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

Originally posted by GmoS719
I'm glad to hear this.
Let's hope he is charged and sentenced to the maximum.
God rest that poor child's soul.

This is why we need professional jurors.

People who somehow (magically) can be trusted to put ANY and ALL personal concepts. ideas and feelings TOTALLY aside and render a COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL verdict (like a computer might)

In theory it's a terrific idea however good luck find such human beings !!!

reply to post by lapi7


There are lots of people who could do that who are aquainted with the event, it's easy enough to do, look at all the facts and then figure out what the final verdict ought to be. If Zimmerman was attacked and was being overpowered to the point that the kid might have been able to grab his gun and shoot him first then.., but if Zimmerman approached the kid, instigated the encounter, then overpowered Martin, and in a fit of rage and in the heat of the struggle, pulled out his gun and shot him, then it's the other way. All the evidence taken together will form an arrow pointing in one or the other direction.

It's a matter of simple reason, then again this is Florida USA we're talking about, so maybe there are no such people..?

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3

Originally posted by GmoS719
I'm glad to hear this.
Let's hope he is charged and sentenced to the maximum.
God rest that poor child's soul.

Forget whether Zimmerman was acting in self defense. Just so long as you get your blood, right?

How do you know he was acting in self defense??
from the 911 recording, he was heard calling the kid a F-n coon...just before he was advised not to pursue the kid and just keep an eye out.....

looks like it throws the self defense plea out the window to me....

Originally posted by lapi7

Originally posted by GmoS719
I'm glad to hear this.
Let's hope he is charged and sentenced to the maximum.
God rest that poor child's soul.

This is why we need professional jurors.

People who somehow (magically) can be trusted to put ANY and ALL personal concepts. ideas and feelings TOTALLY aside and render a COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL verdict (like a computer might)

In theory it's a terrific idea however good luck find such human beings !!!

I wrote an essay supporting this very suggestion-

Jurors should be professionals!!

Originally posted by yuppa

Originally posted by GmoS719
I'm glad to hear this.
Let's hope he is charged and sentenced to the maximum.
God rest that poor child's soul.

You should never be glad of others misfortune no matter what you think of them. The case will hinge on th ewitnesses being played against each other. One says travon was on top the other says zimmerman. They want to avoid riots and the UN is putting pressure on the prosecutors office to charge him at least with reckless discharge of a fire arm i would assume.

Justice is more important than some UN cronying and kowtowing to biased race-politics...
I hope he gets a fair trial and the race-hustlers can keep from rioting if the verdict isn't to their flavour...

Originally posted by WingedBull

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
George Zimmerman is not protected by Stand-Your-Ground when he was the instigator of the crime.

There is no law against following someone. There is however, a law against turning around and attacking someone for following you (if that is what happened).

Nope...no law against following someone. But it is also unclear on who instigated the physical confrontation. Based upon the high level known facts, Zimmerman acted aggressively by pursuing Martin in a fashion that would give anyone reasonable suspicion. Zimmerman had a weapon. Based upon all intents and purposes of Stand-Your-Ground, Martin was justified in defending himself and using deadly force to do so.

And I guarantee that if you thought you were possibly about to be mugged (as I'm sure Trayvon Martin likely thought based upon his comments to his girl friend on the phone), you might react in the exact same fashion that Trayvon Martin did. Or rather, how would you feel if your daughter were in Trayvon Martin's shoes? What if your daughter were being followed by a man who was armed? Would you want her to have the right to defend herself? Would you be screaming "he was justified" when she was shot while trying to defend herself against an unknown assailant?

Whites should have rioted in the streets when OJ was acquited...instead we acted like a bunch of pansies. As a result, we cater to minorities as far as our judicial system goes.

And as far as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton go...did they ever apologize for their rants against the white opppressor...The Duke Lacrosse Team...several years ago?

Originally posted by ahmonrarh

from the 911 recording, he was heard calling the kid a F-n coon...

