Zimmerman bond revoked

[MuyLocoNC]

Just curious why you don't afford Trayvon Martin the same presumption of innocence?

I absolutely do, that's why I'm 50/50 on who started the physical assault. How could I give more of the presumption of innocence to both than that?

 

[londonfog]

Except that the majority of legal analysis I've seen is saying the prosecutor has overcharged and doesn't have a chance in hell. So, my analysis seems to bear a striking resemblance to a great many legal experts.

Are you still trying the address angle? Wasn't that Zimmerman's father who said that? Did Zimmerman ever actually say that in any of his statements? I don't know. If not it's meaningless, he can simply say that was his father's hypothesis not his actual explanation. I'm sure the father will corroborate that.

Most prosecutors overcharge to get the plea-out...The jury can even convict of a lesser charge like manslaughter. The prosecutor did the right thing.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

dude he is one of those that pretend they are on the fence, when in reality they want to see Zimmerman get away with killing Trayvon. No matter what evidence surface against Zimmerman they will always find an excuse for their woman beating, unemployed, loser hero.

You're an idiot.

 

[UncleBuck]

the address thing is what the police told papa zimm. so unless the police are making up stories....

 

[londonfog]

I absolutely do, that's why I'm 50/50 on who started the physical assault. How could I give more of the presumption of innocence to both than that?

ok if you are 50/50 on who started the attack...what percentage do you put on Zimmerman for following in the first place. This could have been avoided by Zimmerman does he not get 100% blame on that...hmmmm so by account Zimm is 150% to blame

 

[UncleBuck]

ok if you are 50/50 on who started the attack...what percentage do you put on Zimmerman for following in the first place. This could have been avoided by Zimmerman does he not get 100% blame on that...hmmmm so by account Zimm is 150% to blame

based on the fact that zimm followed this guy for so long without identifying himself or asking martin what he was doing, i'd put it more at 350%.

 

[londonfog]

based on the fact that zimm followed this guy for so long without identifying himself or asking martin what he was doing, i'd put it more at 350%.

If Zimm wanted to be the police so bad why did he not just fill out an application.????

 

[Dirty Harry]

OFF TOPIC
RIU FIX YOU NEW POSTS EMAIL NOTIFICATIONS!
Since the last update, I have been getting multiple new post notices to old posts. I got over 8 today, and some topics no longer even exist. Most were repeats from the hacked topic. This repeat notification is ruining the site as most I get are now bogus. I even mentioned this via the site contact link with no response.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

ok if you are 50/50 on who started the attack...what percentage do you put on Zimmerman for following in the first place. This could have been avoided by Zimmerman does he not get 100% blame on that...hmmmm so by account Zimm is 150% to blame

That must be liberal math, looks oddly like how Obama comes up with the numbers he puts forth.

Anyways, I would say Zimmerman is fully responsible for the "blame" of following Martin, good thing for him it's irrelevant to the case. As I said so many times before, if following or observing Martin was all he intended to do and Martin attacked him, he's off scott free. If he tried to detain him or assaulted him, he's probably going down.

The SYG law is very clear. If Zimmerman had a RIGHT to be where he was and was attacked, the law protects him. Since it was a public area with a sidewalk, he absolutely had a RIGHT to be there, that's why they HAVE to prove he started the assault or he probably walks. The fact the prosecutor decided to prosecute even though they admit they don't know who started it only shows her disdain for the law, it doesn't change anything.

 

[londonfog]

That must be liberal math, looks oddly like how Obama comes up with the numbers he puts forth.

Anyways, I would say Zimmerman is fully responsible for the "blame" of following Martin, good thing for him it's irrelevant to the case. As I said so many times before, if following or observing Martin was all he intended to do and Martin attacked him, he's off scott free. If he tried to detain him or assaulted him, he's probably going down.

The SYG law is very clear. If Zimmerman had a RIGHT to be where he was and was attacked, the law protects him. Since it was a public area with a sidewalk, he absolutely had a RIGHT to be there, that's why they HAVE to prove he started the assault or he probably walks. The fact the prosecutor decided to prosecute even though they admit they don't know who started it only shows her disdain for the law, it doesn't change anything.

