Zimmerman Prosecutor wants to add lesser charges, including child abuse....

[Shadowrider]

If this is true why wasn't this whole trial dismissed?http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zimme...-120000903.html;_ylt=A2KJjbzPnd9RZHUA6DCTmYlQ

Very good question. And another one is why in the hell was she in the courtroom this morning sitting right behind the prosecution team helping them look up case law and passing her laptop to the prosecution team during arguments for jury instructions?

EDIT: Just read the link in your link. "Citizens Grand Jury"? Really? They will be ridiculed by the ruling elitists. The governor is probably all like ----->

 

[Glocktogo]

GZ had every right to follow a suspicious person. He did so while on the phone with police. He had every right to be where he was and he had every right to not get assaulted. No one has presented a shred of evidence that Martin was assaulted or shot first. No one has presented evidence that Zimmerman was on top. No one has presented evidence that Martin didn't cause Zimmerman's injuries. No one has presented evidence that compellingly shows Martin to be the one screaming for help.

Simply put, no one has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter. In that case, Zimmerman should be rightly acquitted. I'll always believe that Zimmerman was an idiot and that he'll have to live with Martin's death on his conscience. No one has proven to me that he needs to do so from a prison cell. Martin shares some culpability in his own death. How much is up to God at this point.

 

[BIG_MIKE2005]

exactly what law says that if you think someone is a criminal that you can't follow them? You claim zimmerman had no 'right' to follow, so what law was he breaking while doing so? How about this, if martin had simply gone on home after losing zimmerman then he wouldn't have gotten shot? How about if martin had chosen not to confront zimmerman then he might be alive today? How about if martin hadn't got kicked out of school then he wouldn't have been there at all? Nothing but monday morning quarterbacking.

And if you want some solid speculation, solid speculation says that martin, who apparently didn't like 'crackers' and loved to fight decided not to go home when he had the chance and to instead initiate a fight with zimmerman. Since we are talking speculation and all.

EXACTLY

If this is true why wasn't this whole trial dismissed?http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zimme...-120000903.html;_ylt=A2KJjbzPnd9RZHUA6DCTmYlQ

Because the puppet masters wanna watch the show. Now exactly what this show was meant to end as or what is going on behind the curtain during is up in the air. But I would not be surprised the least bit if Obama makes a comment following a not guilty verdict. and I'd assume it'll be geared towards racial injustice & firearms laws. But that is just a guess based on his recent attacks on the American people.

 

[UnSafe]

As we type these posts, the TM "Legal team" members are editing their documents so they can file a wrongful death civil suit next week when the not guilty verdict is read (Maybe with DOJ support).

Wonder if FL has an entry in their SDA documents protecting the defendee from civil attacks like OK?

 

[dennishoddy]

As we type these posts, the TM "Legal team" members are editing their documents so they can file a wrongful death civil suit next week when the not guilty verdict is read (Maybe with DOJ support).

Wonder if FL has an entry in their SDA documents protecting the defendee from civil attacks like OK?

I believe they do. Wasn't Oklahoma's castle doctrine modeled after Florida's?

 

[SMS]

I believe they do. Wasn't Oklahoma's castle doctrine modeled after Florida's?

Yup.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.-(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

Interesting bold there...prohibits the arrest of an individual unless there is probable cause that the use of force was unlawful.

Funny that all the race-baiters, who are out there screaming for justice, want to ignore the law in pursuit of their version of justice.

 

[BadgeBunny]

I believe they do. Wasn't Oklahoma's castle doctrine modeled after Florida's?

I want to say you are correct, but I'm not sure why I think that to be the case. It could be just because you are the 12th Imam ...

 

[ez bake]

Under the self-defense laws of Florida you can be the original aggressor and still use lethal force to defend yourself if a situation escalates sufficiently. Don't ask me for chapter and verse because I don't know. I'm simply repeating what I heard some of the legal pundits on one of the news stations discussing today while they were talking about this case. Even though they were supposed to be "debating" the issues of this case, this was one area in which they agreed.

Yeah, I know - those same laws also protect Martin as he "Stood his ground" against a 28 year old armed Hispanic Male who was following (chasing) him at night in Martin's own neighborhood as he was going to his home.

That myth again. When the operator said 'we don't need you to do that' Zimmerman said okay and stopped following. And he wasn't trying to catch Martin (and wouldn't have been able to if he did), he was just trying to see where he went. The whole following 'against the advice of a dispatcher' is BS.

