121
Post by: Relapse
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/03/newly-released-photo-shows-bloodied-george-zimmerman-from-night-trayvon-martin/
"A newly-released, graphic photo of George Zimmerman, taken the night of his fateful confrontation with Florida teen Trayvon Martin, shows the accused killer with a bloody face.
Zimmerman’s legal team released the photo, which they believe bolsters their case that Zimmerman, 29, was being beaten when he fatally shot the 17-year-old Martin in the chest. The photo was taken by police and only released to Zimmerman’s team recently, said Zimmerman’s lawyer. Previously, the team only had a black-and-white photocopy of the picture.
“That's really one of my frustrations. They originally submitted a black and white photo so we asked for a color copy. They then submitted a color photo copy that was drab," said Zimmerman's attorney Mark O'Mara to Foxnews.com.
"We kept asking for a digital copy and then we had to file a motion [in court] to have it submitted."
O'Mara says that the discovery phase has been rife with issues.
"It just seems like it's been pulling teeth for discovery in this case," he said.
Martin was killed Feb. 26, in a confrontation that sparked a national debate on race, guns and Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law, which states that people under attack do not have a duty to try to retreat before using deadly force.
Martin’s defenders say the youth was merely cutting through a gated community in Sanford, Fla., after picking up snacks during halftime of the NBA All-Star game when Zimmerman, a volunteer neighborhood watch captain, racially profiled him. Zimmerman claims the youth acted suspiciously, and attacked him, bashing his head against a sidewalk.
Zimmerman told investigators he grabbed his gun from a holster on his waist before Martin could get it, and shot the teenager once in the chest. A tape released by his lawyer shows two butterfly bandages on the back of Zimmerman's head and another on his nose.
Zimmerman’s lawyers said the photocopy of the image was provided by the prosecutors in the first round of discovery. The high-resolution digital file was finally provided to the defense on Oct. 29, and defense attorneys have said they will make all public documents related to the case available on their website.
Prosecutors had asked for the gag order, claiming a website and social media used by Zimmerman's attorney could influence potential jurors in the racially charged case.
On Monday, Zimmerman's defense team publicly released a motion, filed the same day, asking for the additional deposition of one of the lead investigators due to information that surfaced during his original interview on Nov. 19th.
Requests for comment to special prosecutor Angela Corey's office were not immediately returned."
I like the part about the prosecution asking for a gag order on anything in favor of Zimmerman's side of the case because they are worried it would influence a jury.
It's not like a president had anything public to say about the situation...
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Things are about to get ugly in FLA
34390
Post by: whembly
Why? It's old news... 
29110
Post by: AustonT
Because the trial is coming.
34390
Post by: whembly
 oh... duh.
Just saw his picture... dang, Zimmerman took a beating.
27987
Post by: Surtur
Relapse wrote:
I like the part about the prosecution asking for a gag order on anything in favor of Zimmerman's side of the case because they are worried it would influence a jury.
It's not like a president had anything public to say about the situation...
Defendants usually have a gaggle of things that cannot be brought into evidence or said in a case because it is deemed too prejudicial towards receiving a fair trial.
44290
Post by: LoneLictor
 whembly wrote:
oh... duh.
Just saw his picture... dang, Zimmerman took a beating.
You should see the other guy. The teenager going to get skittles than he stalked and then killed.
The whole controversy seems over, to me at least. The controversy was about the fact that the Police didn't arrest Zimmerman or charge him with anything. They heard this story about a kid getting stalked and then shot, and they barely even bothered to investigate it. Then the media picked the story, and then all of the sudden the Police decided to stop being idiots and charge Zimmerman. Most people decide to stop being idiots when they realize their under scrutiny.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Huh. That nose looks broken.
34390
Post by: whembly
 LoneLictor wrote: whembly wrote:
oh... duh.
Just saw his picture... dang, Zimmerman took a beating.
You should see the other guy. The teenager going to get skittles than he stalked and then killed.
You mean like Dexter Morgan?
The whole controversy seems over, to me at least. The controversy was about the fact that the Police didn't arrest Zimmerman or charge him with anything. They heard this story about a kid getting stalked and then shot, and they barely even bothered to investigate it. Then the media picked the story, and then all of the sudden the Police decided to stop being idiots and charge Zimmerman. Most people decide to stop being idiots when they realize their under scrutiny.
You don't know that...
He'll have is day in court.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Looking forward to the trial and to see this resolved. Will be interesting to see the strategy of both sides.
Nothing to discuss in this thread though, nothing new of value added to the discussion that was locked multiple times already.
5534
Post by: dogma
whembly wrote:
Just saw his picture... dang, Zimmerman took a beating.
That's not too bad, just a broken nose. It does, however, corroborate Zimmerman's account of events.
37231
Post by: d-usa
But it doesn't change the narative and questions:
1) who started the confrontation?
2) who was the first to make it physical?
3) did Martin have the right to stand his ground if he felt threatened?
4) can you legally defend yourself agains somebody that is legally defending themselves.
It's the same questions we argued about over and over again until the threads were locked, a bloody picture doesn't answer them.
34390
Post by: whembly
 d-usa wrote:But it doesn't change the narative and questions:
1) who started the confrontation?
2) who was the first to make it physical?
3) did Martin have the right to stand his ground if he felt threatened?
4) can you legally defend yourself agains somebody that is legally defending themselves.
It's the same questions we argued about over and over again until the threads were locked, a bloody picture doesn't answer them.
True...
That'll be addressed in court. I wonder if they'll allow cameras?
