Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamie B on April 09, 2012, 03:06:36 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/prosecutor-rules-grand-jury-trayvon-martin-case-160059250.html
(Reuters) - The special prosecutor investigating the shooting death of unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin has ruled out using a grand jury in the case, meaning her office alone will decide whether to charge shooter George Zimmerman with a crime.
So it looks as if the local prosecutor is going to finish the investigation and make the call on charges.
Can someone tell me if this is a significant event, a political ploy, or normal business?
I am guessing that they have a pretty good belief about what they will do, but not sure what it means.
-
Normal business, even according to the MSM.
-
Apparently that lady has a reputation for only using a grand jury when it's required by law (in FL apparently that's only murder 1).
Personally I think she'd be better off taking it to the GJ. That way if they no-bill she can toss her hands up and say "Oh well, can't do anything about it". Now, if she decides not to bring charges she'll have a price on her head just like Zimmerman does.
-
Exactly what I was thinking - she tossed her safety net, and is an elected official.
She is either ready to proceed with charges against Zimmerman, or she is comfortable in telling everyone else to pound sand if she is not going to levy charges.
Option #3 might be to weakly charge Zimmerman, then allow herself to get easily beaten in court, and play the 'it's the will of the people' card.
-
Exactly what I was thinking - she tossed her safety net, and is an elected official.
She is either ready to proceed with charges against Zimmerman, or she is comfortable in telling everyone else to pound sand if she is not going to levy charges.
Option #3 might be to weakly charge Zimmerman, then allow herself to get easily beaten in court, and play the 'it's the will of the people' card.
And, if she does the latter, she'd be giving Mr. Martin's family exactly what they want: I'm willing to bet this whole fiasco is simply to force the police to arrest him so that the family can then start suing him, the county, the homeowner's association, et al. Without an arrest, the civil suit is proscribed according to the accounts I have read.
And, yes, I'm willing to believe the blood-sucking lawyer they hired is perfectly willing to cause a race war for a few dollars.
-
The family lawyer doesn't seem to be the only one willing to start a race war over this incident. To me, this affair is a classic example of how emotionalism is trumping law, and has been for decades.
My previous comment should not be construed to be making a judgment about who was right or wrong or even if there actually was a right or wrong; just an observation of how crowds are manipulated, especially with the mass communication available today.
If there is any lesson in this, I believe my observation is the lesson. Our whole political system is at stake because of the ability of a few to easily inflame the many in a short period of time. Truth be damned.
-
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/defending-george-zimmerman-facts
decent job
-
The family lawyer doesn't seem to be the only one willing to start a race war over this incident. To me, this affair is a classic example of how emotionalism is trumping law, and has been for decades.
Very true. I spoke of him specifically because he is the one that started this fiasco, and I will assert that he PLANNED to cause the significant racial tensions that have arisen. That is why he called Al Sharpton. That is why he went to the media with the outdated pictures of Trayvon Martin. That is why he got his version of events into the media so that they ran with the race story.
The blood-sucking lawyer is the instigator and will likely suffer no consequences for his brazen actions.
-
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/defending-george-zimmerman-facts
decent job
If I gave that to Zimmerman or filed it in a brief to the Court, he'd have a malpractice claim against me.
The grand jury idea was probably chosen so whomever ran the show could say "eh, I didn't do it!" irrespective of the outcome. Of course, it would be hard to imagine a grand jury failing to indict.
I'd say charges are likely, based on the tapes, not the politics. That's what happens when the only exculpatory evidence comes from the defendants mouth - he ends up having to sell his story to the jury. That will be hard to do given Zimmerman's criminal history, and his demonstrated (on tape) batman tendencies.
-
Very true. I spoke of him specifically because he is the one that started this fiasco, and I will assert that he PLANNED to cause the significant racial tensions that have arisen. That is why he called Al Sharpton. That is why he went to the media with the outdated pictures of Trayvon Martin. That is why he got his version of events into the media so that they ran with the race story.
The blood-sucking lawyer is the instigator and will likely suffer no consequences for his brazen actions.
For what exactly do you think the lawyer is doing this? A lawsuit against a student who dreams of someday being a cop? The civil suit will likely cost the lawyer more than it yields.
The family has a legitimate beef - their kid was John doe'd to the morgue for days. How likely do you think that would've been had the victim been white? Can you imagine them assuming the white body was that of a crackhead, and not even bothering to dial the number he was on the line to during the shooting?
The bizarre investigation practices caused the racial tension, not the lawyers.
-
. . . That will be hard to do given Zimmerman's criminal history . . .
I'm sorry I missed the details, would you please list Zimmerman's prior criminal convictions for me?
-
For what exactly do you think the lawyer is doing this? A lawsuit against a student who dreams of someday being a cop? The civil suit will likely cost the lawyer more than it yields.
The family has a legitimate beef - their kid was John doe'd to the morgue for days. How likely do you think that would've been had the victim been white? Can you imagine them assuming the white body was that of a crackhead, and not even bothering to dial the number he was on the line to during the shooting?
The bizarre investigation practices caused the racial tension, not the lawyers.
I noted more than Mr. Zimmerman as the target of the lawyers avarice.
