Zimmerman's bail set at $1M in Trayvon Martin case

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Its not just my opinion...

No you're right, other people hold similar opinions.

Zimmerman was not arrested that night because his version of events and the evidence present did not contradict each other.

What you mean they didn't contradict? Zimmerman made claims of what had happened that night, but that's it. Witnesses confirmed there was a fight going on but nobody could back up of the events leading up to that fight. There wasn't any solid evidence pointing to the fact that Zimmerman was merely defending himself. You said it yourself, nobody knows who started the incident that night. What we know was that Trayvon was unarmed, Trayvon was not breaking any laws that night, Zimmerman was the one who shot him, Zimmerman was following him because he believed trayvon was up to no good and was running away. This is it. The cops didn't handle that incident properly that night in my humble opinion, and I'm glad the police chief no longer has his position as the result.

Had this been a white woman, the incident would have been treated different in my view. I have no doubt about this. You believe differently? That's fine with me.

Zimmerman is innocent in all of this until a judge or jury states

Zimmerman is legally innocent as much in the same way that O.J Simpson is legally innocent. It doesn't automatically mean they are really innocent of those events.

You cant make an argument based on an individuals race

I just did.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
It's not a leap of logic at all. Had he stayed put in his truck, he would have ...snipped for room.

Actually it is a leap of logic. We do not know how the confrontation started yet you are making an argument that based on zimmermans actions, that is what led to the incident. Taking information with no clear context and using it as facts is a leap of logic and its those leaps that result in prossecution cases coming apart.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I wouldn't say that Zimmerman claiming he was ambushed is solid evidence in this case because you know, there's an obvious bias, and Trayvon can't speak for himself.

That bias is apparently running in only one direction. Claiming things would have gone different had Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle is not solid evidence that nothing would have occured either.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
As for whether he claimed he was heading back to his truck, he should have stayed put in it in the first place. As I said, he wouldn't find himself where he is today had he left this to the real police.

Again a leap of logic by filling in the gap of how the confrontation started. Its not an argument that can be made factual by implying. It must be supported with evidence and to date the evidence suggests against it. Thats based not only on Zimmermans statements and injuries, but the people who heard the struggle and the one person who saw the struggle in terms of who was where.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I'll rather leave it to the justice system to decide this and make a decision on Zimmermans innocence, thanks.

Ignoring information that does not support your position doesn't make the information irrelevent. During Zimmermans first pre trial hearing the lead detective was called to the stand and Zimmermans lawyer walked him through his statements one by one. when they got to the confrontation portion -

USAToday - Experts: Zimmerman's attorney made smart move

.......Zimmerman's defense attorney, Mark O'Mara, questioned an investigator for the special prosecutor, sentence by sentence, about a probable cause affidavit the investigator signed outlining certain facts in the case.

..........

Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch and that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin. The affidavit says "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
and again, "right" or "wrong", had he stayed put, he wouldn't find himself in this situation. ...snipped for room

Again you are using a leap of logic. You cannot possibly know if Zimmermans staying in his vehicle would have resulted in a different outcome. I am not arguing my pioints from a position of opinion, but from a position of law and how it works.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
People are basing their own views and moral perceptions on the issue because they have a right to. Nobody here is telling you what position you must take on this incident, we have freedom of speech and belief in this country. Life isn't fair, you aren't going to always like the view of many folks in society, but this is the reality of freedom in this country. Zimmerman is getting his day in court, he is getting the opportunity to defend himself. Whether the outcome favours Zimmerman or not, I am satisfied on a personal level that this issue has finally reached the courts as it had. I also respect the fact that people have a right to hold differents views and that we don't always have to like the result of freedom in this country.

Personal views are perfectly fine. They become an issue though when the personal view is inserted as fact while the actual law is ignored. Again a reason why trials are in a court of law and not court of public opinion. Its also a reason why the PA is ultimately responsible for deciding on prosecution or not instead of the Police.

An example - your opinion things would have been different had Zimmerman stayed in his car. In this particular case the point of contention is the shooting itself. When viewing / reviewing that use of force, 20/20 hindsight is not allowed. It has to be viewed in the context it occured in. Since there was no law violation up to the point of the altercation, one cannot argue had he stayed in his car things would have been different.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
No we don't, thanks for reminding yourself.

