George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says

reply to post by Cosmic911


Completely agreed, Cosmic. I'm not a gun owner myself, but am certainly understanding of the concerns that persons such as yourself must have about this case. The overwhelming majority of gun owners utilize their weapons in a responsible manner, but unfortunately end up being lumped together with those who don't, like GZ.

If I were the NRA or any gun lobby, though, I would be running away from GZ as fast as possible. He is not the poster boy that they want exhibited for the SYG law. If his father wasn't, in all probability, involved in cleaning up his criminal record, he never would have been able to get a gun in the first place.

Aside from his troubled personal history, as you stated, GZ simply isn't covered by the SYG law. The second he exited his vehicle to confront Trayvon, he forfeited that protection. Very influential persons, such as Jeb Bush, have publicly stated this, and I expect to see it reflected in the relevant court ruling.

Originally posted by Siddharta
We also don't have any idiots, who fear, their rights to buy and use guns are in danger. Nobody has the right to use a gun here anyway. Only uncivilized countries have these rights.

Those rights that us 'idiots' cherish help found this country and so far have enabled the US to be the one of the best places in the world to live. If someone is an immediate threat to me or my family then I have the right to use force including deadly force in defense. It is basic survival and in a civilized country we should not face the possibility of life in prison for defending ourselves.

When the story first broke I was quick to judge Zimmerman, now I am not so sure that he killed an innocent 'kid'. Martin may have attacked Zimmerman and the shooting very well may have been justified. Martin's girlfriend testimony might have been important, but now her story is likely tainted because she spoke to Martin's lawyers before speaking with investigators(which I do not know if she has).

The only reason an arrest was made was because of the all the attention the media gave this. All we can hope for is a fair trial and 'they' won't use this as a reason to disarm the American people.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Well well well, another lie from X.....you did make up fact? Remember, you tried to play it off as a 'misspeak' ... even though it was quite thoroughly pointed out by your owns words that you lied.

Maybe you should go back and read your own words........

I also find it quite amusing for you to ask for sources when you ignored all request for the sources of the made up info you posted, twice, yesterday. Pot, kettle, black........

Man you really do suffer from rectal-cranial inversion dont you? How about you actually read the posts in their entirety? That way you wont look like a clueless fool when you make an accusation that is not true.

I did not ignore the request for the articles. You would know this if you read and understood the posts.

Grow up, act your age and quit derailing the thread.

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
You didn't make simple mistake, you fabricated a story to support your own narrative, got called out on it and then proceeded to recant your story or twist it as some sort of error.

Actually no I made a mistake.. I corrected that mistake and posted the link to the various sources showing where my confusion came in. Had you bothered to read you would know that but since you are part of the bandwagon who are doing nothing but launching constant personal attacks because you are incapable of supporting your argument.

When in doubt, attack the poster because you cant refute the facts.

Originally posted by macaronicaesar
Your credibility is zero on this issue. I don't believe you're a cop either. You've proven you'll make things up to get support for your ideas. Go away.

Actually I am and no I have not been proven wrong. As far as credibility goes can I get a care check on aisle 3? I am not here to prove myself to people who are clueless and have no idea how the law works.

As far as going away why? So you and the others can continue to push opinions instead of reading and understanding the law and what facts are in play?

I find it ironic that you accuse me of making things up while you and the others are doing the exact thing you accuse me of. Dont believe me then by all means give us a first hand account ting of what occurred between Zimmerman and Martin.

Since we don't know and since you guys are constantly telling us what happened, that would make you a liar would it not?

Another person who cant refute the facts so they attack the poster.

Now how about you act your age and engage in the discussion and topic

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Id like to cordially ask you to site your source that states Zimmerman had 'gash' in the back of his head.

Something official...you know EMTreport, police report, ER visit....or similar.

Let me give you the answer that was given to me when I asked him to support one of his accusations on a police cover up. By the way are you going to just read me the riot act or will you do the same for shepseka?

Originally posted by shepseskaf
This fact that Wolfinger declined to prosecute due to "lack of evidence" and a presumed "difficulty in attaining a conviction" has been reported in virtually every article in relation to this case. Look it up yourself.

