Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

ringsnort wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
ringsnort wrote:

The defense certainly isn't taking any chances. The recently released contents of Trayvon's phone messages and texts are getting no shortage of coverage by the major news outlets.

True, but by all accounts I have read, Zimmerman was already stalking the Martin. At that point, I think the prosecution could wave aggressiveness as he wasn't the instigator.

On it's own, Zimmerman following Trayvon wouldn't seem to justify Trayvon's assault on Zimmerman. Additionally, the second degree murder charge against Zimmerman itself supports the contention that, at worst, Zimmerman's actions were not premeditated. Thus, there was no "stalking of the Martin" as you put it.

My understanding is a charge of second degree murder meant there was no clear premeditation to kill, he was still pursuing the guy as is clear from the phone transcript.

ringsnort wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
ringsnort wrote:

The defense certainly isn't taking any chances. The recently released contents of Trayvon's phone messages and texts are getting no shortage of coverage by the major news outlets.

True, but by all accounts I have read, Zimmerman was already stalking the Martin. At that point, I think the prosecution could wave aggressiveness as he wasn't the instigator.

On it's own, Zimmerman following Trayvon wouldn't seem to justify Trayvon's assault on Zimmerman. Additionally, the second degree murder charge against Zimmerman itself supports the contention that, at worst, Zimmerman's actions were not premeditated. Thus, there was no "stalking of the Martin" as you put it.

In spite of the fact that Zimmerman shouldn't have been there in the first place, the prosecution has to overcome or somehow have dismissed the substantial physical evidence of the defensive wounds sustained by the defendant. Also, if the contention that Zimmerman did in fact lose sight of Trayvon during his pursuit and that Trayvon elected to assault Zimmerman rather than simply continue on his way, that too directly supports the defense's contention of self defense.

First bold: Did anyone here say that?

Italicized: Ummm... except you say he was pursuing him. Semantic argument on word choice, but Zimmerman following him consistently, in spite of having been, to my understanding, told not to by emergency services... would that justify assault by Trayvon? No, but do we have evidence that Trayvon swung first?

That he wasn't verbally goaded into anger by a guy following a teen because he looked suspicious? Has Zimmerman ever said WHAT made him think the teenager was suspicious and worth following?

Second bold: Do you have a source on that? What I've seen shown so far was blood on his face, apparently dripping from his nose. Nothing that I've read on this has suggested he had life threatening injuries that would have necessitated a bullet. I find it hard to believe if there was significant injuries incurred by Zimmerman that his brother would not be blaring that out constantly rather than his "slutshaming" picture campaign of bigoted self-made memes.

Second italicized: Again, source? Do we have proof other than the shooter's word that this was an assault by the victim? And, really, why is this turned around on Martin? Why didn't Zimmerman go home as he'd be instructed by emergency services? Why did he continue to pursue? Is that not actively looking for conflict with someone?

From my post a few months back, the last time Zimmerman's injuries were cited as justification for his shooting Trayvon Martin.

Available forensic evidence does not agree with Zimmerman's story - particularly problematic is Martin's autopsy report, which revealed a single abrasion, no more than a quarter inch long, on his ring finger. (Full report here as a PDF).

This is not consistent with the kind of beatdown Zimmerman has described.

The funeral director described Trayvon's body as "pristine", and said there were no scrapes, bruises, or other injuries that required covering up.

This is also not consistent with the kind of beatdown Zimmerman has described.

Zimmerman also has a history of violence, and was caught lying to the judge in his case.

Again, it's possible that Zimmerman is trying to tell the truth to the best of his ability here - but Zimmerman doesn't come across as terribly trustworthy, he killed the only other eyewitness, and the autopsy results don't line up with his story. The shoddy police work by the Sanford PD the night of the shooting may mean we never know the actual sequence of events that night, but even in Zimmerman's version of events he pursued a teenager who was armed with nothing stronger than a pack of Skittles, ignored the dispatcher telling him to cease pursuit, and left his vehicle (with a gun) to chase down the teen on foot.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Available forensic evidence does not agree with Zimmerman's story - particularly problematic is Martin's autopsy report, which revealed a single abrasion, no more than a quarter inch long, on his ring finger.

Well, if that abrasion came while he was wearing one of these:

IMAGE(http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/5231/draonknife.jpg)

That would make Trayvon Martin a serious threat.

