45
   

Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

 
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 05:27 pm
My personal belief is that he's guilty of second degree murder. Even though he was legally carrying a gun and, in certain circumstances, was legally protected when using it, there is little doubt in my mind that he unnecessarily pursued TM. Will he be found guilty? Probably not. Manslaughter is an easy, and perhaps reasonable, fallback for the jury.
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 07:54 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I can't see this one getting to a jury before being thrown out.

http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4f915bb76bb3f7ab59000054/george-zimmerman-bloody-head.png

That is consistent with somebody having his head beaten into the pavement; no prizefighter ever had damage to the back of his head like that from punches.

This case is being described as a "career ender" from the prosecutor's perspective.
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 08:06 pm
@JPB,
Sorry this look like a poor man who needed to take a life to protect his own and because it could be spin into a good media story of a white KKK type person killing a poor unarmed black young man he will need to go through even more hell for a year or more.

I however am seeing the beginning of signs that the media is slowly backing away from this story as more and more facts are coming to light that does not support or match this story of a white man looking to track down and attack an innocent black teenager.

The fact that our justice system can be force to act against a citizen due to a media story and not the facts of the case should be frightening to all of us black, white, straight or gay.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 08:38 pm
@gungasnake,
Oh Zimmerman as a property owner paid school taxes and those very same schools supported students demonstrations during schools hours demanding he be arrested.

Kind of amusing when you think about it.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 09:09 pm
@gungasnake,
We already know that Zimmerman has lied about the incident.

If I recall correctly, he stated that he was attacked, from behind, when he got out of his truck to read a street sign.

Yet Trayvon's body was nowhere near the street. There was an entire apartment building between the street and where he was shot.

http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/map_1000.jpg
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 09:10 pm
@DrewDad,
I hope they lump lying to a police officer in with the charges.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 10:29 pm
@DrewDad,
Right we know Zimmerman lied somehow as not must had been released over this matter as yet including his statements to the police and once more the first investigations did not think this was anything but a case of self defense.

Sorry this had all the ear mark of a Duke players case , the DSK and so on prosecutions for political reasons.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 10:39 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
We already know that Zimmerman has lied about the incident.
We DON 'T know that.



DrewDad wrote:
If I recall correctly, he stated that he was attacked, from behind,
when he got out of his truck to read a street sign.

Yet Trayvon's body was nowhere near the street.
There was an entire apartment building between the street and where he was shot.
Zimmy shot him in the chest; he did not cut off his legs.

What do u expect ?


On another point:
I wanna be clear. If the races of the perp (Trayvon Martin)
and his victim (George Zimmerman), were reversed,
I 'd defend the right to self defense from predatory violence
and to the victim's immunity from civil and/or criminal litigation
the same as I 'm doing now.

Everyone has an equal right to defend himself.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 10:46 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
Right we know Zimmerman lied somehow as not must had been released over this matter as yet including his statements to the police and once more the first investigations did not think this was anything but a case of self defense.
I think that NOW.




BillRM wrote:
Sorry this had all the ear mark of a Duke players case,
the DSK and so on prosecutions for political reasons.
Yes.
Bill, did u change your mind about this case??

Were u on the other side, in its beginning???
(I probably remember incorrectly.)





David
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 10:46 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I believe that's for the jury and judge to decide.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 10:51 pm
I believe it is a crap shoot....the American "justice" system is too capricious to hazard a guess, though I highly doubt that the law supports a murder conviction. This of course does not mean that it will not happen.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 11:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
I believe that's for the jury and judge to decide.
Did YOU commit murder??
If u did not, then u shud not need to hire a lawyer
for many thousands of dollars and to be dragged away in chains,
to be put in front of a judge and a jury.

If it does not appear that someone did anything rong,
then the authorities shud leave him alone.

What happened to Zimmy was bad enuf,
without the authorities making it WORSE.

That principle applies to every American citizen.





David
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 11:10 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Adding to the theme David Presents of state misconduct in this arrest:

Quote:
Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School is already on the record opining that the arrest affidavit filed against George Zimmerman for the alleged second-degree murder of Trayvon Martin is “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second-degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”

Now that ABC News has released the sensational photo reputedly showing blood flowing from the back of Zimmerman’s head, Dershowitz has even more to say about the conduct of Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case that has put Sanford, Fla., on the map, according to a report by Brietbart News.

The photo would clearly corroborate Zimmerman’s self-defense story that the young black male was slamming his head against the sidewalk pavement before he was driven to shoot him to safeguard of his own life.

According to media and police reports, Zimmerman while serving as a neighborhood watchman noticed the hooded teenager moving through a neighborhood where he knew there had been a history of break-ins. In fact, Martin was innocently making his way to his father’s house after visiting a nearby convenience store.

Zimmerman reported his sighting and suspicions to the police dispatcher who instructed him to let uniformed officers to confront the young man. He did not follow those instructions.