And you continue on the angle of "bizarre investigation practices" after it has been shown the police interviewed 12 witnesses and brought Mr. Zimmerman in for questioning. What's bizarre to me is the family not bothering to look for Trayvon for three days.
As for not calling back the number, exactly what proof do you have that the police we able to access the phone? Have you heard of keylocks?
-
I'm sorry I missed the details, would you please list Zimmerman's prior criminal convictions for me?
None. But he did admit to criminally assaulting an officer (that's a precondition for diversion) and was the subject of a restraining order. Both criminal records that, though they dont make you a convict, are relevant to claims of being a non-violent person.
-
I noted more than Mr. Zimmerman as the target of the lawyers avarice.
And you continue on the angle of "bizarre investigation practices" after it has been shown the police interviewed 12 witnesses and brought Mr. Zimmerman in for questioning. What's bizarre to me is the family not bothering to look for Trayvon for three days.
As for not calling back the number, exactly what proof do you have that the police we able to access the phone? Have you heard of keylocks?
You don't think it's at all odd that police never interviewed the person trayvon was on the phone with, at any time??? How was the family's attorney able to get the phone records if police couldn't? I doubt a phone lock was an issue, considering that the data was obtained by a lawyer who didn't actually have the phone.
Also, yeah, three days and no asking around the neighborhood to see if anyone knew the victim, who, incidentally, died right near a house full of people that knew him?
Sending a narcotics investigator instead of a homicide one to the scene, also seems a bit off to me. What do you think?
-
You don't think it's at all odd that police never interviewed the person trayvon was on the phone with, at any time??? How was the family's attorney able to get the phone records if police couldn't? I doubt a phone lock was an issue, considering that the data was obtained by a lawyer who didn't actually have the phone.
Also, yeah, three days and no asking around the neighborhood to see if anyone knew the victim, who, incidentally, died right near a house full of people that knew him?
Sending a narcotics investigator instead of a homicide one to the scene, also seems a bit off to me. What do you think?
Well, I think you're stretching as hard as you can.
Phone records are mailed to a person's address. I wonder how, weeks later, an attorney who the family hired might have access to phone records. As for the phone lock issue, it is an EXTREMELY important issue within those three days that you claim the police didn't do all the could to find Mr. Martin's identity. In the long run, of course police can get those records, but it's rather hard to pull phone records for a person whose name and phone number you do not know.
As for the searching for a family member, is that standard police procedure? I wasn't aware that police generally canvassed door to door rather than waiting for the family to look for their loved one.
I sincerely hope you don't bring such easily rebutted arguments to court.
-
Further, we have the LAWYER'S word that he was on the phone with his girlfriend. Has he release the phone records to confirm this?
-
DeSelby,
It's quite clear from everything that you have said on this topic that you are reacting to the scenario which you imagine in your head as you listen to the tapes. I don't think that it is clear to you, as it is clear to most of us, that the scenario you are imagining is based partly on the tapes, and partly on wild speculation. You seem to have invented, or had invented for you, a scenario with specific damnable motives on the part of the various actors, and then used your imagination to stitch the scene in your head together with the audio from the tapes in a way that supports your preconceptions.
In essence, you were fed a specific narrative, and then you made the tapes fit the narrative which you were fed.
-
I'd also ask DeSelby if he's basing his opinions off of the "NBC Edit" of the 911 tapes, or the er... actual "Director's Cut" so to speak? ???
Even if you've heard the uncut version, I'll agree with CNYCacher that you seem to be engaged in a lot of emotive reasoning here and seem pretty heavily invested in a certain narrative when all the evidence and actual testimony is largely still in the hands of the police and prosecutors. And that's among this group here who is all at least in agreement to varying degrees that "Zimmerman was a dumbass", we're just all unsure if he's a criminal dumbass, or just the plain sort.
I think it's pretty clear that there'll be riots if Zimmerman got charged with anything less than Murder. And since Murder 1 was never on the table, even under the worst interpretation of Zimmerman's actions and motives, there's no point in the prosecutor doing anything other than charging based solely on the facts of the case.
While we can fault Zimmerman for following Martin and playing wannabe/strange-ranger, the key things we don't know are still up in the air. Did he verbally or physically accost Martin, or did Martin return to Zimmerman and confront him?
Who moved to who? We all agree Zimmerman followed Martin, but did he keep a same distance the entire time? Did he close on Martin, or did Martin reverse course to close on him?
Did Zimmerman make a "detaining move" or simple assault like grab Martin's arm or shoulder, or block or impede Martin's path first? Or did Martin close with Zimmerman and was so outraged at being followed, he beat him?
This is all the meat of the case we don't yet know. And "we" includes you too DeSelby.
-
De Selby to the white courtesy phone. De Selby to the white courtesy phone.
Remember our deal, buddy.
-
their kid was John doe'd to the morgue for days
nope not even close but hey if imagining that gets you hot go for it
-
kids dad id'd his son on the 27th kid was shot on the 26th
kid was apparently a regular for overnite walkabout dad wasn't worried
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trayvon-martins-parents-talk-with-the-post-814/2012/03/28/gIQA9e8ngS_video.html
http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/eight-outrageous-media-falsehoods-the-trayvon-martin-shooting
-
kid was apparently a regular for overnite walkabout dad wasn't worried
The kid probably was going to the chapel at night to pray ;)
-
deleted due to .... the word th em being changed to *expletive deleted*ers .... what's up w/ that ?