39768
Post by: Captain Fantastic
What's up with that picture? Almost looks like a facebook "in the car" photo. I'm assuming a lot here, but he genuinely looks like he thinks what he did was right, or that he was the victim.
I have no opinion on the matter one way or another, but things are going to shake up.
29110
Post by: AustonT
whembly wrote:
oh... duh.
Just saw his picture... dang, Zimmerman took a beating.
Honesty the picture of his face is of little concern. The back of his head is more concern, it's pretty easy to cave a skull in. Even by accident.
I still believe in my heart that Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood. I also believe now that there is enough doubt that he will be found not guilty. Much like OJ it's a far cry from innocent. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Captain Fantastic wrote:What's up with that picture? Almost looks like a facebook "in the car" photo. I'm assuming a lot here, but he genuinely looks like he thinks what he did was right, or that he was the victim.
I have no opinion on the matter one way or another, but things are going to shake up.
See the padded roll cage over his right shoulder. The picture was taken on the scene by one of the officers probably sitting in the back seat of a cruiser. Unless his truck had a roll cage...which I wouldn't put past him. He seems pretty whiskey tango to me.
121
Post by: Relapse
 Surtur wrote:Relapse wrote:
I like the part about the prosecution asking for a gag order on anything in favor of Zimmerman's side of the case because they are worried it would influence a jury.
It's not like a president had anything public to say about the situation...
Defendants usually have a gaggle of things that cannot be brought into evidence or said in a case because it is deemed too prejudicial towards receiving a fair trial.
You'd think someone with an education as a lawyer like Obama would have thought about that before his public comments on the case.
37231
Post by: d-usa
And you'd think all the politicians that are lawyers would learn to shut up about all kind of things that end up in court.
But congratulations in taking a picture of a bloody guy involved on a trial for murder and turning it into your weekly anti-Obama thread.
How will ObamaCare affect the verdict?
121
Post by: Relapse
d-usa wrote:And you'd think all the politicians that are lawyers would learn to shut up about all kind of things that end up in court.
But congratulations in taking a picture of a bloody guy involved on a trial for murder and turning it into your weekly anti-Obama thread.
How will ObamaCare affect the verdict?
No need to get your panties twisted because I point out the fact that Obama, Spike Lee, Al Sharpton and others get to say whatever they want publically against Zimmerman, but when Zimmerman tries to publically say something in his defense, he gets gagged.
The stated reason for the gag attempt? It might prejudice a jury? Give me a break.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Considering that you can usually only gag-order somebody involved in the actual trial, it's a dumb thing to argue about.
Unless the judge kept other famous people from saying anything in his defense.
29110
Post by: AustonT
d-usa wrote:And you'd think all the politicians that are lawyers would learn to shut up about all kind of things that end up in court.
But congratulations in taking a picture of a bloody guy involved on a trial for murder and turning it into your weekly anti-Obama thread.
How will ObamaCare affect the verdict?
Don't you dare derail this thread. I've been waiting for something with this kind of epic potential sans politics for months. The first three of these were the perfect gakstorms of the OT. So unless you bring something like OWS or Uc Davis to the table don't you even dream of ruining this!!!
37231
Post by: d-usa
Hey, I'm trying to kick the politics back out of this...
63000
Post by: Peregrine
d-usa wrote:But it doesn't change the narative and questions:
1) who started the confrontation?
2) who was the first to make it physical?
3) did Martin have the right to stand his ground if he felt threatened?
4) can you legally defend yourself agains somebody that is legally defending themselves.
It's the same questions we argued about over and over again until the threads were locked, a bloody picture doesn't answer them.
This. A picture of a bloody face just proves that at some point there was a fight and he got hit, it doesn't answer any of the questions that would determine whether he is guilty or not.
29110
Post by: AustonT
d-usa wrote:Hey, I'm trying to kick the politics back out of this...
Oh, then carry on good sir!
But seriously of you have something like the UC Davis thread...give.
37231
Post by: d-usa
No watering of hippies here...
16286
Post by: Necroshea
 Peregrine wrote: d-usa wrote:But it doesn't change the narative and questions:
1) who started the confrontation?
2) who was the first to make it physical?
3) did Martin have the right to stand his ground if he felt threatened?
4) can you legally defend yourself agains somebody that is legally defending themselves.
It's the same questions we argued about over and over again until the threads were locked, a bloody picture doesn't answer them.
This. A picture of a bloody face just proves that at some point there was a fight and he got hit, it doesn't answer any of the questions that would determine whether he is guilty or not.
Emphasis on the red bits. I'm wholly neutral on the event. I can see it happening both ways, most people can't or don't want to. I'm curious how it might escalate around the court house that day.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
I can't wait, I get the feeling all the grandstanding and hyperbole will overshadow even the recent elections. Maybe we'll even get a good old fashioned riot or three.
34390
Post by: whembly
 Bromsy wrote:I can't wait, I get the feeling all the grandstanding and hyperbole will overshadow even the recent elections. Maybe we'll even get a good old fashioned riot or three.
Well... flash mobs happened all over the place.
Stock up on some ammo.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Bromsy wrote:I can't wait, I get the feeling all the grandstanding and hyperbole will overshadow even the recent elections. Maybe we'll even get a good old fashioned riot or three.
Finally, a reason for all the microwave popcorn I bought. My funmeter is low...entertain me!
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Perhaps the moderators should put a gag order on this thread.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Moderators are always trying to gag us...
33125
Post by: Seaward
Peregrine wrote:
This. A picture of a bloody face just proves that at some point there was a fight and he got hit, it doesn't answer any of the questions that would determine whether he is guilty or not.