Since I doubt you will take the time to look it up let me help you out -
ABC Unmasked: Enhanced Video Shows Zimmerman Head Gash

Originally posted by shepseskaf
The original police report say he had a bloody nose and was bleeding from the back of his head. Ive not heard anything to back up your claim of a 'gash'....is that embellishment on your part?

Nope.. Laziness and ignorance on your part.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
When I said that Trayvon's girlfriend had not been interviewed, it was clear that I was referring to law enforcement. Yes, she has been interviewed -- but by Benjamin Crump, the Martin family attorney, and by the Prosecutor.

If no arrest could have been made then why do an interview? Secondly the girl was known to law enforcement after 3 weeks of remaining silent and since we do not have all the info lets wait and see if she is even relevant. A person on a phone can testify to noises but nothing else. There were eye witnesses to the account as well as some 911 calls that were not made available to the public.

Secondly Police interviewed another minor, a 13 year old male who witnessed the shooting and altercation but could not make out details of who was who.

The parents of Treyvan Martin were the ones who figured out the 16 year old was on the phone with Martin when it occurred. For some reason they never bothered to contact police, and neither did their lawyer. The family contacted the 16 year old and gave an interview to the Martins lawyer before they disclosed to the police that she was on the phone the night it occurred.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
The main point I made about this issue was that the Sanford Police Dept. made no documented effort to at least find the person who spoke to Trayvon just minutes before he was killed. They would have had no idea from looking at the phone number whether the person was a minor, or not -- addressing the argument that you made about not contacting underage individuals.

see above

Originally posted by shepseskaf
It is basic police procedure to try and ascertain the last person that a homicide victim has spoken to, in order to shed some light on possible reasons for the killing. So, SPD should have, at minimum, attempted to contact the person at the number on Trayvon's cell. Phone records could easily have established the fact that the call happened at the same time as the confrontation. However, SPD did not do this.

You are ignoring the part where Martins cell phone became evidence. There are rules in place on how evidence is handled and processed. If an officer were to go through the phone and accidentally erase something it will create a massive issue. Its easier to follow basic police procedure by bagging and tagging the evidence and allowing a lab expert analyze it. That way there will be no challenges on chain of custody or tampering with evidence.

My point being is there is more going on than what you guys realize / understand. This is not a moral argument, its a legal argument and as such you guys can't interject your personal opinions while ignoring the laws in place.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
On the second issue, your definitive statement that SYG "does apply" is false. Just because GZ's attorney is attempting to use it as a defense doesn't mean that it is a valid application of law until ruled on by a judge. Defense lawyers typically make all kinds of assertions, invoking all sorts of laws in order to possibly get a dismissal of the charges against their clients. It doesn't mean squat until a judge rules that, in fact, a law does apply to a specific case.

Actually no its not... It will be used at the preliminary hearing coming up and his lawyer will move for a dismissal. The issue you are raising comes at the trial portion.

reply to post by GmoS719


You sound like a sheep who follows the herd and MSM, they show old pictures from few years back of that kid. This kid was a trouble maker, he beat up Zimmerman to the ground and he act in self defense. Don't forget about you have the right to stand your ground.
Also note that states like KY and TX for example are states where most people have guns endup being a safest place less crime and hardly hear of random shooting.
Yes you are going to argue with me but to be honest, only Zimmerman knows for sure what really happen since he was the only one there and part of the incident him self.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
reply to post by shepseskaf

 

I also do not believe SYG can easily be applied to this case. In my limited and humble opinion, Zimmerman null & voided that privilege the moment he began following Martin, especially after police dispatch advised him against any further pursuit.

Respectfully and no offense intended...

The above portion is where we are having issues in this thread. I understand that people have opinions on what and does not apply. The issue though is the argument being made is coming from a personal / moral rather than the legal.

Under SYG it allows an aggressor to use deadly force and lists the elements required in order for it to be valid. We cannot just simply ignore that section and substitute an opinion. The validity of the claim / assertion is preponderance of evidence for the defense. The PA must dismantle that defense however she is restricted to beyond a reasonable doubt.

Preponderance of evidence is a lower legal standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. The PA is going to have to give specifics at the preliminary hearing for her first hurdle. If she does not make it over then I see this case ending there.

Again I am not trying to be an ass by using your comment as an example.

