Will you Donate to Zimmerman Website??

[Jeff K]

How would you like to be on that jury? If you vote not guilty you'll have Sharpton on your front lawn and you will be looking over your shoulder for as long as you live.

[The Anvil]

Charged with second degree murder.

Hopefully, now, the media etc will calm down (FAT CHANCE).

Okay, I think it should go to trial but that seems a bit much. Voluntary Manslaughter would seem to be a more appropriate charge considering what we know to be facts.

However, maybe this means that the prosecution has more damning evidence that has yet to see the light of day.

***edit*** OR they're charging him with a crime that they know they either will not secure a conviction on or (on the off chance they do) will be overturned on appeal and are doing so to quell unrest.

[Jess from VA]

One of these days there will be a trial, and we'll get to hear what the actual evidence in this case is.

Unless there is a plea agreement......... but I doubt that.

[The Anvil]

How would you like to be on that jury? If you vote not guilty you'll have Sharpton on your front lawn and you will be looking over your shoulder for as long as you live.

He's whoring himself out as I type this.

[f6gal]

How would you like to be on that jury? If you vote not guilty you'll have Sharpton on your front lawn and you will be looking over your shoulder for as long as you live.

Absolutely impossible to have a fair trial at this point... for that reason and many others.

[Jess from VA]

Depending on the evidence........... jury selection could be the key factor in this case, and could take a very long time.  There are people who can disregard all the pretrial hype and decide only on the evidence at trial... but they have to be discovered in voir dire one at a time.

We can expect a motion for change of venue, if a jury trial is sought.  

Depending on the looks of the jury pool in any metropolitan area,  this may be a judge alone case.  With advice of counsel, that is Z's decision.

[The Anvil]

How would you like to be on that jury? If you vote not guilty you'll have Sharpton on your front lawn and you will be looking over your shoulder for as long as you live.

Absolutely impossible to have a fair trial at this point... for that reason and many others.

Sure you can. I could judge the case impartially. Actually a lot of people I talk to have been taking a wait-and-see approach.

[Patrick]

I'm sure any number of folks could try and be impartial if on the jury,, but,, I have feeling the new black panther party members would be camped out on your front lawn harassing your family while you're stuck in a hotel room..

[f6gal]

How would you like to be on that jury? If you vote not guilty you'll have Sharpton on your front lawn and you will be looking over your shoulder for as long as you live.

Absolutely impossible to have a fair trial at this point... for that reason and many others.

Sure you can. I could judge the case impartially. Actually a lot of people I talk to have been taking a wait-and-see approach.

Doesn't mean they would want to be on the jury and have to live in fear of the ramifications if they find the "wrong" way.
And of course, the whole jury selection process... shades of the O.J. trial.

[Titan]

How would you like to be on that jury? If you vote not guilty you'll have Sharpton on your front lawn and you will be looking over your shoulder for as long as you live.

Absolutely impossible to have a fair trial at this point... for that reason and many others.

Sure you can. I could judge the case impartially. Actually a lot of people I talk to have been taking a wait-and-see approach.

Yeah, right. And you just recently posted "facts", which you believed pointed to his guilt, from reports that you read/heard in the media.

"Mr. Zimmerman left his vehicle to to pursue Martin WHILE ARMED."
"Mr. Zimmerman had no official authority to follow Mr. Martin."

I can see your "impartiality" all over your posts.

[f6gal]

How would you like to be on that jury? If you vote not guilty you'll have Sharpton on your front lawn and you will be looking over your shoulder for as long as you live.

Absolutely impossible to have a fair trial at this point... for that reason and many others.

Sure you can. I could judge the case impartially. Actually a lot of people I talk to have been taking a wait-and-see approach.

Yeah, right. And you just recently posted "facts", which you believed pointed to his guilt, from reports that you read/heard in the media.

"Mr. Zimmerman left his vehicle to to pursue Martin WHILE ARMED."
"Mr. Zimmerman had no official authority to follow Mr. Martin."

I can see your "impartiality" all over your posts.

LOL... I tried to avoid stating the obvious.

