealUT]

My two cents:

The problem with this case ultimately resides in the "Stand Your Ground" legislation. On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. Those facts are undisputed. At that point, Zimmerman should have been charged with either Manslaugher, Murder in the Second Degree, or Murder in the First Degree. According to all other evidence, a decision should have been made whether to release him on bail or to detain him until trial. The trial should have been the venue in which self-defense was decided by a jury; jury nullification should still exist for just this reason: a jury of his peers, presented with the charge of Murder in the First Degree, then could have reduced it to manslaughter, according to the evidence (or, of course, depending upon the evidence voted to acquit).

Acting out of self-defense is and ought to be morally justified; I will not argue against that notion. However, to allow a small group of police officers to make that decision is bound to produce problematic consequences.

 

[dreVol]

My two cents:

The problem with this case ultimately resides in the "Stand Your Ground" legislation. On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. Those facts are undisputed. At that point, Zimmerman should have been charged with either Manslaugher, Murder in the Second Degree, or Murder in the First Degree. According to all other evidence, a decision should have been made whether to release him on bail or to detain him until trial. The trial should have been the venue in which self-defense was decided by a jury; jury nullification should still exist for just this reason: a jury of his peers, presented with the charge of Murder in the First Degree, then could have reduced it to manslaughter, according to the evidence (or, of course, depending upon the evidence voted to acquit).

Acting out of self-defense is and ought to be morally justified; I will not argue against that notion. However, to allow a small group of police officers to make that decision is bound to produce problematic consequences.

didn't one of the officers recommend charging GZ, but the DA said there wasn't enough evidence for probable cause?

 

[milohimself]

Holy crap, a trut sighting

 

[therealUT]

didn't one of the officers recommend charging GZ, but the DA said there wasn't enough evidence for probable cause?

I think the problem is systemic. I think probable cause should simply link individuals to events; the criminality of said events should be decided in court (a much bigger issue than the Zimmerman case and one that would require reinstating jury nullification).

There was enough evidence the night of the shooting to state with certainty that Zimmerman shot Martin, and that Martin died as a result of the shooting. Let a jury of peers decide whether the act was criminal or not.

 

[milohimself]

My two cents:

The problem with this case ultimately resides in the "Stand Your Ground" legislation. On February 26, 2012, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. Those facts are undisputed. At that point, Zimmerman should have been charged with either Manslaugher, Murder in the Second Degree, or Murder in the First Degree. According to all other evidence, a decision should have been made whether to release him on bail or to detain him until trial. The trial should have been the venue in which self-defense was decided by a jury; jury nullification should still exist for just this reason: a jury of his peers, presented with the charge of Murder in the First Degree, then could have reduced it to manslaughter, according to the evidence (or, of course, depending upon the evidence voted to acquit).

Acting out of self-defense is and ought to be morally justified; I will not argue against that notion. However, to allow a small group of police officers to make that decision is bound to produce problematic consequences.

Solid post. I'm about as pro-second amendments as you'll ever see from somewhat of a self-identified liberal, but stand your ground laws have created much more harm than good.

 

[therealUT]

Solid post. I'm about as pro-second amendments as you'll ever see from somewhat of a self-identified liberal, but stand your ground laws have created much more harm than good.

Regarding "Stand Your Ground":

Before he temporarily stepped down from his position last week as chief of the Sanford, Fla., police department, Bill Lee Jr., gave an explanation of his decision not to arrest George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin. Lee said he had no reason to doubt Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. Though Lee is no longer in the spotlight, his words linger for at least one compelling reason: his explanation bears an eerie resemblance to cases brought under the Fugitive Slave Law during the Antebellum period. Today, a legal standard that allowed the police chief to take Zimmerman at his word recalls the dark past of slave-owners claiming their property. The writings of Martin Delany, the African American political philosopher and activist, shed light on the uncanny resemblance.

...

The affinity to the Trayvon Martin incident is perhaps obvious. Chief Lee’s statement that Zimmerman was not arrested for lack of evidence sufficient to challenge his claim that he had not acted in self-defense (“We don’t have anything to dispute his claim of self-defense”) appears to imply that, absent such evidence, a white or otherwise non-black man (there is some controversy as to whether Zimmerman should be identified as white, or Hispanic, or both, although no one seems to be claiming he is black) claiming self-defense after killing a black man is simply to be taken at his word. It is hard to resist the thought that race matters here, for who believes that, had an adult African American male killed a white teenager under similar circumstances, the police would have taken him at his word and so declined to arrest him?

In contrast to Judge McLean, Lee does not propose that, if a certain sort of declaration has been issued, interference with a white man’s attempt to seize a black man would be illegal. Rather he argues that, if a certain sort of declaration has been issued — “I acted from self-defense”— a white or other non-black person who has admitted to killing a black person cannot legally be arrested if the police have no reason to dispute the truth of his declaration; or more technically, if in keeping with sections 776.032 and 776.013 of the Florida Statues the police have no “probable cause” to believe that Zimmerman did not “reasonably believe” that killing Martin was necessary “to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself.” Though the two cases are different, we should notice that Lee, like McLean, intends to highlight considerations that legally constrain action (interference in one case, arrest in the other ) in the face of an assault on an African American. This should give us pause to worry that Florida’s Stand Your Ground legislation, in its application to cases where whites (or other non-blacks) kill blacks and then claim self-defense, could prove to be the functional equivalent of a fugitive slave law.

In short, it appears that whites (or other non-blacks) may hunt down blacks with immunity from arrest so long as they leave behind no clue that they were not acting to defend themselves; or, to echo Martin Delany, that Florida’s Stand Your Ground law threatens to render some citizens subject to the arbitrary wills of others.

Fugitive Slave Mentality - NYTimes.com

While I do not wholeheartedly agree with everything in the article, the situations that the law theoretically allows are haunting.

 

[MG1968]

sorry, but equating the slave trade to the Zimmerman/Martin case is a level of hyperbole that not even LG has yet to descend to

 

[milohimself]

sorry, but equating the slave trade to the Zimmerman/Martin case is a level of hyperbole that not even LG has yet to descend to

Completely ridiculous notion, but the law is extremely problematic. It has encountered stiff resistance from nearly all police forces in areas where it has been passed.