-
AJ, the fundamental problem for Zimmerman is that, on tape, he chased someone who was running away from him - having done that, to regain his right to self-defence against that person is nearly impossible. Literally, he'd have to have done something as drastic as getting down on his knees and pleading with his hands in the air. That's why it is a bad idea to chase when armed - if it turns out you chased the wrong guy, you are going to be in serious trouble. It's so bad for his case that a defence which is sufficient to overcome the chasing, and at the same time beleivable, just isn't realistic.
The key here is the chasing - you chase someone who wasn't doing anything wrong in the first place, and you aren't going to be able to claim self defence if you end up shooting the guy. Whether trayvon pounded him after the chase or even hid in the bushes and sprang out will only matter at sentencing time, it's not going to work for a defence.
The more this case goes on, the more it reminds me of the Scott Peterson case. The media invented this impression that it was a close call, but in reality, the conviction was pretty much guaranteed from the day the body washed up. There were tons of pundits carrying on about this or that legal matter, but it was 99 percent fluff. No technicality or bs about satanic cults was ever going to work.
And today there's another similarity - zimmermans attorneys have withdrawn from the case. Zimmerman, like peterson, is going to the media and apparently buying in to the stories told by throngs of online supporters (Peterson had a big fan club too.).
This is a sure path to conviction folks. Shouldn't be a surprise, but some will make it out to be when it happens.
-
AJ, the fundamental problem for Zimmerman is that, on tape, he chased someone who was running away from him - having done that, to regain his right to self-defence against that person is nearly impossible. Literally, he'd have to have done something as drastic as getting down on his knees and pleading with his hands in the air. That's why it is a bad idea to chase when armed - if it turns out you chased the wrong guy, you are going to be in serious trouble. It's so bad for his case that a defence which is sufficient to overcome the chasing, and at the same time beleivable, just isn't realistic.
What country are you in again? Australia? I'm certainly not up on the laws there, but that's (from an American perspective) just plain absurd.
I mean I know Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
-
AJ, the fundamental problem for Zimmerman is that, on tape, he chased someone who was running away from him - having done that, to regain his right to self-defence against that person is nearly impossible. Literally, he'd have to have done something as drastic as getting down on his knees and pleading with his hands in the air. That's why it is a bad idea to chase when armed - if it turns out you chased the wrong guy, you are going to be in serious trouble. It's so bad for his case that a defence which is sufficient to overcome the chasing, and at the same time beleivable, just isn't realistic.
The key here is the chasing - you chase someone who wasn't doing anything wrong in the first place, and you aren't going to be able to claim self defence if you end up shooting the guy. Whether trayvon pounded him after the chase or even hid in the bushes and sprang out will only matter at sentencing time, it's not going to work for a defence.
The more this case goes on, the more it reminds me of the Scott Peterson case. The media invented this impression that it was a close call, but in reality, the conviction was pretty much guaranteed from the day the body washed up. There were tons of pundits carrying on about this or that legal matter, but it was 99 percent fluff. No technicality or bs about satanic cults was ever going to work.
And today there's another similarity - zimmermans attorneys have withdrawn from the case. Zimmerman, like peterson, is going to the media and apparently buying in to the stories told by throngs of online supporters (Peterson had a big fan club too.).
This is a sure path to conviction folks. Shouldn't be a surprise, but some will make it out to be when it happens.
What a load of unmitigated crap. Could you point me to the "felony chasing" statute in Florida?
-
For DeSelby to be correct - that there's a sure path to a criminal conviction for Zimmerman - something that's not currently in the public record is going to have to surface.
Maybe it will, maybe it won't.
But as of this writing, based on the current public record, the only thing Zimmerman is guilty of beyond a reasonable doubt is being (as AJ Dual wrote) a dumbass. With local, state, and federal law enforcement all out to find something, anything to hang on Zimmerman, if there's anything damning there it's almost certain to come to light in due course. For example, if Zimmerman's story is a fabrication, it will have holes in it - I don't think the guy's smart enough to concoct a story that's consistent with everything else on the spur of the moment. And once investigators find a hole, they'll proceed to widen it until they can drive a truck through, and then Zimmerman is off to the Graybar Motel - and if he's guilty of the worst, I doubt anyone here will shed a tear for him.
Unless he was telling the truth - which, not being inside either the investigation or Zimmerman's head, I don't know.
The special prosecutor is supposed to release additional information withing the next 72 hours - we'll see what's revealed.
None. But he did admit to criminally assaulting an officer (that's a precondition for diversion) and was the subject of a restraining order. Both criminal records that, though they dont make you a convict, are relevant to claims of being a non-violent person.
By that standard, Treyvon's background makes him a troublemaking druggie implicated in burglary and assault . . . (Which raises a question - have they ever released the results of the tox/drug screen from Treyvon's autopsy?)
-
Mak, committing a homicide without justification is a felony (hope we don't need to cite the statutes for that.)
Here're the rules on justifiable use of force:
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2011&Title=%2D%3E2011%2D%3EChapter%20776 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2011&Title=%2D%3E2011%2D%3EChapter%20776)
If you look at: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html), you'll see that there is no defence where you initially provoke the use of force. Note that the statute doesn't require your provocation to be a felony; you just have to provoke it. Once that happens, the burden is on you to "exhaust every reasonable means of escape" or to "withdraw from physical contact" and indicate "clearly to the assailant" that you wish to withdraw and "terminate the use of force."