Him following Trayvon has everything to do with this case. You can't claim SYG when you are the one following someone who has done nothing wrong. Do you see how you pull BS out your ass to defend your wannabe cop hero.The two authors of the S.Y.G. law; Mr. Durell Peaden (former Senate member) and State Rep. Dennis Baxley, says Zimmerman should be in jail. So I guess you know more about the law then the people who wrote it... again you see through.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

again you see through.

You keep saying that, are you implying I have x-ray vision?

Like I said, it doesn't matter to me in the least which way the verdict goes. If they find him guilty, I hope it brings comfort to the Martins. If he's found innocent under SYG, then I guess it will let us know who's right on the relevance of the events leading up to the assault. I'm perfectly willing to accept either verdict, are you?

 

[londonfog]

You keep saying that, are you implying I have x-ray vision?

Like I said, it doesn't matter to me in the least which way the verdict goes. If they find him guilty, I hope it brings comfort to the Martins. If he's found innocent under SYG, then I guess it will let us know who's right on the relevance of the events leading up to the assault. I'm perfectly willing to accept either verdict, are you?

If he no longer has the right to own a gun I would be satisfied..are you still putting money on his books ???

 

[beenthere]

based on the fact that zimm followed this guy for so long without identifying himself or asking martin what he was doing, i'd put it more at 350%.

For once we agree Bucky, go figure.

With that said, Zimmerman should be convicted on all charges of following!

 

[MuyLocoNC]

If he no longer has the right to own a gun I would be satisfied..are you still putting money on his books ???

Money on his books?

You'll have to elaborate, I really don't know what you mean.

 

[desert dude]

That must be liberal math, looks oddly like how Obama comes up with the numbers he puts forth.

Anyways, I would say Zimmerman is fully responsible for the "blame" of following Martin, good thing for him it's irrelevant to the case. As I said so many times before, if following or observing Martin was all he intended to do and Martin attacked him, he's off scott free. If he tried to detain him or assaulted him, he's probably going down.

The SYG law is very clear. If Zimmerman had a RIGHT to be where he was and was attacked, the law protects him. Since it was a public area with a sidewalk, he absolutely had a RIGHT to be there, that's why they HAVE to prove he started the assault or he probably walks. The fact the prosecutor decided to prosecute even though they admit they don't know who started it only shows her disdain for the law, it doesn't change anything.

Actually, under Florida's SYG law, even if you start the fight you can still legitimately use lethal force to defend yourself if you reasonably fear death or great bodily harm. In practice, IF this goes before a jury and IF the prosecutor can prove Z started the fight then a jury MIGHT convict Z anyway, the law not withstanding. I can't imagine how the prosecutor can prove Zimmerman started the fight given the physical evidence and the eye witness statements. Unless the prosecutor has some pixie dust up her sleeve that has yet to be revealed I can't see how a judge will let this go to trial.

If it does go to trial, my prediction is a hung jury.

 

[budleydoright]

Actually, under Florida's SYG law, even if you start the fight you can still legitimately use lethal force to defend yourself if you reasonably fear death or great bodily harm. In practice, IF this goes before a jury and IF the prosecutor can prove Z started the fight then a jury MIGHT convict Z anyway, the law not withstanding. I can't imagine how the prosecutor can prove Zimmerman started the fight given the physical evidence and the eye witness statements. Unless the prosecutor has some pixie dust up her sleeve that has yet to be revealed I can't see how a judge will let this go to trial.
.

To some, being stalked by someone you don't know, for no reason, especially if they have an agressive posture would be grounds for one to defend themselves. So you are stolling down the street, some guy starts to follow you in a suspicious and aggressive manner, you duck behind a corner, he passes you confront him he shoots you and it's self defense?

Let's also not forget, Trayvon Martin, regardless of his size was still considered a child in the eyes of the law. So Z was stalking a child in the dark with a gun in his pants. Who was out looking for trouble that night? I'll tell you if you got caught doing that in my city, you would be arrested.

You know Trayvon Martins death will hopefully also be the death of these BS laws. Maybe it will be known as the Trayvon Law.

 

[desert dude]

To some, being stalked by someone you don't know, for no reason, especially if they have an agressive posture would be grounds for one to defend themselves. So you are stolling down the street, some guy starts to follow you in a suspicious and aggressive manner, you duck behind a corner, he passes you confront him he shoots you and it's self defense?