[Jeff K]

How would you like to be on that jury? If you vote not guilty you'll have Sharpton on your front lawn and you will be looking over your shoulder for as long as you live.

Absolutely impossible to have a fair trial at this point... for that reason and many others.

Sure you can. I could judge the case impartially. Actually a lot of people I talk to have been taking a wait-and-see approach.

Yeah, right. And you just recently posted "facts", which you believed pointed to his guilt, from reports that you read/heard in the media.

"Mr. Zimmerman left his vehicle to to pursue Martin WHILE ARMED."
"Mr. Zimmerman had no official authority to follow Mr. Martin."

I can see your "impartiality" all over your posts.

Funny, the very first thing that came to my mind was "I don't want him on the jury if it's my neck on the line!" 

[The Anvil]

How would you like to be on that jury? If you vote not guilty you'll have Sharpton on your front lawn loand you will be looking over your shoulder for as long as you live.

Absolutely impossible to have a fair trial at this point... for that reason and many others.

Sure you can. I could judge the case impartially. Actually a lot of people I talk to have been taking a wait-and-see approach.

Yeah, right. And you just recently posted "facts", which you believed pointed to his guilt, from reports that you read/heard in the media.

"Mr. Zimmerman left his vehicle to to pursue Martin WHILE ARMED."
"Mr. Zimmerman had no official authority to follow Mr. Martin."

I can see your "impartiality" all over your posts.

LOL... I tried to avoid stating the obvious.

I have never assumed that Zimmerman was guilty, just that there was enough evidence for a trial. I know the subtleties can be difficult for some people to grasp but I'll avoid stating the obvious.

Oh wait, I already did.

[f6gal]

How would you like to be on that jury? If you vote not guilty you'll have Sharpton on your front lawn loand you will be looking over your shoulder for as long as you live.

Absolutely impossible to have a fair trial at this point... for that reason and many others.

Sure you can. I could judge the case impartially. Actually a lot of people I talk to have been taking a wait-and-see approach.

Yeah, right. And you just recently posted "facts", which you believed pointed to his guilt, from reports that you read/heard in the media.

"Mr. Zimmerman left his vehicle to to pursue Martin WHILE ARMED."
"Mr. Zimmerman had no official authority to follow Mr. Martin."

I can see your "impartiality" all over your posts.

LOL... I tried to avoid stating the obvious.

I have never assumed that Zimmerman was guilty, just that there was enough evidence for a trial. I know the subtleties can be difficult for some people to grasp but I'll avoid stating the obvious.

Oh wait, I already did.

No, you assumed there was enough evidence for a trial without really knowing all the facts.  The only reason charges were filed is because of the media frenzy.

The point was that every one of your posts stated the facts that pointed to his guilt, but never the facts that pointed to his innocence.  It was obvious to most of us that you were far from being impartial... as I stated in an earlier post, "If you want to appear unbiased, you really should include facts from both sides of the argument."

[The Anvil]

How would you like to be on that jury? If you vote not guilty you'll have Sharpton on your front lawno loand you will be looking over your shoulder for as long as you live.

Absolutely impossible to have a fair trial at this point... for that reason and many others.

Sure you can. I could judge the case impartially. Actually a lot of people I talk to have been taking a wait-and-see approach.

Yeah, right. And you just recently posted "facts", which you believed pointed to his guilt, from reports that you read/heard in the media.

"Mr. Zimmerman left his vehicle to to pursue Martin WHILE ARMED."
"Mr. Zimmerman had no official authority to follow Mr. Martin."

I can see your "impartiality" all over your posts.

LOL... I tried to avoid stating the obvious.

I have never assumed that Zimmerman was guilty, just that there was enough evidence for a trial. I know the subtleties can be difficult for some people to grasp but I'll avoid stating the obvious.

Oh wait, I already did.

No, you assumed there was enough evidence for a trial without really knowing all the facts.  The only reason charges were filed is because of the media frenzy.