The polygraph he passed wherein he stated he did not confront Martin, Martin attacked him, and he believed he was going to die are certainly interesting corroborations, though.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Seaward wrote: Peregrine wrote: This. A picture of a bloody face just proves that at some point there was a fight and he got hit, it doesn't answer any of the questions that would determine whether he is guilty or not.
The polygraph he passed wherein he stated he did not confront Martin, Martin attacked him, and he believed he was going to die are certainly interesting corroborations, though.
There is a reason they are not admissible on court. And he was not given a polygraph test, they did a voice-stress analysis. Also he was never asked during the test if Martin attacked him. All it asked was "did you confront him". If he didn't think that what he did was confrontational he will pass it, but that doesn't mean that he was not confrontational. So your statement is entirely incorrect. He didn't pass a polygraph test that Martin attacked him. He passed a non-court admissable voice-stress test that shows that he doesn't think he confronted Martin. Pretty big difference, but lets just get this thing to trial instead of Internet lawyering it.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
For all the arguments about who started the confrontation, I can't help but think that Zimmerman was the one creeping about in the dark with a loaded gun. That's a man looking for trouble IMO. The court will have the full facts on which to make a decision though.
29110
Post by: AustonT
 Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps the moderators should put a gag order on this thread.
I will find you KK. I will find you and take away all of your porn and pictures of Japanese girls.
33125
Post by: Seaward
d-usa wrote:
There is a reason they are not admissible on court.
And he was not given a polygraph test, they did a voice-stress analysis.
By Jove, you're right. My mistake.
Also he was never asked during the test if Martin attacked him. All it asked was "did you confront him". If he didn't think that what he did was confrontational he will pass it, but that doesn't mean that he was not confrontational.
So your statement is entirely incorrect. He didn't pass a polygraph test that Martin attacked him. He passed a non-court admissable voice-stress test that shows that he doesn't think he confronted Martin. Pretty big difference, but lets just get this thing to trial instead of Internet lawyering it.
That's not all they asked, no. They also asked if Zimmerman was in fear for his life.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Which again is nowhere near the same question as "did he attack you".
33125
Post by: Seaward
d-usa wrote:Which again is nowhere near the same question as "did he attack you".
Nope, sure isn't. You were correct on that question, I was not.
I was just pointing out the "fear for your life?" question because it has relevance to why the police didn't immediately arrest him.
221
Post by: Frazzled
 Howard A Treesong wrote:For all the arguments about who started the confrontation, I can't help but think that Zimmerman was the one creeping about in the dark with a loaded gun. That's a man looking for trouble IMO. The court will have the full facts on which to make a decision though.
Or alternatively he was just the nighborhood watch guy, and has the absolute right to CC in Florida, which probably saved his live.
12313
Post by: Ouze
d-usa wrote:But congratulations in taking a picture of a bloody guy involved on a trial for murder and turning it into your weekly anti-Obama thread.
How will ObamaCare affect the verdict?
Exalted.
On-topic, I definitely was led astray by the media on this one, initially. I am especially ashamed of it because I'm really old enough to have known better. At this point I officially have no feelings about his guilt or innocence; although I do think it would have been best had he simply listened to the damn dispatcher.
37231
Post by: d-usa
 Ouze wrote: At this point I officially have no feelings about his guilt or innocence; although I do think it would have been best had he simply listened to the damn dispatcher.
Mostly the same here, although I am slightly leaning towards "he did something wrong". But I wanted a trial far more than a guilty verdict, and I am happy that it is heading that way and that we will be able to see the evidence and have this thing settled at some point.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote: d-usa wrote:But congratulations in taking a picture of a bloody guy involved on a trial for murder and turning it into your weekly anti-Obama thread.
How will ObamaCare affect the verdict?
Exalted.
On-topic, I definitely was led astray by the media on this one, initially. I am especially ashamed of it because I'm really old enough to have known better. At this point I officially have no feelings about his guilt or innocence; although I do think it would have been best had he simply listened to the damn dispatcher.
There's no proof he didn't actually.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I forgot, what did the Dispatcher tell him to do?
Wait for the cops to show up?
38934
Post by: aosol
 Easy E wrote:I forgot, what did the Dispatcher tell him to do?
Wait for the cops to show up?
What did Zimmerman say afterwards?
37231
Post by: d-usa
 aosol wrote: Easy E wrote:I forgot, what did the Dispatcher tell him to do?
Wait for the cops to show up?
What did Zimmerman say afterwards?
If this is in reference to a racial slur, then I am fairly certain that's been shown to be false.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I can't imagine why the defense team would release the photos to the public so close to the trial.
221
Post by: Frazzled
aosol wrote: Easy E wrote:I forgot, what did the Dispatcher tell him to do?
Wait for the cops to show up?
What did Zimmerman say afterwards?
AAYYYYYYYYYYYY
AYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
AYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
or before that?
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
While I'm sure its not the racially motivated crime everyone thought it was, I still doupt the complete innocence of Zimmerman, He seems like a nutcase.
But really, The kid did something stupid, we went out at night in a black hoodie, cut through a gated community(why are they gated? so people they dont know and trust arent allowed in) all for tea and skittles? The kid should have known he would have been suspicious walking through a gated community at night in a hoodie.
And Zimmerman should have just called the police and let them come.
37790
Post by: Hlaine Larkin mk2
 hotsauceman1 wrote:While I'm sure its not the racially motivated crime everyone thought it was, I still doupt the complete innocence of Zimmerman, He seems like a nutcase.
But really, The kid did something stupid, we went out at night in a black hoodie, cut through a gated community(why are they gated? so people they dont know and trust arent allowed in) all for tea and skittles? The kid should have known he would have been suspicious walking through a gated community at night in a hoodie.
