Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

Bloo Driver wrote:

Does that actually happen outside of TV and movies? I know there are other things that stick out as inconsistent, but does anyone else just find that weird?

It's probably an invention, but it might not be a lie. The mind doesn't necessarily remember things as they happened.

Mystic Violet wrote:

Would he have been able to speak after being shot in the chest and through his heart?

IANAD, but my guess would be yes. Death isn't instantaneous, and shock will do do a lot to stop a person from even registering severe trauma.

Given that Zimmerman claimed he was carrying the gun tucked into the back of his waistband, I'm wondering how he draws and fires while lying on his back while someone sits on top of him and pounds his head into the ground &/or rains down punches on him.

Maq wrote:

Given that Zimmerman claimed he was carrying the gun tucked into the back of his waistband, I'm wondering how he draws and fires while lying on his back while someone sits on top of him and pounds his head into the ground &/or rains down punches on him.

And how said assailant manages to see and tries to grab the gun when it is obscured by Zimmerman's fat ass.

If he was knocked to the floor, couldn't it have been knocked loose, hypothetically. Not that I know exactly what events were said to have happened by Zimmerman.

Duoae wrote:

If he was knocked to the floor, couldn't it have been knocked loose, hypothetically. Not that I know exactly what events were said to have happened by Zimmerman.

A few posts upthread have his report to the police. He claims to have "unholstered" the weapon.

And here's Zimmerman showing where he had the weapon holstered:

IMAGE(http://strata-sphere.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/gz_reenact_2.jpg)

The first thing I'd do if someone put his hand over my mouth would be to bite the hell out of it. That's pretty much reflexive. That's such a weird thing to allege, though. And there's the fact that a person of his mass could have easily done the first thing taught in ground fighting and arched up to throw Martin off.

It's much easier to understand if Zimmerman actually mounts him and *then* shoots, but we'll never know. He's lied about other things, important things, to save his ass, so I don't trust his account here either. Too much incentive to lie to go free.

I don't doubt it's the biggest regret of his life, however.

Stengah wrote:

I think Zimmerman would have followed Martin even if he didn't have a gun, because while I think he's responsible for the confrontation, I don't think he intended to kill Martin when he left his car.

The two things are separate. I don't think he *intended* to kill Martin at the time he left the car, but I think the only reason he felt safe confronting him was because of the gun. I believe he intended to hold him for the police. I think the confrontation prompted him to use the gun. When all you've got is a hammer....

I think without the gun, he'd have stayed home and called the police like he usually did.

Mystic Violet wrote:

Would he have been able to speak after being shot in the chest and through his heart?

The brain has up to 15 seconds or so of stored oxygen at any given time, so yeah, Martin would have been able to speak briefly before the lights went out. His motor control would have been intact.

The way to think about exsanguinating injuries is that they start what amounts to a physiological timer. They don't instantaneously stop the person, that's clear from a myriad of law enforcement and military accounts of shootings and stabbings. People under the influence of adrenalin or more can do unusual things in the last few seconds of consciousness.

Robear wrote:

The first thing I'd do if someone put his hand over my mouth would be to bite the hell out of it. That's pretty much reflexive. That's such a weird thing to allege, though. And there's the fact that a person of his mass could have easily done the first thing taught in ground fighting and arched up to throw Martin off.

It's much easier to understand if Zimmerman actually mounts him and *then* shoots, but we'll never know. He's lied about other things, important things, to save his ass, so I don't trust his account here either. Too much incentive to lie to go free.

I don't doubt it's the biggest regret of his life, however.

Stengah wrote:

I think Zimmerman would have followed Martin even if he didn't have a gun, because while I think he's responsible for the confrontation, I don't think he intended to kill Martin when he left his car.

The two things are separate. I don't think he *intended* to kill Martin at the time he left the car, but I think the only reason he felt safe confronting him was because of the gun. I believe he intended to hold him for the police. I think the confrontation prompted him to use the gun. When all you've got is a hammer....

I think without the gun, he'd have stayed home and called the police like he usually did.

Pretty much this.

Back to what I said about paying too much for cable.

So there's a relatively new case in New Orleans involving a white guy shooting a black teen for hopping over his fence in the middle of the night. One one hand, there's compelling evidence he didn't need to shoot but probably should have called the cops or pointed the gun and told the kid to back off. On the other hand, the law-and-order side of me thinks that prowling around people's property in the middle of the night is a sure way to get yourself killed:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...