CNN did further enhancement on the 911 tape and the reporter said it is doubtful Zimmerman used a racial slur.

Originally posted by ahmonrarh
looks like it throws the self defense plea out the window to me...

Even if Zimmerman is racist, even if he followed Martin against police wishes, it does not automatically mean he did not kill Martin in self-defense.

Originally posted by popsmayhem
They have no priors on him they will have
to give him a bond. It could be
a 500,000 dollar bail or more
which he would have to pay 10% of it
so if it was 500,000 he would have to come up
50,000 dollars...

He will be VERY unlikely to get bail.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
Nope...no law against following someone. But it is also unclear on who instigated the physical confrontation. Based upon the high level known facts, Zimmerman acted aggressively by pursuing Martin in a fashion that would give anyone reasonable suspicion. Zimmerman had a weapon. Based upon all intents and purposes of Stand-Your-Ground, Martin was justified in defending himself and using deadly force to do so.

There is nothing wrong in what you are saying, per se. However, if Martin did attack Zimmerman with deadly force, than Zimmerman would have been in the right to defend himself from such deadly force.

Originally posted by CIAGypsyOr rather, how would you feel if your daughter were in Trayvon Martin's shoes? What if your daughter were being followed by a man who was armed?

Hopefully, my hypothetical daughter would have the intelligence not to confront someone she thought was armed.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
Would you want her to have the right to defend herself? Would you be screaming "he was justified" when she was shot while trying to defend herself against an unknown assailant?

I completely reject the "if it was your child" arguments because they are based completely on emotion and devoid of any facts.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Wow, didnt know you were party to the whole event. Why didnt you come forward earlier? Could of prevented a whole lot of bickering.....Lets just let the court decide who did what and how it went down.

De we really need another Zimmerman/Martin thread floating around? There are already like 4 going.

Originally posted by napayshni57
You would have to be a fool to of thought Zimmerman wasn't going to be charged.

He wasn't charged until the story went viral months after Zimmerman wasn't charged, actually.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
One of the experienced attorneys that spoke on CNN made an EXCELLENT point; I believe that someone here has mentioned it a while back....

"Why is it presumed that Zimmerman kept following Martin after the conversation with police?"

This is a great point!! I think that the defense will be able to prove that Zimmerman actually followed police orders, turned to retreat from the scene, and Martin attacked him as a result of the confrontation.

Yet, everyone has assumed all this time that 'he kept following him after police told him not to".

Also, guest attorney stated that the Special Prosecutor did see the coziness with the family (unusual) and said that she definitely caved in to the mob...

interesting

Uh no. He was speaking to the operator from in his residence then he chose to go outside and confront the kid. Chain of causation. Told not to go outside the police has been alerted, goes outside anyway with a loaded gun and a tick on his shoulder based on his own words to the operator, and a very shocking audio tape that audio forensics has determined was not Zimmerman's voice yelling help me. Hmm I wonder if the prosecution team will use that fact?..

Originally posted by WingedBull

There is nothing wrong in what you are saying, per se. However, if Martin did attack Zimmerman with deadly force, than Zimmerman would have been in the right to defend himself from such deadly force.

I never said Zimmerman didn't have the right to defend himself from Martin's deadly force. What I said is that since Zimmerman was in the instigator/aggressor, he is not protected or absolved of murder under Stand-Your-Ground for murdering Martin who was only defending himself (per his protected right under SYG) against Zimmerman's aggressive behavior.

Originally posted by WingedBull

Hopefully, my hypothetical daughter would have the intelligence not to confront someone she thought was armed.

So if your hypothetical daughter turned around to find a man following her and aggressively coming up behind her, you tell her what?? Just lay down and allow herself to be attacked, raped, mugged, whatever??? Wow...



Glad I'm not your daughter...

Originally posted by WingedBull

I completely reject the "if it was your child" arguments because they are based completely on emotion and devoid of any facts.