And you said Zimmerman 'had no right' to follow when, in fact, he did have that right. In hind sight it wasn't the smartest thing to do, but if doing dumb things were a crime nearly all of us would have been jailed at one time or another in our youth (or last week)

Sure it's a myth - that's what Zimmerman said and his testimony is in fact, evidence (remember earlier where I said that Martin's testimony isn't available?). Also, nothing in the transcript sounds like he stopped moving about, so his testimony that he stopped following doesn't really jive with the 911 call. Just saying "ok" on a 911 tape isn't evidence that he stopped following Martin.

Here's the transcript:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html


Zimmerman's testimony is being treated as if it is fact where as all sorts of speculation is going on about why Martin was out late at night (despite the fact that Zimmerman was also out... late... at night...). Remember Ersland's testimony and how accurate it was? I don't trust people who have already made questionable decisions (like, uh, following a suspected criminal who you suspect to be on drugs and who keeps putting his hands in his waist-band presumably indicating he has a weapon).

The 911 tape doesn't validate everything Zimmerman is saying (if you listen to the tapes) IMO. And the fact that Martin "Doubled back" sounds like BS. The 911 tape and testimony of the neighbor makes it evident that Martin got the drop on him, but there's no evidence that he doubled back to attack Zimmerman. He could very easily (based on evidence of the tape) just hidden while in fear of his life from the 28 year old armed Hispanic male who was following him late at night (the location of the supposed attack doesn't make sense that Zimmerman stopped following Martin) and jumped out on the offensive "Standing his ground" in defense of his life.

I'm not saying Martin was an angel, but like I said, Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of the car, he shouldn't have taken a single step to pursue someone he thought was a criminal - that's not just following someone (he had already made the statement that he thought the kid was up to no good or on drugs, and that he came towards him with his hand in this waist-band - he said that specifically to indicate that he thought the guy might be reaching for something - like a weapon). WTF would you pursue someone after you thought they were on drugs and had a weapon? Zimmerman wasn't a cop, as a matter of fact, he was a proven violent criminal with several closed arrests due to his father being a retired judge ("resisting officer with violence" and "battery of law enforcement officer.") and his ex-fiance who had a restraining order taken out on him.

Why is he presumed innocent in all of his actions, but Trayvon Martin's suspension from school, Marijuana use, and history of fighting at school makes him guilty until proven innocent in everyone's eyes here?

Reckless homicide is the killing of another person by a reckless act. That is exactly what Zimmerman did by a series of stupid moves and he wouldn't have gotten into this situation had he not had a gun on him. His past suggests that his character is one of violence, issues with authority, and not knowing when to back off (especially when facing someone more powerful than he is).

Zimmerman will walk though - but don't confuse the fact that the Prosecution is completely incompetent with Zimmerman's innocence. The media, and possibly the government have unfairly been against Zimmerman and that has only strengthened his case in the media's eyes, but the mis-handling of this case by everyone from the media to the government, to the judge and prosecutor just baffles me - it is truly a circus at this point and nobody wins.

I said the same thing with the OKC Pharmacy case, but in situations like this - nobody wins. If Zimmerman walks, it means he committed a series of actions so stupid that he'll bring heat down on all gun owners with new laws and legal precedents (and to be honest, an injustice will have been done). If he gets prison-time, it sets a bad precedence for gun-owners everywhere who don't go looking for trouble.

 

[SMS]

Yeah, I know - those same laws also protect Martin as he "Stood his ground" against a 28 year old armed Hispanic Male who was following (chasing) him at night in Martin's own neighborhood as he was going to his home.

For the sake of a legal discussion. Please cite the applicable Florida statute that allows one to stand their ground and/or assault someone who is following them.

I can follow you around all day long, if you are walking in a public place, and be within the law. The moment you stop and assault me because I'm following you, you are outside of the law.

IF Zimmerman had attacked Martin, I would agree that "those same laws also protect Martin.." But there is zero evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Martin and initiated the physical fight.

Lots of folks are using the fact that Zimmerman followed Martin as justification for convicting him of murder. While I think it was stupid of him to follow Martin, it doesn't mean he is guilty of murder in the resulting physical altercation unless the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman initiated the physical assault.

 

[Hobbes]

Friendly reminder,

GZ isn't claiming stand your ground defense and waived his right to stand your ground hearing before this trial started.
It is a straightforward self defense claim and that is why he can be sued in civil court.