The point was that every one of your posts stated the facts that pointed to his guilt, but never the facts that pointed to his innocence.  It was obvious to most of us that you were far from being impartial... as I stated in an earlier post, "If you want to appear unbiased, you really should include facts from both sides of the argument."

What facts point to Zimmerman's innocence did I miss? It's not really an argument about that. It's an argument about whether or not there's enough evidence to warrant a trial. There is. If there's enough evidence to prove his innocence then that will be reflected in the trial. Or there simply won't be enough to prove guilt and he'll be acquitted.

Again, I don't expect you to understand the difference so I'll leave it at that.

[musclehead]

murder II seems a bit much, I hope they don't over reach AGAIN. (casey anthony)

[f6gal]

What facts point to Zimmerman's innocence did I miss?

I stated quite a few in a previous post.

Again, I don't expect you to understand the difference so I'll leave it at that.

I understand the difference very well... my comments were directed at your impartiality in presenting the facts and how the media has exacerbated the situation. 

And I'll leave it that, since your intelligence is so vastly superior to mine!   

[The Anvil]

What facts point to Zimmerman's innocence did I miss?

I stated quite a few in a previous post.

Your failure to understand is fundamental. It's about whether or not there's enough evidence to warrant charges. That's IT. Besides which, your "facts that support his innocence" are shaky at best. Let's examine them individually (get your popcorn):

Mr. Zimmerman was not breaking any laws in following Mr. Martin, armed or not.

Technically perhaps not. But it brings me back to my original point which is that Mr. Martin was not breaking any law by walking the streets. Whether Mr. Zimmerman was breaking any laws is irrelevant. His actions clearly were not wise. I can think of a number of activities that are not patently illegal but are unwise and if done irresponsibly could lead to criminal charges.

When dispatcher told Mr. Zimmerman they did't need him to follow, Mr. Z said OK.

So clearly the dispatcher agreed that following him was not wise. One could argue that if Zimmerman had taken this duty (of neighborhood watchman) upon himself AND chose to arm himself while doing so then perhaps he should have put more forethought into his own personal procedures and protocols.

Oh, you didn't know that following someone who you believe to be a potential threat is a bad idea? Your ass betta call somebody!

Not preparing properly for a responsibility whether assigned or assumed is negligent. Maybe not criminally so, but it's irresponsible at the least.

Mr. Zimmerman lost sight of Mr. Martin; clearly stating on the 911 call, "I don't know where this kid is."

I'm not what exactly that proves. That Zimmerman has poor eyesight? That he can't tail someone worth a damn? It is not really proof of anything unless there's some other evidence that Zimmerman was ambushed. If there is then that will come out in a trial. Which is why we have them.

The police report stated that Mr. Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose and the back of the head.
The police report stated that Mr. Zimmerman's back appeared wet and was covered in grass.

Again, this is proof of nothing without further evidence or testimony. It only means that Zimmerman was not his foe's equal in therms of hand-to-hand combat. I don't know why this is SO HARD FOR PEOPLE TO GRASP.

The police released Mr. Z because the evidence supported his account of the events.

No, not really. They just lacked (or thought they lacked) enough evidence to charge under the current law. But that's not the same thing as corroborating evidence.

NBC's editing of the 911 tape assigned motive to Mr. Z that did not exist (Z wasn't even sure Martin was black).

NBC's behavior was despicable, I won't argue in their defense. But that is entirely and 100% AFTER the fact. It has nothing to do with whether or not charges should have been filed.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

How would you like to be on that jury? If you vote not guilty you'll have Sharpton on your front lawn and you will be looking over your shoulder for as long as you live.

Unless they move the trial to rural Wyoming or Montana I don't think there is a chance in the world of a fair trial. I don't mean that those areas won't have been saturated with media coverage too. I mean that an urban terror group such as the black panthers probably couldn't operate well out there.

When it was announced there would be no grand jury I was sure it meant charges would be filed. The prosecutor wouldn't risk having the sole responsibility of not filing charges. It would have probably cost her or her family dearly. She would only have taken sole responsibility if she was going to file charges.