At any rate, this case may become similar to Zimmerman's if the kid dies or is so brain-damaged he can't give testimony.

http://theadvocate.com/news/6675915-...

Jayhawker wrote:

There are two pretty HUGE differences in this case and the Zimmerman case.

1) This act happened on the shooters property. When someone that doesn't belong shows up in your backyard, you get some leeway compared to deciding a kid walking on the sidewalk has something wrong with him.

2) That said, the police in this case arrested and charged the guy with a crime. There doesn't seem to be the imperative to sweep this under the rug, which is exactly what was going on when the public got ahold of Trayvon Martin's case.

I don't think there will be the same outcry, because this guy has at least one leg to stand on, and the system is actually working. The rage in Martin's case was that the police didn't seem to give a rats ass that an unarmed kid was gunned down for walking down a public street.

Fixed a teensy bit, but yes, there's quite a bit of difference between these two cases.

Stengah wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

There are two pretty HUGE differences in this case and the Zimmerman case.

1) This act happened on the shooters property. When someone that doesn't belong shows up in your backyard, you get some leeway compared to deciding a kid walking on the sidewalk has something wrong with him.

2) That said, the police in this case arrested and charged the guy with a crime. There doesn't seem to be the imperative to sweep this under the rug, which is exactly what was going on when the public got ahold of Trayvon Martin's case.

I don't think there will be the same outcry, because this guy has at least one leg to stand on, and the system is actually working. The rage in Martin's case was that the police didn't seem to give a rats ass that an unarmed kid was gunned down for walking down a public street.

Fixed a teensy bit, but yes, there's quite a bit of difference between these two cases.

Well that was part 1...

There are two pretty HUGE differences in this case and the Zimmerman case.

1) This act happened on the shooter's property. When someone that doesn't belong shows up in your backyard, you get some leeway compared to deciding a kid walking on the sidewalk has something wrong.

2) That said, the police in this case arrested and charged the guy with a crime. There doesn't seem to be the imperative to sweep this under the rug, which is exactly what was going on when the public got ahold of Trayvon Martin's case.

I don't think there will be the same outcry, because this guy has at least one leg to stand on, and the system is actually working. The rage in Martin's case was that the police didn't seem to give a rats ass that an unarmed kid was gunned.

I'm willing to start a new thread if it warrants it, though some in the media are referring to the Zimmerman case and since it also touches on self defense laws and racial shootings I figured it was worth talking about here.

SixteenBlue wrote:
Stengah wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

There are two pretty HUGE differences in this case and the Zimmerman case.

1) This act happened on the shooters property. When someone that doesn't belong shows up in your backyard, you get some leeway compared to deciding a kid walking on the sidewalk has something wrong with him.

2) That said, the police in this case arrested and charged the guy with a crime. There doesn't seem to be the imperative to sweep this under the rug, which is exactly what was going on when the public got ahold of Trayvon Martin's case.

I don't think there will be the same outcry, because this guy has at least one leg to stand on, and the system is actually working. The rage in Martin's case was that the police didn't seem to give a rats ass that an unarmed kid was gunned down for walking down a public street.

Fixed a teensy bit, but yes, there's quite a bit of difference between these two cases.

Well that was part 1...

Reading fail on my part

jdzappa wrote:

I'm willing to start a new thread if it warrants it, though some in the media are referring to the Zimmerman case and since it also touches on self defense laws and racial shootings I figured it was worth talking about here.

I think that's just the media being the media. It'd probably fit better into the big gun control thread if there's much talk to be had about it.

Well it looks like Zimmerman is going to get the last laugh by having taxpayers refund part of his defense costs, which is legal under Florida law.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/justic...

I don't have a problem with that, actually. If you're accused of a crime and found innocent by the court, you shouldn't have to bear the financial burden of defending yourself.

Though the article makes it clear that he probably won't get but a fraction of the money they're seeking.

Farscry wrote:

I don't have a problem with that, actually. If you're accused of a crime and found innocent by the court, you shouldn't have to bear the financial burden of defending yourself.

I call bull on that. You are entitled to a public defender, you should not be expected to pay for that. If you choose to get someone private, you are making that decision.