According to Dershowitz, having access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder might prove to be a sticky thing ethically for Corey.

The arrest affidavit does not address any such photograph or the bleeding cuts apparent on Zimmerman’s head. Dershowitz now reveals to Breitbart News that if the prosecutors had access to the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that could present a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are required to spell out “all relevant information.”

Dershowitz added, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie.

“We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they would know about it …,” the legal expert explained.

"I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors,” Dershowitz concluded, “and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"



http://www.newsmax.com/US/Trayvon-Martin-Zimmerman-killing/2012/04/20/id/436616
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 11:21 pm
http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/120419_Zimmerman_Guilt_CH_419.jpg
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/20/11289911-charges-shifted-online-opinion-about-george-zimmermans-guilt-in-trayvon-martin-case?lite
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Apr, 2012 11:59 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:
I hope they lump lying to a police officer in with the charges.
Is that against the law, in Florida?? I dunno.
That is HORRIBLE legislation, wherever it does exist (e.g., qua federal officers).
It means that the citizens cannot safely speak to their police.

When people converse, no matter WHO thay r,
inevitably, things that fall from their mouths will be, in some degree,
inconsistent with the actual facts. 'Twas ever thus; it cannot change.

I remember a big, clumsy stupid one that came from obama,
fully in front of the news cameras, when he said (referring to obamacare)
that the USSC had never voided a Congressional statute
that had been passed by a wide majority of Congress
and that the USSC woud not do so now, to his baby: obamacare.

Obviously, the USSC has done that many times, contrary to what he said,
but in reference to the statute that he was discussing (obamacare),
he falsely implied that his law was passed by wide majorities,
when in fact it almost was defeated. (Did it pass by 1 vote?? very little, anyway.)
My point is that lying is spontaneous; this guy allegedly taught at Harvard Law School,
but yet he came out with that nonsense.

People who speak to police INEVITABLY will say things that r not true,
unless maybe the conversation is very, very, very short.
If it is against the law to lie to the police,
then the only safe way to avoid criminal liability is to shun the police.

In these comments set forth hereinabove,
I do not address statements to police in regard to your own involvement
in any illegal activity, which shud always be reflexively avoided,
and your lawyer summoned, if police seek to question u.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 12:21 am

Here r 2 engaging, entertaining lectures qua the folly
of giving statements to police concerning any involvement of yours
in some criminal activity in which thay have an interest:



James Duane is a Professor at Regent Law School in Virginia Beach, Virginia,
where he received the Faculty Excellence Award in the fall of 2002

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Officer George Bruch, Virginia Beach Police Dept.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 12:32 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I believe it is a crap shoot....the American "justice" system is too capricious to hazard a guess,
though I highly doubt that the law supports a murder conviction. This of course does not mean that it will not happen.
The same as in the OJ case,
it will be won or lost in jury selection,
unless the court dismisses the complaint
at the end of the State's case, for failure of proof.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 12:33 am
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/sybrina-fulton-trademarks_n_1382491.html

The mother of slain teenager Trayvon Martin is seeking trademarks for two phrases that have become associated with the movement surrounding her son's death.

The Smoking Gun reports that Sybrina Fulton filed two applications for trademarks of the phrases, "I Am Trayvon" and "Justice for Trayvon."

Some Smoking Gun commenters seem to think the move is an effort to profit from the outpouring of support for Martin.

One commenter wrote:

Crowd of hundreds: "Justice for Trayvon Martin!"
Mom: "Thank you, all! Now that will be $9.95 from each of you for using his name."


But Victor Baranowski, a patent attorney with the law firm Schmeiser, Olsen and Watts in Latham, N.Y., told The Huffington Post that people can seek trademarks for all sorts of non-economic reasons.

"If you trademark the name, that's going to prevent others from doing it and potentially capitalizing on it in a negative way or a different way than you want," Baranowski said. "In a case like this, there's gonna be others who would want to. So does she want to let somebody else do something with her son's name or does she want it for herself?"


During the "Million Hoodie March" in support of Martin's cause, a HuffPost reporter saw piles of merchandise for sale with Martin's face on it. It was not being sold by anyone affiliated with Martin's family.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 12:35 am
@OmSigDAVID,
After a year or so the state will offer Zimmerman a plea deal with no jail time in order to get something out of this case and save some face.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 21 Apr, 2012 12:49 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Yes DrewDad have given one reason that no matter how innocent you might be if it never a good idea to give the state another bit of the apple if they can not prove the charges they had investigated you for they can try a lying to the police charge.

At the Federal level it a felony and in Florida it is a misdemeanor if memory serve me correctly.

If for example Martha Stewart had not talk to the Fed over her stock trading and just refer them to her lawyer she would had serve zero time in prison as they could not get her for inside trading so they turn to lying to federal agents.

The same go for skater Tonya Harding they did not get her for the attack on her rival but for once more lying to the Feds.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.14 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 09:59:15