I dont need to remind myself of anything being I do this for a liiving.

If you review you would be the one who is stating Zimmerman is guilty, not me. If you reviewed the other threads on the topic you would see that I have stated Zimmerman should not have gone down the road he did. I think he should have dealt with the differently than he did. My arguments in these threads revolves around educating people who think he is guilty because they substitue the law for their own personal / moral viewpoints, which has the effect of blinding them to the sitution.

I am pointing out the legal aspects people tend to ignore because they don't know or don't understand it or how its applied. This case is a perfect example of that, specifically people who dont bother to read the stand your ground law. That law is critical in that it allows a person who is the primary physical aggressor to use deadly force if he/she feels their lfie is in imminent danger.

A line that is removed by all other states who have adopted similar legislation, using Floridas as their template.

There is a legal distinction between making contact with a person, confronting a person, and assaulting a person.
Again legal distinctions people ignore becausse they just dont know, dont understand, or already have their minds made up that his actions are not supported by law.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
No you're right, other people hold similar opinions.

Not opinion, based on law and the application of.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
What you mean they didn't contradict? Zimmerman made claims ..snipped for room

Just what I stated, and that was backed up by the City of Sanford when the arrest issues started that night.
Media release by the City of Sanford addressing questions, including arrest

Why was George Zimmerman not arrested the night of the shooting?
When the Sanford Police Department arrived at the scene of the incident, Mr.
Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time
was supported by physical evidence and testimony. By Florida Statute, law
enforcement was PROHIBITED from making an arrest based on the facts and
circumstances they had at the time. Additionally, when any police officer makes an
arrest for any reason, the officer MUST swear and affirm that he/she is making the
arrest in good faith and with probable cause. If the arrest is done maliciously and in
bad faith, the officer and the City may be held liable.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Had this been a white woman, the incident would have been treated different in my view. I have no doubt about this. You believe differently? That's fine with me.

It does not matter what I or you believe, its only matters what can actually be proven. The road you keep wanting to go down, about this being different if the racesof the individuals involved changed, is based on a leap of logic and opinion with absoluutely no supporting evidence.

Again a difference between moral / personal opinion being substituted for law. There is no way the PA can make the argument you are because its going to be followed up with question of "how do you know it would have resulted differently if you cant state factually who started what?"

Law School 101 - never ask a question you dont know the answer to. Even in this case, where Law Enforcement are considered an expert witness and at times are allowed to answer in a personal opinion manner, no one can answer it.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Zimmerman is legally innocent as much in the same way that O.J Simpson is legally innocent. It doesn't automatically mean they are really innocent of those events.

Well he is innocent until proven guilty and OJ simpson is innocent as well. Again ignoring law and replacing it with personal / moral opinions does not work. It cannot work... Its the prime reason its now allowed. Also, yes it does mean they are automatically innocent.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I just did.

and you are still wrong for doing so as it does not apply to this situation. The media and the politicians who got involved made this a racial issue and the only reason they did was for political reasons and not legal ones.

I find it interesting that you tell me I dont know if this ocured or that occured while at the same time you "know" he is guilty and that its race related.

Again another example of why these issues are tried in court using law and not the court of public opinion using opinion / moral viewpoints that contradict the law in question.

Is there any particular reason you have no desire to learn how the law works and is applied in this situation? I ask this because so far you seem to be rejecting the law and the application of it.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I know you haven't been able to understand this in all the months people have been telling you, but the police did their investigation that night. They are not complicit in any crime. They couldn't hold the man because there was no proof a crime had been committed. Zimmerman admitted to shooting the guy, but he said it was self defense and no one argued that. You can't arrest someone if there is no crime, even if you want to.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Actually it is a leap of logic.

And I'm telling you it's not.

That bias is apparently running in only one direction. Claiming things would have gone different had Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle

Things would have gone differently had he stayed in his vehicle. There's no evidence indicating that Zimmerman had to get out of his vehicle. Trayvon wasn't breaking any laws, from Zimmermans own account, apparently Trayvon was running away. The police were on their way. This incident would have gone differently had he stayed put. Whether he had the "right" to follow somebody who was "running away" with a loaded gun mind you, doesn't mean it was the right thing to do that night.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Again a leap of logic

And again it's not. He should have stayed in his truck, had he done so, had he left this to the real police, he wouldn't be in this situation. I hardly think his decision that night was worth all of what he is going through now. From the sounds of it you feel differently. I'm not sure if even Zimmerman himself feels that same way as you.