And Zimmerman should have just called the police and let them come.
From what I understand he was staying in the gated with his father not "Cutting through it"
He wasn't recognised because he normally lived with his mum
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Well that change is a bit, but fromm what i understand it was late at night, at an hour when no one should be walking around.
12313
Post by: Ouze
hotsauceman1 wrote:Well that change is a bit, but fromm what i understand it was late at night, at an hour when no one should be walking around.
Indeed, his death wasn't tragic at all when you look at it that way. All rather expected, really.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Wait someone blamed the victim?
I'm shocked.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Whatever are these fora coming to.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Not blaming the victim. Just saying that he made himself a target by doing something stupid.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Which part was stupid. Buying snacks? Walking? Or was it being black?
241
Post by: Ahtman
 AustonT wrote:Which part was stupid. Buying snacks? Walking? Or was it being black?
It was the hoodie, of course.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Walking through a neighborhood at night in a hoodie. There are things you can do to not make yourself a victim, and that is not its.
29110
Post by: AustonT
That's funny I wear hoodie and walk all the time. Should I start wearing my vest under it. Since now I know I should expect to be stalked and shot at anytime.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Do you wear it late at night at a time when no one should be walking the street?
37790
Post by: Hlaine Larkin mk2
By that logic why was Zimmerman?
12313
Post by: Ouze
hotsauceman1 wrote:Do you wear it late at night at a time when no one should be walking the street?
What are the approved hours for walking the street? I work third shift, should I expect to be shot while walking to or from my car?
Also, I wear a hoodie as well, so I guess my eventual shooting would prove entirely warranted.
19370
Post by: daedalus
hotsauceman1 wrote:Do you wear it late at night at a time when no one should be walking the street?
To be fair, I must have forgotten about the legally enforced curfew and that they roll up the streets at 9pm sharp.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Typically, In a suburban neighborhood you do not want to walk the street late at night. I know its like that around here, if you are out and about past 11 or so you can get the cops called on you.
12313
Post by: Ouze
hotsauceman1 wrote: I know its like that around here, if you are out and about past 11 or so you can get the cops called on you.
Or just plain shot, which you would find to be completely understandable.
Listen, I'm not calling you a clown, but you're making a clown argument. You have found yourself in a hole. You should stop digging.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Maybe I am.
Im getting my ladder and going.
19370
Post by: daedalus
I guess so. I've taken midnight walks back when I lived in suburbia (probably in dark clothing as well) and I was unharassed, but to each their own.
Honestly, I'd probably have been utterly blown away if the the cops DID show up. I genuinely don't consider it suspicious, and can think of many valid reasons to be awake at that time of the night.
5394
Post by: reds8n
hotsauceman1 wrote:Well that change is a bit, but fromm what i understand it was late at night, at an hour when no one should be walking around.
Land of the Free.
Opening hours 9;00-17;30, 9:00 - 12;30 on Wednesdays.
.. A quick bit of googling/wikipedia suggests the shooting took place at 19;09 (EST).
That doesn't strike me as being terribly late, although for all I know it might get dark real early over there and you're all tucked up in bed by 18;30, which explains why there's no late night entertainment whatsoever in the USA.
29110
Post by: AustonT
hotsauceman1 wrote:Do you wear it late at night at a time when no one should be walking the street?
At the ripe old hour of 7? Frequently.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Zimmerman was a self-appointed watchdog in a gated community. You may not agree that is a necessary thing to do, but its what was being done and really isn't relevant to the case.
Now Trayvon was a stranger to the area. If a stranger is seen walking around late at night in a gated community, especially wearing what he was, I would be suspicious.
We may never know exactly what happened in the confrontation, but its clear that Trayvon and Zimmerman fought.
The evidence doesn't show that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and gunned him down in cold blood.
My guess is that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, who responded in a hostile manner and probably threatened him. Which prompted the call to the police.
Then the scuffle happened, in which Zimmerman got beaten pretty badly and shot Trayvon as defense.
We should also keep in mind the photos of Trayvon getting shown on the media were taken several years before this incident, so he looks like some innocent little teenager. Not a big tough guy.
And frankly race is the only thing thats keeping this case in the media, its disgusting. If Trayvon had been a white guy the media would have been on Zimmermans side, after all then he would be the minority.
29110
Post by: AustonT
The evidence doesn't show that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and gunned him down in cold blood.
Evidence be damned! I think GZ confronted TM with every intention of starting a fight to justify shooting him to bring fulfillment to his hero complex.
5534
Post by: dogma
 Grey Templar wrote:
Then the scuffle happened, in which Zimmerman got beaten pretty badly and shot Trayvon as defense.
Zimmerman was not "beaten pretty badly", a broken nose and a few lacerations on the back of his head are not indicative of malice on the part of the assailant.
26697
Post by: Lt. Coldfire
 dogma wrote: Grey Templar wrote:
Then the scuffle happened, in which Zimmerman got beaten pretty badly and shot Trayvon as defense.
Zimmerman was not "beaten pretty badly", a broken nose and a few lacerations on the back of his head are not indicative of malice on the part of the assailant.
Hmm, well I think it depends on the ferocity of the attacker. What do you do, wait until you're knocked unconscious to start fighting back?
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Lacerations to the back of the head are serious wounds, you can easily get killed by blows to that area.
29110
Post by: AustonT
dogma wrote: Grey Templar wrote:
Then the scuffle happened, in which Zimmerman got beaten pretty badly and shot Trayvon as defense.
