Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
EDIT: if indeed there is a WITNESS that shows Zimmerman was ambushed while walking back to his truck.....
That's why folks need to wait for "all the facts". STILL, An investigation and arrest for probable cause should have been done from the beginning....
Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman (http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012 - broken link)
"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help
Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.
The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.
"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.
Zimmerman says the shooting was self defense. According to information released on the Sanford city website, Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when he was attacked by the teen.
Sanford police say Zimmerman was bloody in his face and head, and the back of his shirt was wet and had grass stains, indicating a struggle took place before the shooting.
Ordinarily, I might be inclined to agree with a police report -- except that there is so much evidence that has surfaced that undermines the credibility of the entire investigation. In other words, the evidence that has been gathered by concerned witnesses and made available to the public in this case is actually better and more credible than the information that the police have released.
What's more credible? A teenage girl on the phone with her boyfriend being fed one side of the incident in real time. Or an independent witness that not only saw elements of the fight but even had a verbal exchange with Zimmerman?
Quote:
That is exactly why the Dept. of Justice and the FBI are now involved in the case. Not only can states not write laws that deprive people of civil rights, they also have to make reasonable efforts to protect the rights of one individual being deprived by another. That is why, for instance, state police and officials cannot just sit on their @sses if a lynch mob decided they wanted to take action against someone suspected of being guilty of a crime the way that people did before the civil rights laws existed.
The DOJ is there because of the pressure brought to bear by the likes of Al Sharpton who have an inside line to the White House.
Quote:
Didn't live where? Is someone who is not allowed to walk in a neighborhood if they don't live there? I walked from my house to the convenience store all the time as a teenager and I necessarily walked by houses in which I did not live and among people with whom I had no familiarity.
This a gated community, presumably private property non-residents can only enter with an express invite of a resident. Trayvon had one so he could walk as he please. He was however a stranger to Zimmerman, who was intimately involved in the community.
Quote:
You can confront someone by asking them simple questions, but you cannot intimidate someone and behave in such a manner that interferes with their free movement.
We have no evidence of that occurring. You can follow anyone you like if you are not being physically intimidating or impeding someone's progress.
Quote:
That might not be a crime to you, but it's an affront to a person's civil liberties and it's a crime in all 50 states as far as I know -- and even if it's not it can be made one at the federal level under civil liberties protection laws.
It's not a crime or there would be no paparazzi for example.
Quote:
Let me turn the tables and suppose that it's a white kid who's walking six to eight blocks and has to walk into a black neighborhood for one or two blocks to get to his ultimate destination. Suppose a black or group of black kids walks up to him and asks "Whatchoo doin' here, crackuh?" What if they took it further and attempted to block his access and told him to turn around and go in the direction he came? Do you think the police would just sit at their desks and allow that to happen? That's why it makes people so angry - because everyone knows if the tables were turned, we would have had a much different outcome in a case like this. Everyone who's not naive, that is.
When such an incident occurs, share it with us and we can discuss. I don't like to engage in hypothetical situations.
Quote:
Yes, that's exactly what he should have done, and that's exactly what he was advised to do by the 911 dispatcher. He disobeyed the advise because he had his own intentions in mind and he was most likely using his 911 call to provide some sort of cover that would later show that he felt "threatened" -- threatened enough to use deadly force.
A command from a dispatcher is not a legally enforceable instruction. In fact even if the police told him such he is under no requirement to follow there instructions. Police instructions don't trump the constitution.
Quote:
He can confront with a simple question; he cannot confront physically unless he has a damn good reason to do so.
Of course and there is no evidence he confronted Trayvon physically before he shot him
Quote:
All of the evidence in this case that has come to light not only calls Zimmerman into doubt; it calls the entire investigation into doubt. I think that's the part you're having trouble processing, and that's why this is a national story, and that's why the feds are going to get involved, and trust me: if the states can't fix this, the feds will. For cases that actually do get put to trial, prosecutors have a 90 percent conviction rate, and they also have mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines that will ensure that whoever violated Zimmerman's civil rights *will* pay for it.
Your opinion. The police could have done a more thorough join for sure, is it a crime or violation. I guess the DOJ and maybe the courts will decide.
Quote:
No, people are not allowed to make their own interpretation of the law; juries do that. And your interpretation of self-defense laws as they are typically rendered by the criminal justice system is simply wrong. You cannot typically use deadly force unless there exists a clear and present danger that would make a person reasonably fearful for their life or for the lives of others.
Getting pummeled in the face would constitute bodily harm.
