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.
I guess you don't know the law either. Did you not know that there is NO statute of limitations on murder? Did you NOT know that they have to wait for all the evidence/facts before a trial/due process can even happen? If an arrest is warranted, there WILL be one!
Zimmerman had a MONTH to plant his head injury. How convenient. That is the fault of an inept police department. He should have been taken in for questioning immediately.
You have not read the "responding officer's account" that indicated the responding officer relieved him of his weapon and placed him in handcuffs and while doing so noticed the rear of his clothing was wet and had bits of grass clinging to it along with his head injuries. He was then taken in and questioned.
Respondent EMT's attended to Trayvon AND treated Zimp's injuries while he was sitting in the rear of the cruiser.
That's all in the report along with other respondent officers performing 'first on scene' checking for lifesigns of Trayvon.
This case seems like it will hinge on the idea that Trayvon made an unprovoked attack on Zimmerman. That really makes no sense given the fact the young man was not known to be violent or hot tempered, so it would seem way out of character for him to jump a man walking away from him after the fact. Just a few seconds earlier he was speaking to his girlfriend and sounding like a dude who was nervous and just wanted to get home. But I don't know how much "proof" the jury will need, since no one saw what actually started the fight.
It seems clear that the police cut Zimmerman slack because they knew him. He had made a lot of calls but it was also reported that some of those calls resulted in actual busts. Perhaps, to them, he was seen as a stand-up guy and a helpful citizen. So when Zimmerman gave them a story that sounded plausible, and they had a witness that more or less confirmed it, why would they bother to keep investigating? They had already decided he was telling the truth, plus that the kid was a thug intending to rob the apartments, and they pretty much ignored or "corrected" any discrepancies from any subsequent statements by witnesses. Of course, this case turned out to be the textbook example of why you cant do that. Never assume, always get all the facts.
It seems way more likely to me, in my opinion before anyone starts bitching LOL, that Zimmerman and Trayvon exchanged words that did not conclude with a polite goodnight and retreat from Zimmerman. It seems way more likely that the boy felt threatened by a stranger first following him in a car and then in his face angry, and felt he had to fight his way out of there. Zimmerman was getting his behind beat, and maybe he was scared because he thought the kid was some kind of ultra thug in the first place, and then shoots him in the heat of the moment.
He has to feel like **** right now. How could he not and call himself human? This is his fault. He made an assumption, and then followed it up by a series of bad decisions, and he ends up shooting a kid who was not at all what Zimmerman assumed he was.
LOL are you really a lawyer? Since when do the accused have to prove anything? It's up to the authorities to assert a crime has been committed and they must lay out their case. Zimmerman will respond in kind.
They CAN'T be a real lawyer and not know that the prosecution is who has to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, NOT the defendant! All the defendant has to do is show a "shadow" of a doubt!
In this case, that rule would apply if there was an arrest and a trial. No arrest, no trial so that is why Zimmerman is being tried by the public and at the same time being protected by the Florida police. Not exactly due process of law is it?
At this point the police don't even know where GZ is. His lawyer hasn't even met him. For all anyone knows he's in Peru.
That's where I'd be if I was him. I don't know if his father is Jewish but if he is I'd strongly suggest a trip to Israel before April 10.
Due process is occuring just because the police are not willing to trump up charges to assuage you and the rest of the lynch mob. Does not mean due process is not occuring.
They CAN'T be a real lawyer and not know that the prosecution is who has to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, NOT the defendant! All the defendant has to do is show a "shadow" of a doubt!
It's pretty basic criminal law. I don't know how a lawyer can get that wrong. Maybe he's a tort lawyer.
Do you even know how the law works? There is no statute of limitations on murder, once they have ALL of the facts, if an arrest is warranted, there will be one. The PD isn't protecting ANYONE! I suggest you watch the show "The First 48". I have seen episodes where they do NOT arrest a suspect UNTIL ALL of the facts are in. Sometimes it is days or months later.
I suggest you get your facts straight. GZ is not a "suspect". Did you miss the part where he confessed to killing TM? Generally when someone admits/confesses to murdering someone they are placed under arrest. The only thing saving GZ, a confessed murderer, from being arrested is the SYG law. In any other state he would have been arrested once he confessed to murder, even if he claimed it was self-defense, to be followed by a full investigation.
I guess you don't know the law either. Did you not know that there is NO statute of limitations on murder? Did you NOT know that they have to wait for all the evidence/facts before a trial/due process can even happen? If an arrest is warranted, there WILL be one!
So you believe that when a unarmed youth is gunned down the shooter should NOT be arrested because the shooter says he was defending himself ??????????????
Well we can all then just go out and shoot people and say we were defending ourselves and NOOOOO arrest or investigation is required... mmmmmm
None of that has any legal bearing. The self defense claim is rooted in the fight not what led up to it.
Besides as Zimmerman says it he had lost track of the kid, was walking back to his car to wait for police and Trayvon attacked him from behind.
Not necessarily. If Zimmerman walked up to Trayvon gun drawn and was intending on killing him and Trayvon defended himself yet was shot while doing so that wouldn't be self defense. Or would it?
Whoop de do.questioned. He was told on the phone not to follow the kid, he disobeyed, and than killed a 17 year old, unarmed kid. That called for criminal charges. Since he was told to not follow, that establishes premeditation on his part.
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.
The only thing saving GZ, a confessed murderer, from being arrested is the SYG law. In any other state he would have been arrested once he confessed to murder, even if he claimed it was self-defense, to be followed by a full investigation.