Not to mention f*ckin' metal.

Vector wrote:

The use of "pursuit" really bothers me.

Me, as well. Used in this context people could easily assume that it meant something akin to a police pursuit, that Zimmerman was chasing Martin from the scene of a crime rather than the reality that Martin was just walking home from a convenience store.

Stalk is much more appropriate as several of its definitions apply to Zimmerman: he tried to follow Martin stealthily (he failed), he followed persistently out of an obsession with black males in his neighborhood, and it ultimately ended up with Zimmerman moving threateningly or menacingly when he finally confronted Martin.

Demosthenes wrote:
ringsnort wrote:

On it's own, Zimmerman following Trayvon wouldn't seem to justify Trayvon's assault on Zimmerman. Additionally, the second degree murder charge against Zimmerman itself supports the contention that, at worst, Zimmerman's actions were not premeditated. Thus, there was no "stalking of the Martin" as you put it.

In spite of the fact that Zimmerman shouldn't have been there in the first place, the prosecution has to overcome or somehow have dismissed the substantial physical evidence of the defensive wounds sustained by the defendant. Also, if the contention that Zimmerman did in fact lose sight of Trayvon during his pursuit and that Trayvon elected to assault Zimmerman rather than simply continue on his way, that too directly supports the defense's contention of self defense.

First bold: Did anyone here say that?

Not that I'm aware of. And it's certainly not my contention. I'm just working within the definition of what justifies a second degree murder charge.

Demosthenes wrote:

Italicized: Ummm... except you say he was pursuing him. Semantic argument on word choice, but Zimmerman following him consistently, in spite of having been, to my understanding, told not to by emergency services... would that justify assault by Trayvon? No, but do we have evidence that Trayvon swung first?

I don't think there's any doubt by anyone that Zimmerman was following / pursing / tailing (pick your word) Trayvon. If Zimmerman was pursuing as part of his role in his local neighborhood watch, that would seem to justify an interest in, and a rationale for watching, anyone he didn't recognize being on property. However, during his 911 call, Zimmerman was told specifically not to pursue. Obviously, Zimmerman ignored this good advice and made the foolish decision to follow / pursue / tail (pick your word) Trayvon. As far as I'm aware, this is where the specifics end. The Court will have to sort out the claims of the defense and any other witnesses that may have been present.

Demosthenes wrote:

That he wasn't verbally goaded into anger by a guy following a teen because he looked suspicious? Has Zimmerman ever said WHAT made him think the teenager was suspicious and worth following?

It's a good question but I don't see how anyone who didn't witness the event could possibly know the answer. Now, if we're interested in speculating about all of the awful things that bad white men with guns could do, there's no limit to the depth of hate and deprivation we can superimpose on someone like Zimmerman. However, other than to churn up passions on this forum, I'm not sure I see the value in overindulging in such speculation.

Demosthenes wrote:

Second bold: Do you have a source on that? What I've seen shown so far was blood on his face, apparently dripping from his nose. Nothing that I've read on this has suggested he had life threatening injuries that would have necessitated a bullet. I find it hard to believe if there was significant injuries incurred by Zimmerman that his brother would not be blaring that out constantly rather than his "slutshaming" picture campaign of bigoted self-made memes.

There was quite a bit of discussion about the defendant's injuries. CBS news carried this story not too long ago.

As for Zimmerman's brother, I can only speculate. I know the tactics used are a sore point for many here and very offensive. If there's some sort of coordination between the brother and the defense team, I've not read anything to confirm one way or the other.

Demosthenes wrote:

Second italicized: Again, source? Do we have proof other than the shooter's word that this was an assault by the victim? And, really, why is this turned around on Martin? Why didn't Zimmerman go home as he'd be instructed by emergency services? Why did he continue to pursue? Is that not actively looking for conflict with someone?

Like I've said many times before, Zimmerman should have never, ever, left his car. It was unwise to do so and he was told not to pursue by the police during his 911 call. Had Zimmerman used his head and followed instruction, this tragedy would not have happened.

Thankfully it's neither my interest nor my job to defend this dumbass in court and I have zero interest in doing so in this or any other forum. My purpose for posting was simply to further discussion of how the upcoming proceedings might play out.