Fine, take out the "if it was your child" part. The point still stands. Put any young 17 yr old girl in Trayvon Martin's shoes and it still helps underline the same point. No one would be saying that a man was justified in shooting a 17 yr old girl who was defending herself against an unknown male assailant, especially not if he was suspiciously following her and he was armed.

Originally posted by JayFlores
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

Wow, didnt know you were party to the whole event. Why didnt you come forward earlier? Could of prevented a whole lot of bickering.....Lets just let the court decide who did what and how it went down.

I meant determine the facts in the courtroom, sorry for not making that clear. Those facts will then point in one direction or the other, but if Zimmerman was the initiator, the aggressor and dominator (which it appears to be the case), and accosted Martin, then he's in a heap of trouble. Then again, there are so many unknowns, it's hard to say even if that were the case, since a simple fight, where one guy has a gun in plain view (even if holstered), then it could go either way ie: self defence.

reply to post by specialk89


No, he was in his vehicle, exiting it in pursuit when advised not to.

If he had not continued to follow Martin, how did they end up behind the houses? He continued to follow, that's how.

reply to post by specialk89


Once it went viral and Jessie and Al stepped in you knew it was going to happen. There was no doubt in my mind.

Was there in yours once it went viral and you heard about it?

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
People keep bringing up Stand-Your-Ground as justification for George Zimmerman's actions. So riddle me this, batman....

George Zimmerman was the one "stalking" Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman was the one who was carrying a weapon. To any objective person, that would make George Zimmerman the pursuer/aggressor. Under Stand-Your-Ground, that would give Trayvon Martin the right to retaliate and even use deadly force if he felt his life were threatened. Not hard to come that conclusion if the other guy is holding a weapon.

So...in all reality....Trayvon Martin had the right to "attack" George Zimmerman, in self-defense, if indeed it ever happened.

George Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter at a minimum.

Trayvon Martin's only "offense" was walking down the street, minding his own business and talking on the phone, with his hoodie up against the rain. Not probable cause for ANY offense. Under the pretense of Stand-Your-Ground, Trayvon Martin had every right to react to George Zimmerman's aggressive behavior.

Can't understand why people are missing this basic fact.

Very good reasoning. Very possible Zimmerman confronted the teen and Zimmerman got scared and brandished the fire arm which would allow Martin to exercise the Stand Your Ground law. In the scuffle to wrestle the gun away from Zimmerman which could've led to Zimmerman on the bottom but somehow managed to free himself and gain the upper-hand with Martin still on the ground and realizing his position started to scream for help then Zimmerman riled up over the physical confrontation decided to execute Martin. I'm very curious to find out the angle of bullet entry which should tell forensics what Zimmerman's position was when he shot and where Martin was. That's going to be very important and could be the nail on the coffin for Zimmerman.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
I never said Zimmerman didn't have the right to defend himself from Martin's deadly force. What I said is that since Zimmerman was in the instigator/aggressor, he is not protected or absolved of murder under Stand-Your-Ground for murdering Martin who was only defending himself (per his protected right under SYG) against Zimmerman's aggressive behavior.

No but he may be protected under other self-defense laws. Especially if he was shown to have injury, such as his head opened from being beaten in the ground. Even if he was the instigator, that does not necessarily justify the use of deadly force against him.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
So if your hypothetical daughter turned around to find a man following her and aggressively coming up behind her, you tell her what?? Just lay down and allow herself to be attacked, raped, mugged, whatever??? Wow...

That is not what I said at all. Please show where I stated anything like that.

If my hypothetical daughter was being followed by someone she thought was armed, it would be in her best interest to not confront him, to continue on her way and call the police. That is a lot different than telling her to lay down and just allow herself to be attacked. A lot different. In fact, confronting the person following her would increase the danger to her. However, if she were to be attacked, she has ever right to defend herself.

That is completely different than saying she should not defend herself, which is a complete and purposeful misinterpretation of what I said.

Please refrain from further misrepresenting what I say. Or you will show yourself unable to have a civil, rational discussion.