Zimmerman was not "beaten pretty badly", a broken nose and a few lacerations on the back of his head are not indicative of malice on the part of the assailant.
Those cuts on the back of his dome are his tickets to freedom.
37231
Post by: d-usa
The wounds we see could easily be caused by a single punch. I am also worried that 7pm is late at night. I know Florida is full of old people, but still...
12313
Post by: Ouze
dogma wrote:Zimmerman was not "beaten pretty badly", a broken nose and a few lacerations on the back of his head are not indicative of malice on the part of the assailant.
I dunno, as a lay person I'd consider a broken nose to be in the "fairly good ass beating" territory.. Do they stop boxing matches if someone breaks a nose? Honest question, I have no idea.
5534
Post by: dogma
Ouze wrote:
I dunno, as a lay person I'd consider a broken nose to be in the "fairly good ass beating" territory.. Do they stop boxing matches if someone breaks a nose? Honest question, I have no idea.
No idea, but I once swallowed lots of blood in order to win a wrestling match in the wake of a broken nose.
I would assume "No." as this guy:
has a face.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
My opinion:
This is in the media due to race. The media intentionally misled the local and national population by misrepresenting the age and build of Travon as well as the way they reported the 911 call.
The picture combined with the photos and reports of the lacerations on the back of his head means he'll walk.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Grey Templar wrote:Now Trayvon was a stranger to the area. If a stranger is seen walking around late at night in a gated community, especially wearing what he was, I would be suspicious.
And the solution to that suspicion is to call the police, not to go provoke a confrontation. Unless there was something beyond "looking suspicious" to give credible evidence that a crime was about to occur, Zimmerman was not justified in doing anything. The fact that he appointed himself the neighborhood vigilante doesn't change this one bit.
My guess is that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, who responded in a hostile manner and probably threatened him. Which prompted the call to the police.
Why do we assume that Zimmerman is innocent? IMO, given his behavior before the fight, it's more likely that he approached the "suspicious" stranger already convinced that he was up to something and needed to be stopped, and stopped him in a confrontational manner. Rude words were probably exchanged (would you be polite to someone who stopped you out of nowhere and demanded to know what you were doing?), and maybe Zimmerman grabbed him to prevent him from walking away, Martin threw a punch in response, and the whole thing escalated from there.
I don't know about you, but I think that's a lot more plausible than a situation where Zimmerman is just an innocent victim who was attacked for no reason.
Then the scuffle happened, in which Zimmerman got beaten pretty badly and shot Trayvon as defense.
It isn't self defense if you're the one who started the fight in the first place.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
 Frazzled wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote:For all the arguments about who started the confrontation, I can't help but think that Zimmerman was the one creeping about in the dark with a loaded gun. That's a man looking for trouble IMO. The court will have the full facts on which to make a decision though.
Or alternatively he was just the nighborhood watch guy, and has the absolute right to CC in Florida, which probably saved his live.
From what I recall he wasn't with any official neighbourhood watch scheme, he was doing it on his own with a gun. Out of interest, where do you draw the line before its just vigilantism?
34390
Post by: whembly
First of all, we don't know what happened.
Zimmerman will have is day in court.
My gut reaction is that Zimmerman was all "neighborhood watch mode" and aggressively pursued Trayvon. And Trayvon reacted aggressively to Zimmerman. An unfortunate brawl ensued that unfortunately took Trayvon's life.
A Fubar situation all over.. but, that's "my gut" talking...
So.. let's all calm down and have some pie! 
26697
Post by: Lt. Coldfire
Howard A Treesong wrote: Frazzled wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote:For all the arguments about who started the confrontation, I can't help but think that Zimmerman was the one creeping about in the dark with a loaded gun. That's a man looking for trouble IMO. The court will have the full facts on which to make a decision though.
Or alternatively he was just the nighborhood watch guy, and has the absolute right to CC in Florida, which probably saved his live.
From what I recall he wasn't with any official neighbourhood watch scheme, he was doing it on his own with a gun. Out of interest, where do you draw the line before its just vigilantism?
Wikipedia has this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
"In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program's coordinator, according to Wendy Dorival, Neighborhood Watch organizer for the Sanford Police Department.[5][92] Zimmerman "once caught a thief and an arrest was made...He helped solve a lot of crimes," said Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association."
16286
Post by: Necroshea
whembly wrote:First of all, we don't know what happened.
Zimmerman will have is day in court.
My gut reaction is that Zimmerman was all "neighborhood watch mode" and aggressively pursued Trayvon. And Trayvon reacted aggressively to Zimmerman. An unfortunate brawl ensued that unfortunately took Trayvon's life.
A Fubar situation all over.. but, that's "my gut" talking...
So.. let's all calm down and have some pie!
A very sensible gut feeling that very few seem to share sadly
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
 Lt. Coldfire wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote: Frazzled wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote:For all the arguments about who started the confrontation, I can't help but think that Zimmerman was the one creeping about in the dark with a loaded gun. That's a man looking for trouble IMO. The court will have the full facts on which to make a decision though.
Or alternatively he was just the nighborhood watch guy, and has the absolute right to CC in Florida, which probably saved his live.
From what I recall he wasn't with any official neighbourhood watch scheme, he was doing it on his own with a gun. Out of interest, where do you draw the line before its just vigilantism?
Wikipedia has this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
"In September 2011, the Twin Lakes residents held an organizational meeting to create a neighborhood watch program. Zimmerman was selected by neighbors as the program's coordinator, according to Wendy Dorival, Neighborhood Watch organizer for the Sanford Police Department.[5][92] Zimmerman "once caught a thief and an arrest was made...He helped solve a lot of crimes," said Cynthia Wibker, secretary of the homeowners association."
http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/
Seems disagreement on this point, you can understand the confusion here as to how legitimate his neighbourhood watch status is.
