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.
At this point you only have GZ's word that he was on his way back to his car and Trayvon attacked him. The State investigator said they did not know who started the fight. That means they don't know if what Zimmerman is saying is true. The is a BIG difference between "We have no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight" and "We don't know WHO started the fight." They don't know. That doesn't mean they do know that Zimmerman did NOT start the fight.
Can you tell me fairly close the exact statement the investigator made concerning Zimmerman's wounds? I think you're missing subtleties in the testimony. Hearing is pretty subjective, and most of us hear what we want to hear.
Better yet, is there a video out there of the hearing? I'd really like to listen to the testimony if you know where I can find that.
Gilbreath said the state has nothing that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first or that gz was walking back to his car.
The Truth is only semi-relevant. What the state can sufficiently disprove for a judge is more important.
I think a video of the hearing is out there; offhand I only have the cnn partial transcript.
Agree, the state does file on flimsy evidence. Just seems in such a high profile case it would be foolish, unless the real goal is to get a guilty plea to a lesser charge.
As for that gun thing, if two people were struggling for a gun, wouldn't you think it would be more likely and reasonable that the gun went off accidentally? I mean if you're struggling to hold onto a gun, how could you take aim an shoot, how would you know that the gun wouldn't get turned around at the moment you fired and shoot you instead of your opponent? Did Zimmerman think about that and decide he had a better chance using stand your ground than saying that it accidentally went off?
Why did that original officer at the scene say he didn't buy Zimmerman's story and thought he should be charged with manslaughter? At some point that officer's police report will be released and it will be interesting to see what he says Zimmerman told him.
Or placate an angry mob. You charge high maybe you get a plea deal. If not a judge or jury tosses it out. You turn to Sharpton, shrug your shoulders and say you tried and keep it moving.
That's what I suspect is going on. They had to charge him with something but they had to get enough to get over the probable clause threshold. When I first heard she wasn't going to the grand jury I was like they have no case. Then they charge him and I'm like snap they must have something.
Her not going to the grand jury was throwing me off because normally it's used for political cover. Just let them have it and rubber stamp the indictment.
However now I think the case was so weak that the grand jury would have refused to indict which would have opened up a whole new can of worms.
Grand Juries are private and the surrounding area is mostly white. Sharpton and company would have cried foul in such a scenario. So she had to charge even with a weak case, maybe she plays some poker in the interim but the *** will be up after discovery.
If there's no plea after discovery this case is over.
Why is it important how "serious" his injuries were?
He was in fact "injured" and he said he feared for his life.
True, that.
I'm pretty sure Zimm doesn't have eyes in the back of his head to see his injuries. I'm also pretty sure he isn't a doctor able to determine the extent of his injuries.
He was injured and afraid of the thug on top of him trying to beat his brains out. That's good enough for me.
Agree, the state does file on flimsy evidence. Just seems in such a high profile case it would be foolish, unless the real goal is to get a guilty plea to a lesser charge.
As for that gun thing, if two people were struggling for a gun, wouldn't you think it would be more likely and reasonable that the gun went off accidentally? I mean if you're struggling to hold onto a gun, how could you take aim an shoot, how would you know that the gun wouldn't get turned around at the moment you fired and shoot you instead of your opponent? Did Zimmerman think about that and decide he had a better chance using stand your ground than saying that it accidentally went off?
Why did that original officer at the scene say he didn't buy Zimmerman's story and thought he should be charged with manslaughter? At some point that officer's police report will be released and it will be interesting to see what he says Zimmerman told him.
We'll have to wait for the initial statement to find out what GZ's says happened. Also, Trayvon's clothing will tell a tale, from what I heard GZ's clothing was not taken/tested (which I find appalling if true).
I can think of a few scenarios of how/why the gun was fired...
I haven't seen anything that substantiates that an officer didn't buy GZ's story, again we'll see...
Or placate an angry mob. You charge high maybe you get a plea deal. If not a judge or jury tosses it out. You turn to Sharpton, shrug your shoulders and say you tried and keep it moving.
That's what I suspect is going on. They had to charge him with something but they had to get enough to get over the probable clause threshold. When I first heard she wasn't going to the grand jury I was like they have no case. Then they charge him and I'm like snap they must have something.
Her not going to the grand jury was throwing me off because normally it's used for political cover. Just let them have it and rubber stamp the indictment.
However now I think the case was so weak that the grand jury would have refused to indict which would have opened up a whole new can of worms.