There's no question Zimmerman provoked the confrontation; he was chasing Trayvon because at the time he thought Travyon was "one of those aholes who always gets away" (Zimmerman's words.) Chasing someone who is running away from you is something anyone reasonable should expect to result in a confrontation. Indeed, Zimmerman expected a confrontation with a criminal according to the tapes.
His defence, if he were to have one, would be in "exhausting every reasonable means of escape" or that he "indicated clearly" to Trayvon that he wanted to withdraw. To prove either would require something as drastic as getting on his knees and begging for no more. Simply walking away after you can't find the guy you chased absolutely will not do it.
And, to make the point again, this is why it's always a terrible idea to chase people while armed. If a shooting happens, it will only be in the rarest circumstances that you retain your right to self-defence.
-
What country are you in again? Australia? I'm certainly not up on the laws there, but that's (from an American perspective) just plain absurd.
I mean I know Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.
Yeah, I'm an American, and that's the American rule - which makes sense. If someone starts chasing you in your own neighbourhood and you get scared, try to run away, and ultimately stop and pull your gun on him in fear, that guy can't then shoot you and claim self-defence. The right-headedness of that policy should be too obvious to require explanation.
-
Yeah, I'm an American, and that's the American rule - which makes sense. If someone starts chasing you in your own neighbourhood and you get scared, try to run away, and ultimately stop and pull your gun on him in fear, that guy can't then shoot you and claim self-defence. The right-headedness of that policy should be too obvious to require explanation.
It was Martin's neighborhood now?
-
Yeah, I'm an American, and that's the American rule - which makes sense. If someone starts chasing you in your own neighbourhood and you get scared, try to run away, and ultimately stop and pull your gun on him in fear, that guy can't then shoot you and claim self-defence. The right-headedness of that policy should be too obvious to require explanation.
Thank you for your excellent advice Counselor. Next time I think someone is chasing after me, it's good to know that I am legally justified in drawing my weapon and confronting them. You are always so good at making things clear. (For those with a broken sarcasm detector, it should be pinging off the charts right now.)
Aside from your absolutely terrible advice, let me point out yet again that your scenario relies you extrapolations from your interpretation of a 911 tape. I know you may believe it wholeheartedly, but that doesn't make it a fact.
FURTHER, your reading of the Florida statutes is rather lacking, as you are focusing on 2(b) but not 2(a) which would be the applicable statute for the scenario you have concocted in your own mind:
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
I bolded it in case you miss it again.
-
Mak, you missed the relevant part of the bolding, which was covered in my post above: "exhausted every reasonable means of escape" is a necessary condition of having that section apply.
How do you go about showing that you exhausted all reasonable means of escape when you've just given chase to someone who you think is a criminal, and said things like "these a-holes always get away!" on tape?
I've said before, and I'll say it again: every defendant just knows the law and knows how to beat the case, until he gets convicted. And then there're those who just can't wait to show that crooked jury/judge/prosecutor who's who in the appeals after he's convicted.
It shouldn't be a surprise to those who chase neighbourhood kids and shoot them that they end up in jail, but that's usually going to be the guy who is just certain he knows the law backwards and forwards.
Mak, you don't need to take my advice - ask a local Attorney whether you'd be covered on self-defence grounds in the same circumstances. See what he tells you about the wisdom of getting out of your car to chase someone while armed. Feel free to come correct me with what you get back.
-
His defence, if he were to have one, would be in "exhausting every reasonable means of escape" or that he "indicated clearly" to Trayvon that he wanted to withdraw. To prove either would require something as drastic as getting on his knees and begging for no more. Simply walking away after you can't find the guy you chased absolutely will not do it.
Lets assume for a moment you're right. I don't think you are, but let's run with it. And running with that, that giving up the chase and going back to his car wasn't indicating clearly enough. Even if all that is true, lying on your back, bleeding and screaming for help so loud both the 911 operator and the guy inside his house can hear you is a pretty clear indicator that you want the fight to stop.
So tell me, after Martin refused to stop beating him despite his screams for help. At the moment he reached for his gun, lying there, bleeding with the attacker on top of him and not stopping, what "reasonable means of escape" did Zimmerman have?
-
De Selby,
Just wanted to give you a bit of encouragement. You might have thought no one noticed your hard work in smuggling in falsehoods (like the suggestion that Martin was on his home turf), but some of us have. Just remember, you have to be subtle, and when you are, people don't often notice your hard work. :)
-
Dogmush, that's a good point. Screaming for help while being hit might give you an argument, but ten seconds worth after you already started the fight still wouldn't guarantee you're in the clear.
Unfortunately for Zimmerman, whether that was sufficient is a moot question, because it wasn't him crying for help. That was Travyon Martin screaming on the tapes.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty)
-
I agree with DeSelby on ONE part of his post:
The fact that Zimmerman followed/chased Martin is NOT going to help him at all.
Martin attacking him, and Martin attacking him after being chased for looking suspicious... well, those are two wholly different scenarios.