26697
Post by: Lt. Coldfire
Howard A Treesong wrote:http://thegrio.com/2012/03/21/zimmerman-not-a-member-of-recognized-neighborhood-watch-organization/
Seems disagreement on this point, you can understand the confusion here as to how legitimate his neighbourhood watch status is.
We can article point all day. There's plenty that say he was part of one and plenty that say he wasn't part of one. I just linked that article as it seemed you had already made your decision. I say wait for the facts.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Even if it was a legit neighborhood watch, and he was a legit member, I can imagine that they might be trying to paint him away as not being a member. So statements for either position are going to be easy to find I would think.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Prosecution going to crucify him and make him Juda. Defense going to make him a golden child.
37231
Post by: d-usa
He's gonna plead out and nobody on either side is going to have any fun on here
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
"Innocent until proven guilty" perhaps?
Its kinda the main deal of our modern legal system.
It could just as likely have been as Whembly described.
Why are you automatically assuming he's guilty? Especially when the physical evidence is quite strong for the opposite.
He's not going to go to jail, but thanks to the Media he's pretty much had his life ruined because he was doing what he thought was right.
33125
Post by: Seaward
d-usa wrote:He's gonna plead out and nobody on either side is going to have any fun on here
I doubt that very much.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Not when you're pleading self defense.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
If it was done in self-defense, then he is innocent of wrong doing.
34390
Post by: whembly
He's being charged with 2nd degree murder... right?
So why wouldn't he be innocent until proven guilty? Aint you a lawyer? <--- serious question.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I too am interested in this explaination. Does the law remove the "Innocent until proven Guilty" mode if you plead a certain way?
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Grey Templar wrote:I too am interested in this explaination. Does the law remove the "Innocent until proven Guilty" mode if you plead a certain way?
Pleading self defense means that you say "I did it, but I had a good reason for it". You admit your guilt, but claim that there are circumstances which should allow you to go free. Once you make that plea the burden of proof is on you to justify that it really was self defense and not murder.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Which is still way different from a guilty plea.
34390
Post by: whembly
Peregrine wrote: Grey Templar wrote:I too am interested in this explaination. Does the law remove the "Innocent until proven Guilty" mode if you plead a certain way?
Pleading self defense means that you say "I did it, but I had a good reason for it". You admit your guilt, but claim that there are circumstances which should allow you to go free. Once you make that plea the burden of proof is on you to justify that it really was self defense and not murder.
Are you sure?
Do you have citations? My google-fu ain't working... wiki didn't satisfy on this either... o.O
63000
Post by: Peregrine
whembly wrote:Do you have citations? My google-fu ain't working... wiki didn't satisfy on this either... o.O
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
Because an affirmative defense requires an assertion of facts beyond those claimed by the plaintiff, generally the party who offers an affirmative defense bears the burden of proof.[6]
34390
Post by: whembly
aha... thanks brother! "Affermative Defense.
EDIT: I'd be curious what the law is in the state of Florida... (doing research).
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
I do believe the Prosecution still has to prove you are guilty, and IIRC Self-defense can be ruled based on evidence alone. IE: a defendent could be completely gagmouthed during the whole affair, never enter a plea, and have the case be ruled self-defense.
I could be wrong on that though.
241
Post by: Ahtman
I'm a bit rusty, but I believe Self Defense is an Affirmative Defense, so that actually would have to be offered up, as opposed to just a standard Not Guilty in which the defendant (or his attorney) wouldn't have to say anything.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Grey Templar wrote:I do believe the Prosecution still has to prove you are guilty, and IIRC Self-defense can be ruled based on evidence alone. IE: a defendent could be completely gagmouthed during the whole affair, never enter a plea, and have the case be ruled self-defense.
Maybe in that rare case it could, but this is just a conventional case: the defendant admits that they did it, but attempts to justify it. If they fail to meet the burden of proof of their affirmative defense, their "yes I did it" plea is proof of guilt just like any other (legitimate) confession would be.
37231
Post by: d-usa
You mean it's not like a "who's on first" routine?
"You'r honor, I didn't do it. But if I, it would have been because I was scared. Not that I'm saying I did it, just that I would have done it for a good reason if I did...."
5534
Post by: dogma
Lt. Coldfire wrote:
Hmm, well I think it depends on the ferocity of the attacker. What do you do, wait until you're knocked unconscious to start fighting back?
If one is not conscious, one cannot fight back.
514
Post by: Orlanth
LoneLictor wrote: whembly wrote:
oh... duh.
Just saw his picture... dang, Zimmerman took a beating.
You should see the other guy. The teenager going to get skittles than he stalked and then killed.
The whole controversy seems over, to me at least. The controversy was about the fact that the Police didn't arrest Zimmerman or charge him with anything. They heard this story about a kid getting stalked and then shot, and they barely even bothered to investigate it. Then the media picked the story, and then all of the sudden the Police decided to stop being idiots and charge Zimmerman. Most people decide to stop being idiots when they realize their under scrutiny.
You forget to used the word 'allegedly' in the above.
Zimmerman gets his fair trial, perhaps this kid was just out for skittles and was unfortunate to run into a trigger happy bigoot. Perhaps he was out looking for trouble and ran into a trigger happy panicy type.
We shouldnt jump to conclusions,
29110
Post by: AustonT
whembly wrote:
aha... thanks brother! "Affermative Defense.