[Gangman036]

How would you like to be on that jury? If you vote not guilty you'll have Sharpton on your front lawno loand you will be looking over your shoulder for as long as you live.

Absolutely impossible to have a fair trial at this point... for that reason and many others.

Sure you can. I could judge the case impartially. Actually a lot of people I talk to have been taking a wait-and-see approach.

Yeah, right. And you just recently posted "facts", which you believed pointed to his guilt, from reports that you read/heard in the media.

"Mr. Zimmerman left his vehicle to to pursue Martin WHILE ARMED."
"Mr. Zimmerman had no official authority to follow Mr. Martin."

I can see your "impartiality" all over your posts.

LOL... I tried to avoid stating the obvious.

I have never assumed that Zimmerman was guilty, just that there was enough evidence for a trial. I know the subtleties can be difficult for some people to grasp but I'll avoid stating the obvious.

Oh wait, I already did.

No, you assumed there was enough evidence for a trial without really knowing all the facts.  The only reason charges were filed is because of the media frenzy.

The point was that every one of your posts stated the facts that pointed to his guilt, but never the facts that pointed to his innocence.  It was obvious to most of us that you were far from being impartial... as I stated in an earlier post, "If you want to appear unbiased, you really should include facts from both sides of the argument."

What facts point to Zimmerman's innocence did I miss? It's not really an argument about that. It's an argument about whether or not there's enough evidence to warrant a trial. There is. If there's enough evidence to prove his innocence then that will be reflected in the trial. Or there simply won't be enough to prove guilt and he'll be acquitted.

Again, I don't expect you to understand the difference so I'll leave it at that.

You say "What facts point to Zimmerman's innocence did I miss?"
How about the FACT that in this country you are considered  INNOCENT until proven GUILTY !!

[alph]

How about the FACT that in this country you are considered  INNOCENT until proven GUILTY !!

that's right, zimmerman should have assumed martin was innocent before he tracked him down.....  i agree with you 100%.  unless you see someone commit a crime, you should assume they're innocent.

[Jess from VA]

murder II seems a bit much, I hope they don't over reach AGAIN. (casey anthony)

From a prosecutor's point of view, if you have to try a case, you go for murder two, not just voluntary manslaughter.  Assuming there is at least some evidence supporting them, the jury will be instructed on all lesser included offenses.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lesser+Included+Offense

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

How about the FACT that in this country you are considered  INNOCENT until proven GUILTY !!

that's right, zimmerman should have assumed martin was innocent before he tracked him down.....  i agree with you 100%.  unless you see someone commit a crime, you should assume they're innocent.

Yep. Just as Martin should have assumed Zimmerman was innocent before he physically attacked him assuming that is indeed what happened. Hopefully there is some chance that the truth will be allowed to decide Zimmerman's fate but i doubt it. It's gonna be hard to find people who aren't gonna be intimidated by what might happen to their families if Zimmerman is found innocent.

[Skinhead]

How about the FACT that in this country you are considered  INNOCENT until proven GUILTY !!

that's right, zimmerman should have assumed martin was innocent before he tracked him down.....  i agree with you 100%.  unless you see someone commit a crime, you should assume they're innocent.

Good luck with that one!  Better keep your doors and car locked.

[The Anvil]

murder II seems a bit much, I hope they don't over reach AGAIN. (casey anthony)

From a prosecutor's point of view, if you have to try a case, you go for murder two, not just voluntary manslaughter.  Assuming there is at least some evidence supporting them, the jury will be instructed on all lesser included offenses.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Lesser+Included+Offense

Except that I don't think you can do that in FLA, which was the jury's excuse for letting Casey Anthony walk. In FLA I think you need to have the charge formally included. If I'm wrong then someone please correct me.

+1 on the presumption of innocence on both sides. Maybe everyone can learn something from all of this.

[Willow]

-1 on the presumption of innocence (on both sides).

The presumption of innocence specifically applies to the court and the judicial system.  If I see someone lurking around my property it is perfectly okay for me to presume his guilt until I can verify his innocence.

On a dark night when the question is, "Friend or foe?" I will assume "foe" until I can validate "friend". 