If Zimmerman was pursuing as part of his role in his local neighborhood watch, that would seem to justify an interest in, and a rationale for watching, anyone he didn't recognize being on property.

He wasn't a member of the neighborhood watch.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
If Zimmerman was pursuing as part of his role in his local neighborhood watch, that would seem to justify an interest in, and a rationale for watching, anyone he didn't recognize being on property.

He wasn't a member of the neighborhood watch.

That's debatable. IIRC the initial media reports portrayed him as a member or possibly even the co-founder of the neighborhood watch group. Unfortunately, it wasn't a real neighborhood watch group as the official neighborhood watch organization had no record of Zimmerman's little group and that organization trains real neighborhood watchers to never confront and never carry a firearm.

Initial media reports maybe, but we've had a lot of statements in older posts here quoting someone in their watch as saying Zimmerman was not a member.

Edit: Okay, here's one of the things I was remembering:
http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

CNN has a link to an article talking about how the Zimmerman defense fund has been soliciting and receviing donations to the tune of about $32k. Granted, they were asking for $120k but still, they're begging for money. One thing that I was scratching my head over was:

Many people wrote notes along with their donations, according to his defense team's website, saying things like they weren't sure of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, but they felt he had the right to a fair trial.

If he can't afford his own lawyers, isn't that why they have public defenders?

Nevin73 wrote:

CNN has a link to an article talking about how the Zimmerman defense fund has been soliciting and receviing donations to the tune of about $32k. Granted, they were asking for $120k but still, they're begging for money. One thing that I was scratching my head over was:

Many people wrote notes along with their donations, according to his defense team's website, saying things like they weren't sure of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, but they felt he had the right to a fair trial.

If he can't afford his own lawyers, isn't that why they have public defenders?

...wow, there are a lot of better things to donate money to if you aren't sure about him... was the massive coverage of Oklahoma limited to Cincinnati or something?

I very much doubt he qualifies for Florida's indigence standard for a free public defender. An assigned attorney is a lot like calling an ambulance, in many ways.

If you follow the links in the story it leads to another article saying that people have donated over $300,000 to date to Zimmerman's defense.

Nevin73 wrote:

CNN has a link to an article talking about how the Zimmerman defense fund has been soliciting and receviing donations to the tune of about $32k. Granted, they were asking for $120k but still, they're begging for money. One thing that I was scratching my head over was:

Many people wrote notes along with their donations, according to his defense team's website, saying things like they weren't sure of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, but they felt he had the right to a fair trial.

If he can't afford his own lawyers, isn't that why they have public defenders?

They want him to have the equivalent of Johnnie Cochrane, I guess.

lol Cochrane would have found a spot of rust in the gun and declared it inoperable on national tv. "Who was the second shooter?!" That man could have gotten Jeffrey Dahmer off with a governor's scholarship to the state Cooking Academy...

Robear wrote:

lol Cochrane would have found a spot of rust in the gun and declared it inoperable on national tv. "Who was the second shooter?!" That man could have gotten Jeffrey Dahmer off with a governor's scholarship to the state Cooking Academy...

Dude, I could have gotten Dahmer off, that search was Capital I Illegal.

I think that was more a case of "no jury in the world would acquit him".

...wtf

Are you kidding me? Wow.

The bald dude sitting closest just gave a master class in using facial expressions to say "This f*cken guy"

News executives at several different cable news outlets just had a simultaneous group orgasm. Nothing brings in the daytime viewers like a big trial with wacky stuff going on.

I'd be asking for a new attorney.

So that's what $350,000 of legal fees gets you...

The defense should have just done a mic drop and walked off after that.

Dayum.

...No. F*cking. Way.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

The bald dude sitting closest just gave a master class in using facial expressions to say "This f*cken guy"

No kidding. I'd be getting a new lawyer.

A knock-knock joke? Wow, I hope this guy either has a lot of money saved to retire after this trial or solid research that that was worth it... also how is that not contempt of court?

Demosthenes wrote:

A knock-knock joke? Wow, I hope this guy either has a lot of money saved to retire after this trial or solid research that that was worth it... also how is that not contempt of court?

Probably because stupid sh*t like this happens all the time to try to break the monotony of court proceedings. How else can you get average people to pay attention in a jury trial?