Atras wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I don't have a problem with that, actually. If you're accused of a crime and found innocent by the court, you shouldn't have to bear the financial burden of defending yourself.

I call bull on that. You are entitled to a public defender, you should not be expected to pay for that. If you choose to get someone private, you are making that decision.

So if I'm wrongly accused my options are crappy lawyer and risk jail or massive debt to retain my freedom. That sucks.

The reimbursement isn't for his lawyer, its for the costs you'll incur for expert witnesses, court reporter fees, transcripts and travel expenses - everything that sort of needs to get done to get ready for trial.

http://www.npr.org/2013/08/28/216323...

SixteenBlue wrote:
Atras wrote:
Farscry wrote:

I don't have a problem with that, actually. If you're accused of a crime and found innocent by the court, you shouldn't have to bear the financial burden of defending yourself.

I call bull on that. You are entitled to a public defender, you should not be expected to pay for that. If you choose to get someone private, you are making that decision.

So if I'm wrongly accused my options are crappy lawyer and risk jail or massive debt to retain my freedom. That sucks.

I don't know why you would assume the public defender is a crappy lawyer, they are hired by the same state that is hiring the prosecution. But yeah, getting falsely accused sucks, but the standard of punishment is supposed to be so high that you shouldn't have to worry about it, right? Besides, Edwin pointed out what the reimbursement is for anyway, so it's a moot point.

Tanglebones wrote:

Well, that didn't take long..

George Zimmerman taken into custody after incident with gun, police say

You can't simmer the Zimmer.

My question being... does THIS stop him from being able to own a gun in the future?

This is warped thinking, but I almost wonder if Zimmerman is a target of local Florida cops now for making them look bad. After all, if he hadn't shot the unarmed kid, the police wouldn't have looked inept for not investigating because the kid was black.

Well, that didn't take long..

George Zimmerman questioned after alleged gun threat against wife

Edit to reflect new title of breaking news story

Nevin73 wrote:

This is warped thinking, but I almost wonder if Zimmerman is a target of local Florida cops now for making them look bad. After all, if he hadn't shot the unarmed kid, the police wouldn't have looked inept for not investigating because the kid was black.

If he was being picked up constantly for incorrect handling, while handling correctly, or something along those lines, I would suspect the same... but in the case of a domestic disturbance of this nature, that would have had to have been called in. If the cops get a lot of calls from his wife, I can only assume she is doing so as a safety measure for herself while the divorce proceedings occur (probably as recommended by her own legal counsel for her safety).

According to Lake Mary Police Chief Steve Bracknell, Shellie Zimmerman called 911 claiming George Zimmerman had a gun and was making threats.

"He’s in his car and he continually has his hand on his gun and he keeps saying 'step closer' and he’s just threatening all of us," Shellie Zimmerman said in the 911 call, adding that George Zimmerman was "trying to shut the garage door" on her.

"He punched my dad in the nose my dad has a mark on the nose. I saw his glasses were on the floor," Shellie Zimmerman said in the call. He then accosted my father then took my iPad out of my hands. He then smashed it and cut it with a pocketknife, and there is a Lake Mary city worker across the street that I believe saw all of it."

The victims are not speaking to police and were waiting for their attorney to arrive, Bracknell said.

As of 3:45 p.m., no arrests have been made and George Zimmerman is "no longer in investigative detention," according to police, but is still at the home. Police are investigating the incident as a domestic battery.

You'd think he'd go out of his way to not cause any trouble after the trial.

I'd call this an extreme case of doubling down on one's own sense of badassery. He must think he's untouchable now.

Mystic Violet wrote:

You'd think he'd go out of his way to not cause any trouble after the trial.

I'd call this an extreme case of doubling down on one's own sense of badassery. He must think he's untouchable now.

Well.. after he got away with molesting his cousin for 10 years, assaulting his previous fiancee, *AND* Trayvon? Understandable that he'd feel untouchable.

Mystic Violet wrote:

You'd think he'd go out of his way to not cause any trouble after the trial.

I'd call this an extreme case of doubling down on one's own sense of badassery. He must think he's untouchable now.

That's becoming my thought. He got off once, and given the media and public sh*t storm this trial created, you'd think he'd realize he was lucky to do so. Instead, he seems to have gained the thinking of a teenager texting down a highway at 90 mph thinking nothing could go wrong.