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.
In fact, I agree that the prosecution has insufficient (real, hard, genuine) evidence to come remotely close to proving a case against Zimmerman. In fact, what evidence there is regarding those critical moments when they came face to face tends to support Zimmerman. Doesn't mean he'll be acquitted, because there is no way to know whether the jury will act based strictly on the law, or will base their decision on emotion.
Actually, as wrong as I think he was in shooting Trayvon Martin, I feel the same way. Still, as I've written before, it's possible that the jury will convict on a lesser charge. For some reason, if a person writes that he/she thinks Zimmerman's actions were wrong, that person is labeled a "Trayvonista" or "anti-Zimmerman." Political issues are treated similarly. Exchanging ideas doesn't seem to be very popular these days.
Did Martin's mother and her lawyer really sit in with the police when they questioned a witness? Who ever heard of such a thing?
My opinion is that the judge needs to shut the case down for a lack of evidence. Zimmerman is fastly becoming the victim in this case.
I don't see your point. Why should she "shut the case down?" Many cases are decided on circumstantial evidence and/or eyewitness testimony. People watch shows like CSI too much which is probably one reason why Casey Anthony was found not guilty.
Glad you cleared that up. In fact, I agree that the prosecution has insufficient (real, hard, genuine) evidence to come remotely close to proving a case against Zimmerman. In fact, what evidence there is regarding those critical moments when they came face to face tends to support Zimmerman. Doesn't mean he'll be acquitted, because there is no way to know whether the jury will act based strictly on the law, or will base their decision on emotion. Legally, though, Zimmerman should be acquitted.
By the way, I'm not anti-Zimmerman or pro-Zimmerman, or particularly on anyone's "side" in this. I'm on the side of the law. If we get so we accept having cases like this decided by the public's sentiment, we have nothing better than mob rule. If it's possible for people here to think beyond this one case, they may understand why I believe that moving toward a legal system based on public sentiment (mob rule) would be a bad road to take.
Been through this already, many pages ago.
There is a member (not AnonymouseX, another member) who has not posted here in the last few pages, but who made a number of posts several weeks and months ago in which he challenged the assertions of me and a current LEO with whom he disagreed. That member stated as if he knew it to be fact that no one without a law degree was qualified to discuss this knowledgeably.
Thing was, he actually acknowledged in several posts that he knew pretty much nothing about the legal issues. This begs the question of how he felt that he knew who knew what about the law. He was like a guy who didn't know a carburetor from a camshaft who was presenting himself as an authority on who was qualified to discuss auto mechanics. It was painfully obvious that the guy had no basis to say who knew what, but had just conveniently set the bar higher than the most knowledgeable people posting here frequently who disagreed with him.
In fact, the particular issues of use of force and self-defense actually are right in territory that cops know like the proverbial backs of their hands. I've mentioned, some many, many pages ago that I placed at the top of my police academy class, but in reality anyone who knew his stuff well enough to graduate would be well grounded in laws about use of force, because it's covered thoroughly in basic training. What's more, cops--all cops--then put this basic knowledge to practical use very frequently. Any time you deal with a case of battery or assault, or an incident that involves people fighting, you deal with laws regarding use of force in determining what, if any, charges to bring, and against whom. As a final check, you know whether you got the charges right, because the case still not going to court if the D.A. doesn't approve.
Cops in fact deal hands on with these very issues so often that this is one of the worst areas of law in which to challenge a LEO's knowledge. In any case, I'm sure some fairly brief research on the internet would confirm, for anyone interested in checking, that I know very much what I'm talking about.
I do not think it difficult to demonstrate that at least some police officers have not the faintest idea of how the use of force or the various rights of people work. Half an hour on the internet will provide a dozen examples.
So if they had it at one point in their career it was not maintained.
In the state of Nevada one is required only to provides ones name to the officer on a stop. Try it and watch. You may not end up arrested but you will spend an hour before they finally get a Lieutenant out who makes them let you go.
My favorite is the AZ lawyer who got busted in a strip casino for wearing an empty holster.
Glad you cleared that up. In fact, I agree that the prosecution has insufficient (real, hard, genuine) evidence to come remotely close to proving a case against Zimmerman. In fact, what evidence there is regarding those critical moments when they came face to face tends to support Zimmerman. Doesn't mean he'll be acquitted, because there is no way to know whether the jury will act based strictly on the law, or will base their decision on emotion. Legally, though, Zimmerman should be acquitted.
By the way, I'm not anti-Zimmerman or pro-Zimmerman, or particularly on anyone's "side" in this. I'm on the side of the law. If we get so we accept having cases like this decided by the public's sentiment, we have nothing better than mob rule. If it's possible for people here to think beyond this one case, they may understand why I believe that moving toward a legal system based on public sentiment (mob rule) would be a bad road to take.
Been through this already, many pages ago.
There is a member (not AnonymouseX, another member) who has not posted here in the last few pages, but who made a number of posts several weeks and months ago in which he challenged the assertions of me and a current LEO with whom he disagreed. That member stated as if he knew it to be fact that no one without a law degree was qualified to discuss this knowledgeably.