Still don't know if it's enough to get Zimmerman CONVICTED or not, that'll be up to the court.
And Fistful, correct me if i'm wrong, but that neighborhood was Dad's neighborhood, right? I was under the impression that he was at his dad's house in that neighborhood, left to get snacks/whatever, and came back when the incident happened?
-
Dogmush, that's a good point. Screaming for help while being hit might give you an argument, but ten seconds worth after you already started the fight still wouldn't guarantee you're in the clear.
Unfortunately for Zimmerman, whether that was sufficient is a moot question, because it wasn't him crying for help. That was Travyon Martin screaming on the tapes.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty)
Very good job studiously ignoring the pertinent questions and asserting facts not in evidence. Unfortunately, any lawyer worth his salt would tear you and these falsehoods apart in court. I think you need more practice, De Selby.
Of course, I guess when "pound the table" is all you got, you pound as hard as you can.
-
To make your job of ignoring the question a little harder, allow me to quote and bold it for you:
At the moment he reached for his gun, lying there, bleeding with the attacker on top of him and not stopping, what "reasonable means of escape" did Zimmerman have?
I even italicized part in case you missed that bit of information that is backed up by two witnesses AND the victim. (And yes, Mr. Zimmerman is the victim. I'm through being wishy-washy, it's pretty clear he was attacked and is being further attacked now.)
-
We may get more facts soon...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/us/in-trayvon-martin-killing-tough-choice-looms-for-prosecutor.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
-
on tape, he chased someone who was running away from him
You are describing the scene that you imagine in your head when you listen to the tape.
-
on tape, he chased someone who was running away from him
nope
and see if you can clear up your earlier fiction i can understand you are a bit harried so much fiction so lil time
-
I just wanted to interject and ask people to please keep this discussion civil. It's an important topic, and we have diametrically opposed opinions here. I'd like to see the thread stay open and not be shut down like the other threads were.
-
Dogmush, that's a good point. Screaming for help while being hit might give you an argument, but ten seconds worth after you already started the fight still wouldn't guarantee you're in the clear.
Unfortunately for Zimmerman, whether that was sufficient is a moot question, because it wasn't him crying for help. That was Travyon Martin screaming on the tapes.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty)
I've read that, and find it lacking in credibility. CSD's link sums it up nicely:
http://www.examiner.com/charleston-conservative-in-charleston-sc/eight-outrageous-media-falsehoods-the-trayvon-martin-shooting
Within days of the shooting Sanford police played the 911 recording of the struggle to Trayvon Martin's father. He was asked in the screams came from his son. The father of Trayvon Martin said they did not come from his son. Police made this information public on March 16th. The eyewitness who made the 911 call also told police and the media that it was Zimmerman who was screaming.
Despite all of this the media continues to relentlessly push the easily disprovable falsehood that the screams are coming from Trayvon.
Most recently the media has trotted out two people described as "audio experts" to make claims that the screams are from Trayvon. Both “audio experts” admit they have never even heard a sample of Trayvon Martin’s voice. They also admit that they have only heard the low resolution recording of Zimmerman’s 911 telephone call. In order to believe this new media lie, we would have to believe that two guys who have never heard Trayvon’s voice and have only heard a low resolution recording of Zimmerman over the telephone, are somehow a better judge of whose voice it is than the boy’s own father!
The linked page has links to the Father's statement.
-
DeSelby - First, they don't have a recording of Trayvon's voice to compare it to so they can't say for certain it was Trayvon. All they can say right now is they think it's not Zimmerman. Which contradicts all the other evidence (at least that's been made public). Other plausible explanations, even if it is Trayvon's voice, include that he could have started screaming once he realized Zimmerman was drawing his gun and the struggle over that had started. Bottom line - the audio analysis is not really helpful to either side and probably is not admissible as evidence anyway.
Second - your standard for what it takes to satisfy the requirement to break off a provocation and regain the ability to claim self defense is still patently absurd. Once Zimmerman turned around and started walking back to his vehicle and was no longer in pursuit of Martin he satisfyed the requirements to regain the legal right to self defense.
Let's use a bar fight as a proxy example. 2 dudes down the pub get agro. Fists fly. One guy (Dude A, lets he's even say the "one that started it") manages to break free and goes outside. He starts heading away from the bar and does nothing further to provoke Dude B (further provocation would mean things like yelling "fighting words" or threats to "get his boys" and come back). After he gets a tenth or two of a mile away from the bar Dude B then pounces on him and starts wailing away. Now, both dudes were stupid, and morally both are at fault and neither deserves much sympathy. But the law (you know, that pesky set of written rules that govern the legal response to the incident) says that Dude A, if he pulls a weapon and kills Dude B, is legitimatly able to claim self defense. Now, in this example Dude A can still down for the original assault inside the bar. But not for killing Dude B later after being jumped.
-
I'm not without empathy for the parents though that gets less and less as their story mutates and I sense exploitation . I have less tolerance for the sob sisters who distribute blatant untruths. There are those both inside the media and out
-
And Fistful, correct me if i'm wrong, but that neighborhood was Dad's neighborhood, right? I was under the impression that he was at his dad's house in that neighborhood, left to get snacks/whatever, and came back when the incident happened?