EDIT: I'd be curious what the law is in the state of Florida... (doing research).
The burden of proof lies solely on the state. Corey’s office will have the burden of proving that Zimmerman did not have reasonable cause to believe that his life was in danger. Just like any other case the defense just has to punch holes in her case.
26697
Post by: Lt. Coldfire
dogma wrote: Lt. Coldfire wrote:
Hmm, well I think it depends on the ferocity of the attacker. What do you do, wait until you're knocked unconscious to start fighting back?
If one is not conscious, one cannot fight back.
Well yes, I was implying that. I think my point is pretty clear now
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
He'll walk whatever the facts IMO. Unless theres stong evidence I've not heard about, it's largely his word against a dead man, you'll never prove he didn't feel threatened and the law allows for self defence. I suppose given that he had a gun and the boy was unarmed then you could argue his use of force was disproportionate but I don't think that's enough for a second degree murder charge.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Can the judge or jury consider other charges and reduce them down to manslaughter or anything like that?
I think going for a murder charge appeased the crowds, but makes it more likely he will be found not-guilty.
33125
Post by: Seaward
d-usa wrote:Can the judge or jury consider other charges and reduce them down to manslaughter or anything like that?
I think going for a murder charge appeased the crowds, but makes it more likely he will be found not-guilty.
I don't know. That's a good question, actually, because a lot of casewatchers have suggested the prosecution blew its chances of conviction when they rolled out the second degree murder charge.
37790
Post by: Hlaine Larkin mk2
d-usa wrote:Can the judge or jury consider other charges and reduce them down to manslaughter or anything like that?
I think going for a murder charge appeased the crowds, but makes it more likely he will be found not-guilty.
That could be a pint, I once heard an attorney say the reason they like the death penalty is not as a punishment but as a threat which they can then bring down to a lower charge on a with the accused bargain
12313
Post by: Ouze
Seaward wrote:I don't know. That's a good question, actually, because a lot of casewatchers have suggested the prosecution blew its chances of conviction when they rolled out the second degree murder charge.
Yes, this is allowable in Florida. cut to page 676. If you'd prefer plain english, here is an analysis.
241
Post by: Ahtman
AustonT wrote:The burden of proof lies solely on the state. Corey’s office will have the burden of proving that Zimmerman did not have reasonable cause to believe that his life was in danger. Just like any other case the defense just has to punch holes in her case.
With an Affirmative Defense the defense also has a burden to prove their claim; if you claim self-defense you have to back up that argument. If they are going that route the Prosecutor has to prove it meets all the elements of Second Degree Murder while the defense has to prove that he isn't guilty because he was legally defending himself. If they chose to just go with "not guilty" they could just sit on their hands and then just say that the Prosecutor didn't make his case.
29110
Post by: AustonT
 Ahtman wrote: AustonT wrote:The burden of proof lies solely on the state. Corey’s office will have the burden of proving that Zimmerman did not have reasonable cause to believe that his life was in danger. Just like any other case the defense just has to punch holes in her case.
With an Affirmative Defense the defense also has a burden to prove their claim; if you claim self-defense you have to back up that argument. If they are going that route the Prosecutor has to prove it meets all the elements of Second Degree Murder while the defense has to prove that he isn't guilty because he was legally defending himself. If they chose to just go with "not guilty" they could just sit on their hands and then just say that the Prosecutor didn't make his case.
Does that apply universally?
Karin Moore, who is one of the assistant professors of law at Florida A&M University, says that the law “puts a tremendous burden on the state to prove that it wasn’t self-defense.” From the evidence that we have seen in the public, this is going to be next to impossible to do.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Well in order for it to be murder it can't have been self-defense, so you do have to prove that it was not done in self-defense to get it to be murder.
Especially in this case where the evidence does support the accused's testimony.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Ahtman wrote: AustonT wrote:The burden of proof lies solely on the state. Corey’s office will have the burden of proving that Zimmerman did not have reasonable cause to believe that his life was in danger. Just like any other case the defense just has to punch holes in her case.
With an Affirmative Defense the defense also has a burden to prove their claim; if you claim self-defense you have to back up that argument. If they are going that route the Prosecutor has to prove it meets all the elements of Second Degree Murder while the defense has to prove that he isn't guilty because he was legally defending himself. If they chose to just go with "not guilty" they could just sit on their hands and then just say that the Prosecutor didn't make his case.
The Defense has almost no burden at all to prove their claim to receive a jury instruction for self defense. Emphasis added, even his own testimony is enough
Vila v State of Florida wrote: Vila v. State (2011):
According to Vila's testimony, the victim attacked him first, and he responded in order to defend himself against that attack. The State contends that Vila was not entitled to the instruction because the evidence that he presented was minimal and self-serving. This argument lacks merit as a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if there is any evidence to support his defense. Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(holding that defendant is entitled to jury instruction on his theory of case if there is any evidence to support it, no matter how flimsy that evidence might be)
Which was summed up by someone else and stolen by me: Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof. The state must disprove self-defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
all of which is blatantly lifted from this site.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/24/122557/873
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
AustonT wrote:Grey Templar wrote:
Especially in this case where the evidence does support the accused's testimony.
That's an interesting tack, as most of what I have seen reported indicates that the more evidence is produced the more it reenforces Zimmerman's narrative.
Isn't that what I said?
29110
Post by: AustonT
I have no idea why but I repeatedly read "doesn't" Like I read it, closed the thread came back, read it again, quoted, read it again...
I must really not like you. 
My bad that's exactly what you said.
34390
Post by: whembly
Grey Templar wrote: AustonT wrote:Grey Templar wrote:
Especially in this case where the evidence does support the accused's testimony.