Let's also not forget, Trayvon Martin, regardless of his size was still considered a child in the eyes of the law. So Z was stalking a child in the dark with a gun in his pants. Who was out looking for trouble that night? I'll tell you if you got caught doing that in my city, you would be arrested.

You know Trayvon Martins death will hopefully also be the death of these BS laws. Maybe it will be known as the Trayvon Law.

So, you notice a stranger in your neighborhood that is plagued by burglaries. The stranger seems to be casing houses. You are the captain of the neighborhood watch. You follow him and call 911. You approach the stranger to ask him what he is doing in the neighborhood. The stranger punches you in the face, breaking your nose and dropping you to the ground. The stranger climbs on top of you and continues to flail away at you, and bangs your head into the sidewalk. In a panic, you scream for help but nobody comes to your aid. The stranger discovers that you armed (legally, I might add) and tries to get your gun away from you. You manage to maintain possession of your gun and fire one round directly through your attacker chest, killing him. That is classic self defense.

If you are going to post a hypothetical situation, you might at least try to stick to some the known facts.

 

[budleydoright]

So, you notice a stranger in your neighborhood that is plagued by burglaries. The stranger seems to be casing houses. You are the captain of the neighborhood watch. You follow him and call 911. You approach the stranger to ask him what he is doing in the neighborhood. The stranger punches you in the face, breaking your nose and dropping you to the ground. The stranger climbs on top of you and continues to flail away at you, and bangs your head into the sidewalk. In a panic, you scream for help but nobody comes to your aid. The stranger discovers that you armed (legally, I might add) and tries to get your gun away from you. You manage to maintain possession of your gun and fire one round directly through your attacker chest, killing him. That is classic self defense.

If you are going to post a hypothetical situation, you might at least try to stick to some the known facts.

the only problem with your story is there's assumed guilt and that the person you were stalking with a gun has no right to defend themselves against YOU. Also, that your life has more value by virtue of your weapon.

So it's a start a fight and if I'm getting my ass kicked I can shoot them law? that's basically what you have described more than once. Soon to be in a bar near you if your friends in the gun lobby get there way.

 

[desert dude]

the only problem with your story is there's assumed guilt and that the person you were stalking with a gun has no right to defend themselves against YOU. Also, that your life has more value by virtue of your weapon.

So it's a start a fight and if I'm getting my ass kicked I can shoot them law? that's basically what you have described more than once. Soon to be in a bar near you if your friends in the gun lobby get there way.

Go read the law and report back. Google "Stand your ground law florida". Wiki has a page with the full text.

As far as assumed guilt: nope, none assumed. The physical evidence speaks for itself. Zimmerman was bloodied, his head was cut in two places on the back, his nose was broken, his shirt was wet and grass stained. At least two eye witnesses said they saw Z being beaten. The police report of the first officer on the scene corroborates the eye witnesses. Martin had two injuries, a bullet hole in his chest and scraped knuckles.

I have said before in this thread that I think Martin would have a pretty good claim of self defense if he had managed to kill Zimmerman by successfully bashing his brains out on the sidewalk. Unfortunately for him, he did not get the job done.

 

[budleydoright]

Go read the law and report back. Google "Stand your ground law florida". Wiki has a page with the full text.

As far as assumed guilt: nope, none assumed. The physical evidence speaks for itself. Zimmerman was bloodied, his head was cut in two places on the back, his nose was broken, his shirt was wet and grass stained. At least two eye witnesses said they saw Z being beaten. The police report of the first officer on the scene corroborates the eye witnesses. Martin had two injuries, a bullet hole in his chest and scraped knuckles.

I have said before in this thread that I think Martin would have a pretty good claim of self defense if he had managed to kill Zimmerman by successfully bashing his brains out on the sidewalk. Unfortunately for him, he did not get the job done.

The evidence also shows that z was stalking m with out provocation. So it's basically who's left standing? that would make since as that would certainly drive handgun sales to new levels in the states that have that law. Which BTW wasn't written by a Florida law maker. It was another polished turd that was sold to the foolish masses by a lobby that is funded by gun makers and sellers.