Originally posted by shepseskaf
Aside from his troubled personal history, as you stated, GZ simply isn't covered by the SYG law. The second he exited his vehicle to confront Trayvon, he forfeited that protection. Very influential persons, such as Jeb Bush, have publicly stated this, and I expect to see it reflected in the relevant court ruling.

Seriously.. Why are you intent on ignoring certain sections of the law that for now do apply? Florida SYG allows for an aggressor to use deadly force in self defense if the elements are met.

Since we do not know what occurred from contact to police arrival, how are you able to make an argument that it does not apply? How are you supporting your position?

As far as the comments by politicians there is nothing they can do. This is not their area of responsibility and they have no influence on how a case is prosecuted or what laws are in play for that prosecution.

this is amazing news

reply to post by Xcathdra


If he wants to use SYG as a defense, he's going to have pretty good evidence of that to show to a judge. The fact that he did not stay in his truck and actively pursued Martin is a pretty good case against him standing his ground. You're not defending yourself from something you went looking for. There's been enough evidence shown that he did not turn around and head back to his truck and there's evidence to show that there was some verbal contact before any physical altercation was made. It seems to me the only one "standing his ground" was Martin.

Also, the "gash" on the head, the still shots that have been cherry picked from the video and then enhanced by who knows who doing who knows what with what software are a little bit lame to claim it's more than a scratch. When watching the clearest video, it's extremely hard to see anything at all. The one edited screenshot that's been used as his whole "See, he wasn't lying" shtick is lame. When presenting pictures or video evidence for paranormal activity or other subject matter, it seems that anything less than the unedited original will do. Why the hypocrisy here?

Let me see clear photos taken after the incident by police. If he in-fact did get big gashes on the back of his head after being pummeled into the pavement, I'm sure there's clear, unedited photographic evidence of it in someone's possession.

reply to post by Xcathdra


oops i gave you a star by accident lol!

didnt trayvons girl call 911 immediately after trayvon "hung up"? i say "hung up" because according to her it sounded like trayvon was pushed or attacked because it sounded like trays earpiece fell out of his ear quickly and abruptly. if there is a 911 call i'm sure that will be major evidence.

as for SYG several lawyers and LEO's have already stated that it wont apply in this case. they say that the moment zimbo stepped out of his truck he lost his SYG defense. however self defense is still a possible defense for him.

is it possible that there is still a ton of evidence that was not mentioned in the affidavit? as far as i know the lawyers from both sides have agreed to seal off the discovery (list of all eveidence compiled by the state). that led to the possibility that both sides are working towards a plea deal.

what was really funny was prosecutor said at press conference that she was not bowing to political pressure to charge this man right and i have a bridge to sell in brooklyn. now i do not know if it was murder or self defense authorities say they had witness that zimmerman was on back getting head beat into concrete. but zimmerman is not going to get fair trial because if he is found innocent there will be riots. i already here in my work place that this white sob is going to walk from african american friends. they pay no attention to the fact this guy latino. tptb know this will happen so they got to give this guy a severe sentence or else. i am hearing what gave zimmerman the right to carry a gun ihe aint a cop i tell them the same right that lets me carry one the second amemdment . but they dont want to hear such nonsense.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Well well well, another lie from X.....you did make up fact? Remember, you tried to play it off as a 'misspeak' ... even though it was quite thoroughly pointed out by your owns words that you lied.

Maybe you should go back and read your own words........

I also find it quite amusing for you to ask for sources when you ignored all request for the sources of the made up info you posted, twice, yesterday. Pot, kettle, black........

Man you really do suffer from rectal-cranial inversion dont you? How about you actually read the posts in their entirety? That way you wont look like a clueless fool when you make an accusation that is not true.

I did not ignore the request for the articles. You would know this if you read and understood the posts.

Grow up, act your age and quit derailing the thread.

You can call names all you want. I know what I'm talking about. You were asked to cite your source for the claim that an expert had said it was Zimmerman yelling on the 911 call. You state twice that one expert has come out and said it was zimmerman yelling on the tape. You said that twice, which means you lied twice. Several people ask you to cite a source for that claim, you couldn't, got caught in a lie and were called out on it. Im sorry if you are feeling stupid now that everyone knows you have no credibility. You can try and insult me all you want, but I am not the one who has been busted making up 'experts' to support your claim.