[Gear Jammer]

-1 on the presumption of innocence (on both sides).

The presumption of innocence specifically applies to the court and the judicial system.  If I see someone lurking around my property it is perfectly okay for me to presume his guilt until I can verify his innocence.

On a dark night when the question is, "Friend or foe?" I will assume "foe" until I can validate "friend". 

And in the Republic of Texas,, person(s) "lurking" on your property is Prima Facie evidence they are not there for legal reasons,,,

[Tx Bohemian]

On a dark night when the question is, "Friend or foe?" I will assume "foe" until I can validate "friend".

I agree.
Some here seem to be forgetting that lately there were something like 7 home burgularies in this neighborhood and was reported that the crooks were young blacks wearing hoodies. So the tension was high anyway due to this.

(Why wasn't Sharpton or Jackson there when this was happening and attempting to quell the situation then? Of course we all know the reason, no cameras!)

I doubt there is noone here that if they "care about their neighborhood" can truthfully say that if these burgularies were happening that they wouldn't be "presumtious" if there was a hoodie wearing, young, black person hanging around!

[Jess from VA]

-1 on the presumption of innocence (on both sides).

The presumption of innocence specifically applies to the court and the judicial system.  If I see someone lurking around my property it is perfectly okay for me to presume his guilt until I can verify his innocence.

On a dark night when the question is, "Friend or foe?" I will assume "foe" until I can validate "friend". 

Very good point Carl.  And if you happen to be armed you have to exercise a good deal of care and judgment. 

An associated issue in this thread and the case being discussed is just how careful you have to be with deadly force.  The weight of the world, your freedom, and everything you own and may earn for the next few years can be at stake in a matter of seconds. 

[The Anvil]

-1 on the presumption of innocence (on both sides).

The presumption of innocence specifically applies to the court and the judicial system.  If I see someone lurking around my property it is perfectly okay for me to presume his guilt until I can verify his innocence.

On a dark night when the question is, "Friend or foe?" I will assume "foe" until I can validate "friend". 

Fair enough. But I'm not a member of the court system. I am free to presume whatever the hell I want about his guilt or innocence.

Besides which, it's not about your suspicions or awareness level. It's about how you act on them.

[Tx Bohemian]

Besides which, it's not about your suspicions or awareness level. It's about how you act on them.

And on some reports of the incident Z did act responsible and when told not to follow he headed back to his vehicle and supposily that's when the aspiring thug, Martin, attacked him.

[Oss]

since I dont watch network news, other than what I see posted here I do not think I can presume anything about the defendant or the dead guy (not calling him victim...yet)

but what I do know is we have multiple ways that law enforcement looks at things around the country

Unfortunate that it seems you are deemed a racist only if white

If you are not white and not black there is another perception

and if you are black there is a third

Publicity WHORES are just that  Sharpton is a whore for the spotlight, like a reverse cockroach

Some DA's are publicity whores but most probably are not

A DA is an elected position  that makes em politicians If his majority is Black constituents give em what they want and let the court sort it out  GUILT  INNOCENCE WHO CARES  PROBABLE CAUSE IS ALL YA NEED

I am kinda on the same page as my colleague Jess in Va  we have both been through the legal system and even tho I dont practice criminal the stuff you learn does stick in the brain some

Hope for an anonymous sequestered jury like in a mob trial only here the mob is those with no knowledge who are looking for an excuse to get something for nothing and make trouble

In this case the mob is black but not in every case.Go back in history, KKK is just as real as cosa nostra was

I have respect for the position of President, just a shame that current one is such a racist


I
If you carry, think real hard before putting yourself in a bad position. If you dont, same thing

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

since I dont watch network news, other than what I see posted here I do not think I can presume anything about the defendant or the dead guy (not calling him victim...yet)

but what I do know is we have multiple ways that law enforcement looks at things around the country

Unfortunate that it seems you are deemed a racist only if white

If you are not white and not black there is another perception

and if you are black there is a third

Publicity WHORES are just that  Sharpton is a whore for the spotlight, like a reverse cockroach