Ignoring information that does not support your position doesn't make the information irrelevent.

I'm not ignoring the information that night, I'm just not at all that concerned about how you personally intepret the information surrounding that night. You have your own opinions on what Zimmerman could be charged with, how the courts will interpret the evidence and that's it. I don't need to go to you personally to view the outcome of the courts over this matter. You aren't participating in this case, you aren't the one judging it. You're just a very sympathetic supporter of Zimmerman with alot of opinions (which you unsuprisingly view as facts), that's it.

Again you are using a leap of logic. You cannot possibly know if Zimmermans staying in his vehicle would have resulted in a different outcome.

You're quiet right. For all we know, had Zimmerman parked his truck and stayed put, Trayvon could have come back and attacked his truck with him inside it. Heck, for all we know, had Zimmerman stayed in that shop and not gone out to follow Trayvon, Trayvon may have gone back to the shop, robbed it, and confronted him. You know what? Anything could have possibly happened that night. For me, had Zimmerman stayed put in his truck, he wouldn't have found himself where he is today.

Again. Zimmerman may have had the "right" to follow Trayvon, he may have even had the "right" to call out to Trayvon, he may have had the "right" to carry a loaded gun, that doesn't mean his actions that night were the right things to do. I hardly think Zimmermans actions that night are worth the situaiton he finds himself in today and this is something his supporters, including yourself, fail to understand.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Zimmerman admitted to shooting the guy, but he said it was self defense and no one argued that.

Yep, Zimmerman said he shot in self defense, and nobody argued that. This apparently doesn't seem to be a problem for you or other Zimmerman supporters. Fortunately your twisted views of the events surrounding that night are not shared by most people.

who gives a #

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
And I'm telling you it's not.

lol ok

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Things would have gone differently had he stayed in his vehicle. There's no evidence indicating that Zimmerman had to get out of his vehicle. Trayvon wasn't breaking any laws, from ...snipped for room

Respectfully you are allowing your personal view towards Zimmerman and his actions cloud your judgement in terms of what if's. There is no way of knowing what would have occured had Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle. As far as Zimmerman stating Trayvon was running away, that would be (according to his account) the point in which he headed back to his vehicle, just prior to contact between the 2.

You keep trying to argue the loaded gun part when in reality it makes no difference under the law. Zimmerman was in lawful possession of a weapon (concealed or open carry).

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
And again it's not. He should have stayed in his truck, had he done so, had he left this to the real police, he wouldn't be in this situation. I hardly think his decision that night was worth all of what he is going through now. From the sounds of it you feel differently. I'm not sure if even Zimmerman himself feels that same way as you.

If you read my posts you would know what my feelings are on this. Again my argument is coming from the legal side, not the opinion side. You and others are ignoring the law and instead rely on your emotions to make sense of this. You cannot see the bigger picture using that mindset and by ignoring the law and relying on your personal view, based on your own moral / ethical position, is only going to confuse / irritate you more when this goes to trial (and I dont think its going to make it that far).

Take your OJ view as an example... You think he is guilty based on your own view and not the law. That is a problem, especially when the court makes aa decision that you dont think should have been possible. Kaycee Anthony, OJ Simpson, the Zimmermans... All receiving / received death threats because the public thinks their opinion / moral beliefs should be taken into account while ignoring the law.

Thats a problem and a very very slippery slope.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I'm not ignoring the information that night, I'm just not at all that concerned about how you personally intepret the information surrounding that night.

Im not personally interpreting anything, where as you are stating as fact had Zimmerman done this or that this would not have occured - your opinion based on your own standards while ignoring the law. Its not my personal opinion no matter how many times you try using that as an excuse to dismiss the law.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You have your own opinions on what Zimmerman could be charged with, how the courts will interpret the evidence and that's it. I don't need to go to you personally to view the outcome of the courts over this matter.

Again its not my personal opinion, its the law. Something you need to stop ignoring and substituting with your own moral / personal beliefs.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You aren't participating in this case, you aren't the one judging it. You're just a very sympathetic supporter of Zimmerman with alot of opinions (which you unsuprisingly view as facts), that's it.