Thing was, he actually acknowledged in several posts that he knew pretty much nothing about the legal issues. This begs the question of how he felt that he knew who knew what about the law. He was like a guy who didn't know a carburetor from a camshaft who was presenting himself as an authority on who was qualified to discuss auto mechanics. It was painfully obvious that the guy had no basis to say who knew what, but had just conveniently set the bar higher than the most knowledgeable people posting here frequently who disagreed with him.
In fact, the particular issues of use of force and self-defense actually are right in territory that cops know like the proverbial backs of their hands. I've mentioned, some many, many pages ago that I placed at the top of my police academy class, but in reality anyone who knew his stuff well enough to graduate would be well grounded in laws about use of force, because it's covered thoroughly in basic training.
What's more, cops--all cops--then put this basic knowledge to practical use very frequently. Any time you deal with a case of battery or assault, or an incident that involves people fighting, you deal with laws regarding use of force in determining what, if any, charges to bring, and against whom. As a final check, you know whether you got the charges right, because the case is not going to court until the D.A. approves.
Cops in fact deal hands on with these very issues so often that this is one of the worst areas of law in which to challenge a LEO's knowledge. In any case, I'm sure some fairly brief research on the internet would confirm, for anyone interested in checking, that I know very much what I'm talking about.
A quick Google search of "us police excessive force" shows that police routinely have problems understanding the law and its bounds.
While this tet-a-tet could go on, the point stands. Police are not known, historically or otherwise, for understanding the laws.
Which is why prosecutors try cases and not police.
While some police may have a greater understanding of the law, just declaring you have one and using leo status as evidence is weak.
And declaring bonafides is weak too. For all you know, I'm a criminal defense lawyer that graduated at the top of my class at Harvard... See what I'm getting at. Police academy and even an associates degree in criminal justice hardly a law expert make...
And as lvoc pointed out, YouTube proves our case.
In fact, I personally have participated in education classes to provide police officers with training on our states laws. In this case, gun laws relating to concealed and open carry, self defense and SYG because of repeated violations by police on the rights of citizens.
Laws that have been on the books for quite awhile. Enough that older cops should know and newer cops should have been taught.
But no... Being a police officer does not require extensive knowledge or training. Which is why cops have as hard a time getting into more trained agencies such as the DEA and FBI as civilians do.
Did Martin's mother and her lawyer really sit in with the police when they questioned a witness? Who ever heard of such a thing?
Not sure about the lawyer, but the mother was present when they questioned the girlfriend. Improper procedure to say the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN
My opinion is that the judge needs to shut the case down for a lack of evidence. Zimmerman is fastly becoming the victim in this case.
Not likely. Maybe for a few reasons. One I hate to point out but can't help suspecting is that the judge knows which side her bread is buttered on. As in, she certainly must know the potential consequences to her professionally if she were to embarrass those powerful state officials who arranged to charge Zimmerman by acknowledging with any official action how weak the legal case against him really is.
I don't see your point. Why should she "shut the case down?" Many cases are decided on circumstantial evidence and/or eyewitness testimony. People watch shows like CSI too much which is probably one reason why Casey Anthony was found not guilty.
Casey Anthony was found not guilty because the evidence showed she was not guilty. She could not have physically done some of the things that the killer did to the little girl. I only saw a few minutes of the trial and I realized that. People just decide that someone is guilty and start ignoring the evidence. Cases are decided on evidence not what prejudiced people want them to find.
Goodness, are you trolling? Or do you really have no concept of self defense and firearm training for self defense?
Every, and I mean EVERY firearm course is teaches to shoot center of mass. All police, military, private courses, etc. There is not one single legitimate firearm course that does not teach to aim at the center of mass.
I was responding to the comment that "you don't know what Zimmerman's intent".... (firing the gun).
If Trayvon was on top of him then George put the gun directly in his chest. Thanks for confirming he shot with the intent to kill.
A quick Google search of "us police excessive force" shows that police routinely have problems understanding the law and its bounds.
. . .this tet-a-tet could go on . . .
Yes, it could, except that from my side, I don't plan on participating on and on and on. I will say that it actually is telling if you have to resort to YouTube videos to make your case against the police and their knowledge. Most likely, some videos actually show the police acting properly, in a way that looks improper to those not in the know.
In any case, there might seem to be a lot of such videos, but what percentage do they represent of the millions of interactions between LEOs and the public? Weak case. In any case, instead of YouTube videos, why not try looking up some info on the law and use of force and comparing them to my posts.
Hey, why are you jumping my case anyway? Even though I disagreed with that one fine point you made (then pretty much agreed when you elaborated in a subsequent post), if I recall your past posts correctly, I'm pretty sure you and I are basically in agreement about this case.
But even YOU have to admit that calling documented video evidence weak is not exactly going to win you any debates.
Just like DNA, audio/video trumps all. Which of course is why the police record as much as they can.
As to how many are documented? How many are reported successfully...
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.
Even though I disagreed with that one fine point you made (then pretty much agreed when you elaborated in a subsequent post), if I recall your past posts correctly, I'm pretty sure you and I are basically in agreement about this case.