Quote:
States do have slightly different ways of applying that standard. Some states for example require absolute proof that there is a clear and present danger, meaning that someone has to have a deadly weapon and they have to be behaving menacingly. Some states like those in the Deep South have castle laws in which someone can be *assumed* to be a threat to life if they break into your home, with the reasoning being that when circumstances are murky, you shouldn't be required to wait for an assailant to produce a weapon. Florida's law takes the concept of self defense a step further by essentially extending the castle's perimeter to be anywhere you go: out to a bar, in a parking lot, on the street. That in and of itself is not constitutionally invalid -- foolish as hell and will definitely lead to all sorts of problems (as it already has) but not constitutionally invalid as it stands. But even so, the circumstances have to be made clear, and there has to be evidence to show that lethal force was justified in self defense. As BajanYankee pointed out, the evidence is clear that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin; the question is, did he have a satisfactory reason to do it. We don't know because the local authorities there decided that a proper investigation wasn't warranted -- and that, my friend, might have violated federal civil rights laws.
We have witness and physical evidence that supports his story in order to prosecute the investigators have to be able to poke holes in it. They have thus been unable to do so.
Quote:
Police might be authorized to investigate and to decide if they would turn the case over to the DA, and maybe in the frat-boy world of cop-land, they can get away with an "investigation" <wink, wink>, and I'm sure they get away with it all the time. But whereas in 1912 there would be no recourse for such abhorrent abuse of power, in 2012, there's another layer of law to ensure justice for individuals. The federal government will have the last word. That's because so many people got so sick and tired of good ole boys hiding behind "states rights" back in the early 20th Century that they changed the law. We evolved.
No argument here, just that I don't think this is the case here. The city manager is black and runs the city. I find it hard to believe he would condone the city's police department paying short shrift to black concerns.
Quote:
The local "justice" officials might have thought it was just another good ole boy investigation, but the rest of us have the facts now and we're not going to just let this go. If Florida can't prosecute this guy, then the federal government will, and not only will they find a way to bring Zimmerman to justice, they'll bring to justice the bubbas who have deliberately taken action that appears to conflict with their sworn duties to uphold the law and to enforce equal protection of the laws.
The city manager and members of the city council are Black. This is not 1962 and you characterization of Sanford is not rooted in the realities of today.
Quote:
Uh, actually, in the way that the code of criminal procedure typically operates, you're investigated, then apprehended and interrogated so that authorities can gather more information against you, then the evidence is turned over to a prosecutor who decides whether to charge you with the crime, then charges are brought before a grand jury to determine whether or not there's evidence to go to a full trial. At any time during the prosecution, an attorney can ask for and sometimes get a plea deal so that everyone saves time and taxpayer money. That's how it works. I think what you mean to say is that you don't think Zimmerman will be tried and convicted. Based on the evidence that has come to light, people are going to be tried. The question is, who will be tried and whether they will be tried in a state court or a federal court. The potential irony I see (though remote) is that Zimmerman might not actually end up being free to sit at home with his Playstation while the officials who refused to investigate and deliberately contradicted eyewitness testimony might end up sitting in a federal pen.
You can be charged without a grand jury indictment. Grand juries are used often times when the prosecutors' case is not as airtight as they would like and independently bringing up charges is difficult. Grand juries typically indict and provide cover for prosecutors from over zealous charges.
Perhaps you could spend more time whining about the right wing nut jobs who show up and protest at military funerals. Then you wouldn't be so hypocritical.
Those people are not right wing. They are liberal at heart. Since liberals hate the military.
From the way you're reading it, I have an UNEQUIVOCAL right under Florida law to blow someone away with a .44 magnum if I get sucker punched outside of a club.
Pretty much....That's the problem with the law... it's a very grey area...
What is "danger of death or great bodily harm"??
Sure, if somebody holds a gun to you it is without a doubt there is intent to kill. Now, if I sucker punch you, how do I know it ends there? If it doesn't....when does it end??
An a** whippin isn't always "just" an a** whippin.....
Do I think Trayvon had intent to kill Zimmerman?? Not at all...But the law also states "great bodily harm"....If he broke him nose....it might fall under that.....
Who knows..."great bodily harm" is not clearly defined either.
Trayvon Martin, my son, and the Black Male Code | 6abc.com (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=8594063 - broken link)
I wonder if Whites provide similar instructions to their kids to be leery of Blacks in regards to being victims of crime? After all there is overwhelming statistical evidence to back up their concerns where there is nothing but anecdotal evidence to back up the instructions described by the father in the article.
Also, a fair point...since many want to tag the hate crime on him....His mothers side of the family is Peruvian...Many Peruvians, by CD's logic, would be considered "Black"... So wouldn't that make it pretty much impossible for it to be a hate crime??
Or does Zimmerman hate his black family members too? Or wait...they aren't black...they're white......wait...
Hey, looks like that Arizona "shading" chart might come in handy now after all right??
I saw a more recent candid pic of Zimmerman on CNN a few minutes ago. I'm not sure if it's a pic showing him in "hiding". I don't know how he was ever described as "white" in the American sense of the word. He looks like a Puerto Rican (although I know he's not)
There's nothing to be interpreted. It's a question of fact, not law. It will go to a jury and it will make a finding of fact.
It may never even get to that point. We have an amendment against unreasonable arrests.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