As far as I know, yes, he was visiting his father, but lived with his mother in another neighborhood. I'm not saying he was doing anything wrong by being there. But to say he was a "neighborhood kid," as if GZ should have known who he was, just seems like another intentional distortion.
-
The linked page has links to the Father's statement.
It also has a link to one of those kinder-gentler-Aryan web sites. =| That's where they're getting their info on the touched-up pictures of M and Z.
-
Discusses some general principles, and Florida law, on duty to retreat, self-defense, etc.:
http://volokh.com/2012/03/24/lethal-self-defense-the-quantum-of-proof-the-duty-to-retreat-and-the-aggressor-exception/
-
Yes, but I'm not referencing that link, our even that point. The part I'm talking about goes back to WESH Orlando. One of the local news stations.
-
Yes, but I'm not referencing that link, our even that point. The part I'm talking about goes back to WESH Orlando. One of the local news stations.
Sorry if it looked like I was trying to use that against you or your comment. I don't even think the racial views of the web site in question make them wrong about the photographs. It just seems like something we should be aware of.
-
. . . His defence, if he were to have one, would be in "exhausting every reasonable means of escape" or that he "indicated clearly" to Trayvon that he wanted to withdraw. To prove either would require something as drastic as getting on his knees and begging for no more.
So the next time I think someone is following me, I'm free to clobber him . . . I'm sure that you'll come to my defense in court and explain to the judge and jury that I was justified since my pursuer didn't fall to his knees before me and beg for my mercy, right?
:facepalm:
. . . Let's use a bar fight as a proxy example. 2 dudes down the pub get agro. Fists fly. One guy (Dude A, lets he's even say the "one that started it") manages to break free and goes outside. He starts heading away from the bar and does nothing further to provoke Dude B (further provocation would mean things like yelling "fighting words" or threats to "get his boys" and come back). After he gets a tenth or two of a mile away from the bar Dude B then pounces on him and starts wailing away . . .
Not a good example, since there's nothing in the public record yet that indicates Zimmerman & Martin had any interaction at all before Zimmerman claims he stopped following Martin and headed back to his car.
-
DS:
The use of force guidelines you have written, even assuming your course of events is the unvarnished truth, are at odds with those I have learned from the four states from which I have obtained CHLs.
Zimmerman or Martin, whoever threw the first blow, needed to reasonably believe they were in danger of physical harm before responding in force. Being suspicious of someone being a thief would not cut it, neither would being angry at being followed be sufficient.
We do not yet have key evidence as to what occurred after Zimmerman left his auto and witnesses saw Martin smashing Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
One thing is clear, both Martin and Zimmerman used deadly force on the other: Zimmerman by shooting Martin and Martin by smashing Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
I think you have already decided what occurred, filling in the blanks with assumptions that suit your preconceived notions. For my part, I don;t know and will have to wait to see what hard evidence is revealed.
-
DS:
The use of force guidelines you have written, even assuming your course of events is the unvarnished truth, are at odds with those I have learned from the four states from which I have obtained CHLs.
Zimmerman or Martin, whoever threw the first blow, needed to reasonably believe they were in danger of physical harm before responding in force. Being suspicious of someone being a thief would not cut it, neither would being angry at being followed be sufficient.
We do not yet have key evidence as to what occurred after Zimmerman left his auto and witnesses saw Martin smashing Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
One thing is clear, both Martin and Zimmerman used deadly force on the other: Zimmerman by shooting Martin and Martin by smashing Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
I think you have already decided what occurred, filling in the blanks with assumptions that suit your preconceived notions. For my part, I don;t know and will have to wait to see what hard evidence is revealed.
Pretty much all of this.
My gut feeling is that this situation can be summed up thusly:
A catastrophic meeting of two idiots with more macho ego than common sense.
-
Looks like the powers that be have decided to charge him:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-law-enforcement-official-says/2012/04/11/gIQAHJ5oAT_print.html
-
Looks like the powers that be have decided to charge him:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-zimmerman-to-be-charged-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-law-enforcement-official-says/2012/04/11/gIQAHJ5oAT_print.html
Travesty.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-george-zimmerman-charged-washington-post-184014387.html
"I know that many of you are greatly - and rightly - concerned about the recent shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a young man whose future has been lost to the ages," Holder said earlier in public remarks before the National Action Network, a civil rights group founded by the Rev. Al Sharpton.
Damn it!
Where is Zimmerman's presumption of innocence?
Where is due process for Zimmerman.
Where is a fair trial?
*expletive deleted*ck Eric Holder!
I have been quite tempered in not passing judgement on either side of this until facts are known.
There will never be a fair accounting of this entire situation, ever.
*expletive deleted*ck Eric holder for a lot of reasons, but especially this one.
-
Travesty.
I'm not willing to go there, either. It's possible that the prosecutor has facts that make this a good idea. We've all spent a month saying we don't know, and we still don't.
What I'll say is this: I hope she does have enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. I think it'll be worse for the potential riots, Zimmerman, potential revamping of self defense laws and the justice system as a whole if she pushes this through and loses due to lack of real evidence (Looking at you Casey Anthony trial) then if they just publicly said "Hey, we don't have any evidence."
-
I'm not willing to go there, either. It's possible that the prosecutor has facts that make this a good idea. We've all spent a month saying we don't know, and we still don't.