Im not judging the case.. I am giving you the legalities, something you are intent on ignoring while substituting your own personal / moral / ethical views based on your expectations - It does not work that way.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You're quiet right. For all we know, had Zimmerman parked his truck and stayed put, Trayvon could have come back and attacked his truck...snipped for room

Again it does not matter what you think, it only matters what the prosecution can prove. That is key and so I ask you this question -
How would you make the argument that this would have occured differently had Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle? The caveat when answering that question is to make your argument using the evidence present. Facts not in evidence cannot be used. Who would you be asking that question to since Zimmerman does not have to take the stand.

If the lead detective is on the stand and the prosecution asks him that question, he is going to be cross examined by the defense and I guarantee you the detectives credability and professional opinion will be destroyed when the defense asks him about his probable cause statement where he included information that is -
A - Not a fact
B - Unsupported by the evidence
C - A violation of the law in its own right by including it in his PC statement.

That leads to a picture being painted that the Police were under increasing political pressure to find a way to make an arrest for prosecution, regardless if its the truth or not.

If Zimmerman is found not guilty / charges are dismissed are you going to continue viewing him as you do OJ Simpson?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Again. Zimmerman may have had the "right" to follow Trayvon, he may have even had the "right" to call out to Trayvon, he may have had the "right" to carry a loaded gun, that doesn't mean his actions that night were the right things to do. I hardly think Zimmermans actions that night are worth the situaiton he finds himself in today and this is something his supporters, including yourself, fail to understand.

Im not failing to understand anything.. I am stating your personal opinion while ignoring the law is the problem people are having.

There is no charge for a person doing something that is legal that you find wrong. I have already made my personal opinion on Zimmermans actions known, which is in line with your personal view, even though you are ignroing that.

My personal opinion, as well as yours, is not the law, which is what I am explaining to you. Since we seemt o be at an impasse all I can say is we will see what hapens when this is overwith.

I would not be holding my breath for a guilty verdict and I will be surprised if this makes it to the trial phase. The next court appearence will be a motion by his lawyer to dismiss the charges for lack of evidence and improper actions by the detective and the PA coupled with the Stand your ground law that prohibits criminal / civil prosecution for legitimate self defense (it also prohibits the criminal / civil prosecution even if Zimmerman was the aggressor).

Regards

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Zimmerman admitted to shooting the guy, but he said it was self defense and no one argued that.

Yep, Zimmerman said he shot in self defense, and nobody argued that.

The lead detective argued that position and the PA at the time said under the law no crime was committed. To understand the parts you are having issues with you need to understand the law, including ALL of Floridas stand your ground law and what it allows.

Zimmerman gave his version of events and there was nothing that contradicted that version. The evidence present did not contradict Zimmermans version.

The law said - No arrest due to no violation of the law.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
This apparently doesn't seem to be a problem for you or other Zimmerman supporters. Fortunately your twisted views of the events surrounding that night are not shared by most people.

You should think about how you phrase your argument because you are to Martin what you accuse the Zimmerman fans of.

Court of law, not public opinion.
Laws of the state of Florida, not personal / moral / ethical view in place of.

Your argument to date is based on your own personal opinion complete with hypotheticals you think should be considered (which wont be).

This is a very simple matter of law and nothing more. Your argument / position is not based on any facts and that is problematic.

If you dont mind -
Can you tell us why Zimmerman is guilty in your mind using the evidence, facts present and the laws involved?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
There is no way of knowing what would have occured had Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle.

You are more than welcome to believe that Zimmerman would have been attacked by Trayvon had he stayed in his truck and waited for the police, I just don't see that happening.

Zimmerman didn't have to go out after Trayvon but he made that choice nevertheless. Regarding the loaded gun, he was certainly ready for a confrontation before it occured. Having the "right" to do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

Im not personally interpreting anything

You are, and this all you can really do at this point, on this forum. You are not personally involved with this case, you aren't personally managing it. Unless I'm mistakened, you are not the presiding judge. All you have are your personal opinions on how this case will go and that's it.

If you own a gun don't go towting it around, your just asking for trouble. Something happens and you might think that you "need to act" and next thing you know you pull out your gun thinking you might be doing the right thing when in actuality your only gonna get your self into trouble..... Tonight I get to play cowboy YEEEEEE HAAWWW