I am fully grown and can fully understand what you wrote. Why don't you grow up, admit you lied, admit you were busted and quit doing. That is what being grown means, taking responsibility for you actions. You lied, admit it already.

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
If he wants to use SYG as a defense, he's going to have pretty good evidence of that to show to a judge.

The burden is preponderance of the evidence and nothing more.

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
The fact that he did not stay in his truck and actively pursued Martin is a pretty good case against him standing his ground. You're not defending yourself from something you went looking for. There's been enough evidence shown that he did not turn around and head back to his truck and there's evidence to show that there was some verbal contact before any physical altercation was made. It seems to me the only one "standing his ground" was Martin.

Again we dont know what occurred from the moment of contact to the time the police showed up. Secondly, again, the law and not personal moral / opinions is the guide for this. We cant simply ignore a part of the law because we dont agree with it. SYG allows an aggressor to use deadly force in some circumstances.

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
Also, the "gash" on the head, the still shots that have been cherry picked from the video and then enhanced by who knows who doing who knows what with what software are a little bit lame to claim it's more than a scratch. When watching the clearest video, it's extremely hard to see anything at all. The one edited screenshot that's been used as his whole "See, he wasn't lying" shtick is lame. When presenting pictures or video evidence for paranormal activity or other subject matter, it seems that anything less than the unedited original will do. Why the hypocrisy here?

The source is ABC news.. Amazing people will discount a media outlet when information comes out that supports Zimmerman's side of the story. I get the impression any source that shows anything for Zimmerman is going to just be ignored.

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
Let me see clear photos taken after the incident by police. If he in-fact did get big gashes on the back of his head after being pummeled into the pavement, I'm sure there's clear, unedited photographic evidence of it in someone's possession.

The question is would you or any of the others accept it? We already have people going down the police cover up conspiracy bs.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Id like to cordially ask you to site your source that states Zimmerman had 'gash' in the back of his head.

Something official...you know EMTreport, police report, ER visit....or similar.

Let me give you the answer that was given to me when I asked him to support one of his accusations on a police cover up. By the way are you going to just read me the riot act or will you do the same for shepseka?

Originally posted by shepseskaf
This fact that Wolfinger declined to prosecute due to "lack of evidence" and a presumed "difficulty in attaining a conviction" has been reported in virtually every article in relation to this case. Look it up yourself.

Since I doubt you will take the time to look it up let me help you out -
ABC Unmasked: Enhanced Video Shows Zimmerman Head Gash

Originally posted by shepseskaf
The original police report say he had a bloody nose and was bleeding from the back of his head. Ive not heard anything to back up your claim of a 'gash'....is that embellishment on your part?

Nope.. Laziness and ignorance on your part.

edit on 14-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

So i guess that means you can't back up your claim of a 'gash'. So is that another lie from you or just your way of embellishing to make you case look better? Either way it is dishonest.

Where in that picture does it document a 'gash'. So me proof he had a 'gash'....at best he has scratch....AT BEST....It looks like a shadow to me....those marks don't stay on his head consistently. But thats not the point. The point is you are calling it a 'gash'....Ive not seen any Police, Medical, or any other record that states he had a gash. The police report says 'bleeding from the back of the head'.......nothing about a gash. Guess thats just more of the fantasy evidence you have made up. Typical.

reply to post by Xcathdra

The burden is preponderance of the evidence and nothing more.

Exactly. And the preponderance of the evidence is not in Z's favor at this point. His word is not proof of anything.

I would accept a clear photo of his injuries as proof he was injured. Because he was injured does not prove Martin was the aggressor.

SYG allows an aggressor to use deadly force in some circumstances.

Yes. So that would fact would exonerate Trayvon in this circumstance.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
oops i gave you a star by accident lol!

ooooook - contrary to some people on this site stars and flags dont mean anything. They certainly don't change laws into personal opinions as some like to claim. Im not sure where people get the idea that if they have more stars or flags that they somehow can use that to argue they are right and the law is wrong.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
didnt trayvons girl call 911 immediately after trayvon "hung up"? i say "hung up" because according to her it sounded like trayvon was pushed or attacked because it sounded like trays earpiece fell out of his ear quickly and abruptly. if there is a 911 call i'm sure that will be major evidence.