What I'll say is this: I hope she does have enough evidence to convict Zimmerman. I think it'll be worse for the potential riots, Zimmerman, potential revamping of self defense laws and the justice system as a whole if she pushes this through and loses due to lack of real evidence (Looking at you Casey Anthony trial) then if they just publicly said "Hey, we don't have any evidence."
I worry more about a jury deciding his fate based upon fear of the masses rather than the amount of any 'evidence'.
Zimmerman is screwed no matter the outcome.....
-
Some reports say that there will be "more information" revealed . . . I sure hope so.
While I'm not going to condemn Zimmerman because of the shrill shrieks of the usual suspects bolstered by speculation and innuendo - not to mention threats of riots and worse - I'm not going to declare him innocent of criminal wrongdoing because of the false and malicious reporting we've seen.
We'll see what transpires.
-
Travesty.
Don't you want to know the charge(s) and the evidence before you say that? ???
-
Nah, why wait for facts?
Let's assume someone's shooting was justified because the shooter had a CHL
-
I'm not accusing Mak of that, either.
-
Murder 2.
-
Yup, looks like the prosecutor is going either for a home run or a plea bargain... Should be interesting...
-
Roo ster, I don't think what I'm saying is at odds with the point you make - you can still be an aggressor even if the force used to respond is unreasonable, in which case both chased and chaser are in trouble. That's yet another reason not to chase.
Hey, look, charges - I believe second degree murder was the very first law I cited when challenged to explain what law Zimmerman broke.
-
There's no doubt that the charging of George Zimmerman was political. If they had had a reason to charge him they would have done so before now. The trial will probably not take place for about a year and I'm sure those in charge rightfully hope and believe that things will have calmed down by then. They may even hope to outwait the current administration. I'm sure they are aware that the president was looking to use this case as a way of ginning up support for his last election. Is there bail for 2nd degree murder ? We've all agreed that stupid should cost, feel kind of sorry for Zimmerman's wife. I stopped feeling much sympathy for the Martin's when the photo of Trayvon at age 12 was all they had to show to the press. Seems they knew a current photo of their son would hurt their case. Wonder what else they know that they will never divulge.
[popcorn]
-
Well, the media did their damndest to influence this and get everybody stirred up...
Seems they knew a current photo of their son would hurt their case. Wonder what else they know that they will never divulge.
You know, the family trademarked his name on March 21st . Now, if my son was shot, I don't think trademarking his name would be on my radar screen. A mountain of grief, desire for revenge, extreme sadness, yes. trademarking his name? I don't think so, buddy!
I'll say what I said on another forum about "parents" who care more about money than their children.
Lots of "parents" don't give a damn about their kids...they think of their kids are primarily a tax credit and leverage point to get mo' welfare money. Having to feed, house, clothe, and otherwise raise a kid is a chore to them. Public school is free daycare, not a way to get an education, hence these kids will be sent to school even ill. And these kids will never be punished by their parents for any wrongdoings, so the kid will grow up learning that force and violence gets you what you want.
These "parents" are the ones who will scream the loudest about how their little thugabee was just a choirboy on his way to church when he gets shot holding up a convenience store. If you think they care about their kid getting shot, think again. It just relieves them of a burden and gives them an opportunity to try to extort on a grand scale. They can always pop another kid out of their clown car, so it's no loss when one gets shot.
Go ahead and call me a liar. Or racist. I really don't care cause I've seen the above behavior more times than I really care to count.
-
You know, the family trademarked his name. Now, if my son was shot, I don't think trademarking his name would be on my radar screen, and certainly not less than a month before the body cooled. A mountain of grief, desire for revenge, extreme sadness, yes. trademarking his name? I don't think so, buddy!
I'll say what I said on another forum about "parents" who care more about money than their children.
Would it not prevent others from making money off their dead son's name?
Just wondering since there's no evidence of the family making any money that way yet.
-
Since they are making no effort to stop the cash grab from all the merchandise being sold right now, I'm betting they quietly demand their cut later
-
Would it not prevent others from making money off their dead son's name?
No. They trademarked it as "I AM TRAYVON" and "JUSTICE FOR TRAYVON" for use on "Digital materials, namely, CDs and DVDs featuring TRAYVON MARTIN; Digital media, namely, pre-recorded DVDs, downloadable audio and video recordings, and CDs featuring and promoting TRAYVON MARTIN; Digital media, namely, pre-recorded video cassettes, digital video discs, digital versatile discs, downloadable audio and video recordings, DVDs, and high definition digital discs featuring TRAYVON MARTIN; Digital media, namely, CDs and DVDs featuring TRAYVON MARTIN; DVD cases; DVD sleeves; DVDs featuring TRAYVON MARTIN"
Others have TMd various combinations of his name for hoodies, a charitable organization, and Obama's quote "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin" as a slogan.
BTW, the "Justice For Trayvon Martin Foundation" was handled by the same attorney as the attorney on record as the one his family used to TM the name.
-
Well, I'm surprised.
I'll be even more surprised if they get a conviction.
-
I'll be even more surprised if they get a conviction.
All depends on the jury and how Zimmerman's lawyers handle it (especially since his current ones punched out).
I don't hold out much faith for a decent jury. The media has very much tainted this case with their circus. Hope he gets a jury that remembers what their duty is vs. one that's comprised of morons easily swayed by public opinion.