Grand Juries are private and the surrounding area is mostly white. Sharpton and company would have cried foul in such a scenario. So she had to charge even with a weak case, maybe she plays some poker in the interim but the *** will be up after discovery.
If there's no plea after discovery this case is over.
This State Attorney has a long reputation of NOT taking cases to the Grand Jury. This case is no exception.
I'm aware that Grand Jury proceedings are not open to the public. In fact, the only evidence that is presented is the State's evidence; the defense plays no part in it. And the record of the Grand Jury is sealed after the proceedings, so you can't read what happened there. The stage belongs entire to the State. It would have been exceedingly easy to convince a Grand Jury to indict in this case and it would have covered the State Attorney's back if she had taken it to the GJ. Sharpton & Company would have had no say about how the Grand Jury worked.
It's during the discovery process that plea deals are usually negotiated, although sometimes the cases go right up to trial and jury selection before the defendant decides to take a plea.
The discovery process is usually pretty time consuming and takes many months of investigation by the defense. I have confidence that Zimmerman's attorney knows how to work a case and put on a trial if necessary. And even O'Mara is not saying the things all these lay people are about the state not having a case; time will tell.
We'll have to wait for the initial statement to find out what GZ's says happened. Also, Trayvon's clothing will tell a tale, from what I heard GZ's clothing was not taken/tested (which I find appalling if true).
I can think of a few scenarios of how/why the gun was fired...
I haven't seen anything that substantiates that an officer didn't buy GZ's story, again we'll see...
Don't you remember the press reporting that one of the officers who responded to the scene the night of the incident questioned Zimmerman and recommended to the State Attorney (the first one) that Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter, and the State Attorney said there wasn't enough evidence and refused? That was why the original SA in the Sanford Circuit ultimately bowed out. I'll google it and see what I can find.
Would you be willing to share some of those scenarios regarding the gun, other than it going off accidentally? I guess my mind may be closed because I can't think of how you could be struggling over a gun with someone and still be able to aim and be certain that the shot would not hit you. Do you think they were struggling and then Zimmerman got control of the gun and had time to aim and shoot before Trayvon could grab for the gun again? Honestly, I can't think outside this box.
Don't you remember the press reporting that one of the officers who responded to the scene the night of the incident questioned Zimmerman and recommended to the State Attorney (the first one) that Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter, and the State Attorney said there wasn't enough evidence and refused? That was why the original SA in the Sanford Circuit ultimately bowed out. I'll google it and see what I can find.
Yes, I remember the report, but I never did see it in writing, I heard that he submitted an affidavit...I also remember hearing that there was no such submission...Thanks for checking...
Or placate an angry mob. You charge high maybe you get a plea deal. If not a judge or jury tosses it out. You turn to Sharpton, shrug your shoulders and say you tried and keep it moving.
That's what I suspect is going on. They had to charge him with something but they had to get enough to get over the probable clause threshold. When I first heard she wasn't going to the grand jury I was like they have no case. Then they charge him and I'm like snap they must have something.
Her not going to the grand jury was throwing me off because normally it's used for political cover. Just let them have it and rubber stamp the indictment.
However now I think the case was so weak that the grand jury would have refused to indict which would have opened up a whole new can of worms.
Grand Juries are private and the surrounding area is mostly white. Sharpton and company would have cried foul in such a scenario. So she had to charge even with a weak case, maybe she plays some poker in the interim but the *** will be up after discovery.
If there's no plea after discovery this case is over.
Ever hear the saying "The Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich" LOL....
After listening to Angela Corey's press conference...political motivation did come to my mind...
I can tell you we have neighborhood watch folks with guns in Beverlywood just south of us so the gun us a non issue and is for protection IMO.
Had George not had it he would be dead based on George's wounds and what told to him by Martin.
17 is young, but there are plenty of killers ten years old and up out there these days with the great parenting going on.
Is Beverlywood an HOA? If so, I highly doubt that they have volunteer neighborhood watch folks that are armed with the approval of Beverlywood. It would be anything but a non-issue to their insurance company. You are displaying a lack of knowledge.
Georgie wouldn't be in any trouble if he went home after notifying the police. And someone's teenage son would be alive.
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.
Just seems in such a high profile case it would be foolish, unless the real goal is to get a guilty plea to a lesser charge. 
Did Zimmerman think about that and decide he had a better chance using stand your ground than saying that it accidentally went off? 