Which is another reason why the girlfriend was most likely ignored. People are going back and forth on who screamed based off the 911 calls. Was she still on the phone when it got that far? I dont know if she called police as well as others or not. As far as testimony goes I dont see anything other than did you talk to treyvan on this date and time. Even then they can pull it form the phone records like the parents did. In the end her trying to explain what she heard is not going to hold much weight since she didn't witness anything first hand.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
as for SYG several lawyers and LEO's have already stated that it wont apply in this case. they say that the moment zimbo stepped out of his truck he lost his SYG defense. however self defense is still a possible defense for him.

Yet here we are, heading to a preliminary hearing where SYG and its self defense portion will be raised.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
is it possible that there is still a ton of evidence that was not mentioned in the affidavit? as far as i know the lawyers from both sides have agreed to seal off the discovery (list of all evidence compiled by the state). that led to the possibility that both sides are working towards a plea deal.

Possibly but I think the more likely answer is the file is sealed because of different agencies / protesters / celebrities leaking and reporting false and repeating false information. Its apparent the public wants blood and the loud mouth civil rights idiots calling for action and black panthers going for dead or alive. The case belongs in a court of law, not public opinion and this restriction accomplishes that.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
So i guess that means you can't back up your claim of a 'gash'. So is that another lie from you or just your way of embellishing to make you case look better? Either way it is dishonest.

So I guess you are incapable of reading. What does the ABC title state? Oh look - gash.

As I stated before any info you guys get that doesn't support your view is dismissed.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Where in that picture does it document a 'gash'. So me proof he had a 'gash'....at best he has scratch....AT BEST....It looks like a shadow to me....those marks don't stay on his head consistently. But thats not the point. The point is you are calling it a 'gash'....Ive not seen any Police, Medical, or any other record that states he had a gash. The police report says 'bleeding from the back of the head'.......nothing about a gash. Guess thats just more of the fantasy evidence you have made up. Typical.

I will go ahead and add medical doctor to the growing list of what you reject because it doesn't fit your argument.

What part of police cant diagnose a medical condition are you failing to understand? Hence the reason medical was called to the scene. When Zimmerman's medical records come out and confirm the injuries what are you going to do then? Accuse the EMS crew of covering a crime up?

Since you aren't aware feel free to research medical terminology dealing with wounds.. Then come back and lecture us on medical.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
If he wants to use SYG as a defense, he's going to have pretty good evidence of that to show to a judge.

The burden is preponderance of the evidence and nothing more.

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
The fact that he did not stay in his truck and actively pursued Martin is a pretty good case against him standing his ground. You're not defending yourself from something you went looking for. There's been enough evidence shown that he did not turn around and head back to his truck and there's evidence to show that there was some verbal contact before any physical altercation was made. It seems to me the only one "standing his ground" was Martin.

Again we dont know what occurred from the moment of contact to the time the police showed up. Secondly, again, the law and not personal moral / opinions is the guide for this. We cant simply ignore a part of the law because we dont agree with it. SYG allows an aggressor to use deadly force in some circumstances.

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
Also, the "gash" on the head, the still shots that have been cherry picked from the video and then enhanced by who knows who doing who knows what with what software are a little bit lame to claim it's more than a scratch. When watching the clearest video, it's extremely hard to see anything at all. The one edited screenshot that's been used as his whole "See, he wasn't lying" shtick is lame. When presenting pictures or video evidence for paranormal activity or other subject matter, it seems that anything less than the unedited original will do. Why the hypocrisy here?

The source is ABC news.. Amazing people will discount a media outlet when information comes out that supports Zimmerman's side of the story. I get the impression any source that shows anything for Zimmerman is going to just be ignored.

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
Let me see clear photos taken after the incident by police. If he in-fact did get big gashes on the back of his head after being pummeled into the pavement, I'm sure there's clear, unedited photographic evidence of it in someone's possession.

The question is would you or any of the others accept it? We already have people going down the police cover up conspiracy bs.

the link you posted is not sourced by abc....it is sourced by breitbart . com........why are you still lying or do you not understand what 'source' means?

How do you know breitbart hasn't manipulated that photo?......there several clear shots of the back of the killers head....why does it only appear on that one shot? Ill tell you why, its a shadow cast from something above......

Just because the headline on Breitbart . com say ABC in it doesn't make ABC the source, the source is still breitbart....in case you didn't know that.