-
Would it not prevent others from making money off their dead son's name?
Just wondering since there's no evidence of the family making any money that way yet.
It's also for control - so people have a harder time using it for offensive purposes.
If others are making money off of this, I wouldn't necessarily begrudge them a cut. It's not like they're going to get anything from a lawsuit for their pain.
-
Zimmerman will be the sacrifice made to keep the rabble peaceful...
.....I wonder if the MSM will ask Barabbas for a comment?......
-
Zimmerman will be the sacrifice made to keep the rabble peaceful...
.....I wonder if the MSM will ask Barabbas for a comment?......
:laugh: OK, Zimmerman is no Christ, but that is still awfully witty.
-
Zimmerman will be the sacrifice made to keep the rabble peaceful...
.....I wonder if the MSM will ask Barabbas for a comment?......
As predicted, the "oh the injustice!" train is starting up - and when he's convicted we will see more of the same.
Here's a guy who is the poster child for anti carry, anti gun types (roaming around armed with no training, looking for "suspects" and dreaming of one day being a cop), and we've compared him to Jesus.
Expect some changes to the law as a result.
-
Expect some changes to the law as a result.
Do you think the laws in Florida are at fault here?
-
Do you think the laws in Florida are at fault here?
I don't think so at all. It's more this public perception that SYG means "ok to play batman and shoot people."
This idea that it's ok to go chasing people for wearing hoodies and "looking suspicious" will lead to demands for reform. Support for Zimmerman is often expressed that way, which contributes to the problem.
Nevermind that the law doesn't allow it and Zimmerman is now facing serious time for what he did. The invented disputes about his conduct will be enough to drive changes to the law.
-
No.
Thanks Avenger for the info on the trademark situation. =)
Suffice it to say I'm on the verge of getting PO'd at practically all parties involved in this case.
However, I'm still waiting on more facts to come out, if they ever do. =|
-
I don't think so at all. It's more this public perception that SYG means "ok to play batman and shoot people."
As usual, you have your facts wrong. Batman doesn't shoot people. :P
I though perhaps that's what you meant.
-
When the prosecutor made the decision not to go the GJ I figured this was a likely outcome (the charges). If she didn't file charges she'd have (public) hell to pay.
Zimmerman was a dumbass. If he had not pursued Martin, most likely the confrontation never would have occured, and none of this would be going on. But, had Martin also not been a dumbass it's highly unlikely the confrontation would have turned lethal.
I doubt the prosecutor will plea bargin to manslaughter (nevermind something even lower like agg. assault or reckless endagerment) even if Zimmerman wants to. That would be seen by the MSM and the Al Sharpton brigades as an injustice.
My prediction is that Zimmerman gets convicted at trial and has the conviction overturned on eventual appeal. If he lives long enough to see that play out.
And if he's smart he'll refuse to post bail even if it's offered and demand protective custody. Anything else and he's most likely a dead man.
-
If he offers a manslaughter plea of guilty and agrees to serve hard time on it, this case will be over tomorrow.
Sumpnz, you can't predict the odds of an appeal before trial. If the trial is procedurally correct and he's convicted, he's toast. He'd be better off practicing his speech for the parole board. Major errors that lead to a mistrial are likely to be recognized straight away. They'll just retry him if that happens.
He's now a defendant in a 2nd degree murder case. I stand by the proposition that chasing people with a CHL presents an incredibly high risk of this outcome.
-
I can predict anything I want. Even the (unlikely) possibilty of us agreeing on something.
My point is that the political environment will all but guarantee he gets convicted at trial. Most people old enough to serve on a jury remember the aftermath of the Rodney King beating trial and won't want to feel responsible for anoher massive riot like that. An appeal can result in that conviction being overturned if the courts determine that self defense does apply and that the trial jury wrongly convicted him.
-
Next question: do you think Zimmerman will come out of hiding & turn himself in? I'm thinking not.....
-
Next question: do you think Zimmerman will come out of hiding & turn himself in? I'm thinking not.....
He turned himself in very shortly after the announcement and is in custody.
The prosecutor didn't want to cause rioting, so the charges should come as no surprise. Let's pay attention and see what additional information was developed by authorities - right now, from an interview televised last night, even Zimmerman's new lawyer doesn't know what the prosecutor's case against him is.
Hmmm . . . wonder if the prosecutor deliberately filed the most serious charge possible to placate the (radical) masses, knowing that by over-charging Zimmerman a conviction is less likely. It will be interesting to see if they stick to the Murder 2 charge, or ultimately give the jury the option to convict on some lesser count.
-
As predicted, the "oh the injustice!" train is starting up - and when he's convicted we will see more of the same.
Here's a guy who is the poster child for anti carry, anti gun types (roaming around armed with no training, looking for "suspects" and dreaming of one day being a cop), and we've compared him to Jesus.
Expect some changes to the law as a result.
I warned you, didn't I?
We had an agreement, didn't we?
You just can't help being a *expletive deleted*bag, can you?
You are a whining liar who I will not trust again.
-
I warned you, didn't I?
We had an agreement, didn't we?
You just can't help being a *expletive deleted*, can you?
You are a whining liar who I will not trust again.
You "warned" him, eh?
I'm closing this.
Chris