Some DA's are publicity whores but most probably are not

A DA is an elected position  that makes em politicians If his majority is Black constituents give em what they want and let the court sort it out  GUILT  INNOCENCE WHO CARES  PROBABLE CAUSE IS ALL YA NEED

I am kinda on the same page as my colleague Jess in Va  we have both been through the legal system and even tho I dont practice criminal the stuff you learn does stick in the brain some

Hope for an anonymous sequestered jury like in a mob trial only here the mob is those with no knowledge who are looking for an excuse to get something for nothing and make trouble

In this case the mob is black but not in every case.Go back in history, KKK is just as real as cosa nostra was

I have respect for the position of President, just a shame that current one is such a racist


I
If you carry, think real hard before putting yourself in a bad position. If you dont, same thing

Well said.

[98valk]

this incident is why I'm a proponent of the first two rounds or one being a non-lethal round, warning shot if u will. If this was used by zimmerman would he be going through what he is now? And trayvon would be alive.
For the lawyers, how would one be charged if at all for stopping an incident until the police arrived by using a non-lethal round on someone?

[donaldcc]

. . .  supposily that's when the aspiring thug, Martin, attacked him.

Hmmmm.  Don't really recall anything about this teenager being "an aspiring thug" . . .

do you have some "secret" information you can provide the rest of us, or is that just your biased opinion?  ???

[Moonshot_1]

this incident is why I'm a proponent of the first two rounds or one being a non-lethal round, warning shot if u will. If this was used by zimmerman would he be going through what he is now? And trayvon would be alive.
For the lawyers, how would one be charged if at all for stopping an incident until the police arrived by using a non-lethal round on someone?

You do realize the bullet from the warning shot must go somewhere?
Maybe the Martin kid would be alive but the two 5 year olds watching TV in their house when they suddenly stop the warning bullets with their heads would probably not have been a good outcome either.

[Trynt]

Over the three day St Patrick's day "celebration" in Chicago's South Side 49 people were shot. Ten died. No vast public outcry for justice has been heard.  Had Zimmerman and Martin been of the same race, I submit, no outcry would have been heard in the FL case. This is race baiting and media hype at a disheartening level.

[Trynt]

this incident is why I'm a proponent of the first two rounds or one being a non-lethal round, warning shot if u will. If this was used by zimmerman would he be going through what he is now? And trayvon would be alive.
For the lawyers, how would one be charged if at all for stopping an incident until the police arrived by using a non-lethal round on someone?

The only legal basis for the use of deadly force (in most states) is being in reasonable and imminent fear of great bodily harm or death (great bodily harm is usually defined as permanent crippling injury or disfigurement. Even broken bones do not necessarily qualify). Firing a warning shot would indicate you believed a lesser threat existed (or you were profoundly foolish with your well being). And in my state simply pointing a firearm at someone could result in charges related to deadly force.

[f6gal]

this incident is why I'm a proponent of the first two rounds or one being a non-lethal round, warning shot if u will. If this was used by zimmerman would he be going through what he is now? And trayvon would be alive.
For the lawyers, how would one be charged if at all for stopping an incident until the police arrived by using a non-lethal round on someone?

You do realize the bullet from the warning shot must go somewhere?
Maybe the Martin kid would be alive but the two 5 year olds watching TV in their house when they suddenly stop the warning bullets with their heads would probably not have been a good outcome either.

+1

Firing warning shots is irresponsible, as well as illegal within most city limits.

[The Anvil]

I'm not really a fan of the warning shot idea, but I think CA was talking about something like a rubber bullet or some type of less lethal round. Maybe even a blank. He said a "warning shot if you will".

I'm not sure how I feel about that either. But I will say that perhaps this was one of those cases where shooting to wound may have been a better course of action?

Then again, he might be around to tell a different side of the story. Can't have that.

Oh, and even if you hit your intended target there's no guarantee that the bullet isn't going to over-penetrate and kill a bystander. Just another one of the many reasons why you need to make good decisions when you chose to carry a firearm. If you're not capable of doing so then please don't carry.