That's an interesting tack, as most of what I have seen reported indicates that the more evidence is produced the more it reenforces Zimmerman's narrative.
Isn't that what I said?
LOL... you two are going the same direction, but on different wavelengths.
20243
Post by: Grey Templar
Must be 
63000
Post by: Peregrine
AustonT wrote:The Defense has almost no burden at all to prove their claim to receive a jury instruction for self defense. Emphasis added, even his own testimony is enough
Vila v State of Florida wrote: Vila v. State (2011):
According to Vila's testimony, the victim attacked him first, and he responded in order to defend himself against that attack. The State contends that Vila was not entitled to the instruction because the evidence that he presented was minimal and self-serving. This argument lacks merit as a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if there is any evidence to support his defense. Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(holding that defendant is entitled to jury instruction on his theory of case if there is any evidence to support it, no matter how flimsy that evidence might be)
Which was summed up by someone else and stolen by me: Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof. The state must disprove self-defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
all of which is blatantly lifted from this site.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/24/122557/873
That's just talking about jury instructions, not burdens of proof. IOW, the case only says that if the defendant makes a claim of self defense the judge must inform the jury that self defense can be a valid reason for a "not guitly" verdict and explain how it works. The judge isn't allowed to just arbitrarily declare that the self defense justification wasn't good enough and deny it, that's the jury's job. However, that does NOT mean that even the flimsiest claim of self defense is a successful justification. It just means that the judge is obligated to say something like:
"The defense has offered a claim of self defense. If you feel that the defense has met the required burden of proof, you may find the defendant not guilty by reason of self defense".
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
I honestly feel like the prosecutors over charged Zimmerman, if they'd gone for Manslaughter instead of 2nd Degree Murder, they probably could have made a case that would stick. Zimmerman's got a pretty solid chance of walking whether he was in the right or in the wrong, and if y'all thought the fuss after Casey Anthony walked was bad...
241
Post by: Ahtman
AustonT wrote:Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof.
He still has the burden of offering up some evidence; nowhere did I state that the weight of the burden was equal for both sides. He can't just claim self defense and enter no evidence whatsoever to back it up. As you even state here, he has to enter something to back it up, even if it is 'flimsy'.
34390
Post by: whembly
Zimmerman's lawyer is suing NBC:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2012/12/06/george-zimmerman-sues-nbc-over-trayvon-martin-reports/
Lawyers for George Zimmerman filed suit today against NBC Universal Media over a well-publicized editing error that portrayed their client in racist terms in his pursuit of Trayvon Martin on a drizzly evening in February.
“NBC saw the death of Trayvon Martin not as a tragedy but as an opportunity to increase ratings, and so to set about the myth that George Zimmerman was a racist and predatory villain,” states the civil complaint in its opening salvo against NBC.
(Also at The Washington Post: Can Zimmerman prevail against NBC?)
NBC’s editing of the 911 audiotape in the Martin case became a public fixation after the media-monitoring Web site NewsBusters.org noted editing oddities on a “Today” show broadcast March 27. Here’s how NBC News portrayed the audiotape:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
The full tape went like this:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Zimmerman thus didn’t volunteer a racial profile of Martin; he was asked to provide it, a point that the lawsuit makes in colorful fashion: “NBC created this false and defamatory misimpression using the oldest form of yellow journalism: manipulating Zimmerman’s own words, splicing together disparate parts of the recording to create illusions of statements that Zimmerman never actually made.”
The suit against NBC alleges four other instances in which NBC-produced shows aired false and defamatory versions of the same events. Zimmerman faces a second-degree murder charge in the case.
The botched edits, charges the suit, were far from innocent mistakes: “Defendants pounced on the Zimmerman/Martin matter because they knew this tragedy could be, with proper sensationalizing and manipulation, a racial powderkeg that would result in months, if not years, of topics for their failing news programs, particularly the plummeting ratings for their ailing “Today Show” as well as for the individual defendants to “make their mark” for reporting a [manipulated] story such as this.” Individual defendants are Lilia Luciano and Jeff Burnside, NBC employees involved in early cases of Zimmerman mis-editing.
Following a public uproar over the tape-doctoring, NBC News issued a statement on the matter saying this: “During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.”
Such contrition didn’t impress the Zimmerman camp. “Only after the defendants’ malicious acts were uncovered and exposed by other media outlets … did defendant NBC ‘apologize’ and terminate some of those in its employ responsible for the yellow journalism identified in this Complaint.” Zimmerman himself never received an apology from the defendants, according to the suit.
The suit doesn’t specify a dollar amount of damages that Zimmerman is seeking. “That’s showmanship,” says James Beasley, the Philadelphia-based lawyer representing Zimmerman in the suit.
Beasley declined to comment on whether he’d already had any discussions with NBC. “I don’t want to talk about that. I can’t talk about that. But let’s just say I don’t think it’s going to get settled.”
On that question, at least, Beasley and NBC appear to agree. When asked about the complaint, NBC Universal issued this statement: “We strongly disagree with the accusations made in the complaint. There was no intent to portray Mr. Zimmerman unfairly. We intend to vigorously defend our position in court.”
I thought you couldn't sue anybody if you're a defendent on the current case?
29110
Post by: AustonT
If that were true how would all those people on judge Judy counter sue?
This has kind of been a long time coming for NBC. They are probably going to pay GZ's legal bills.
34390
Post by: whembly
AustonT wrote:If that were true how would all those people on judge Judy counter sue?
LOL... okay... didn't know that as I don't watch Judge Judy.
This has kind of been a long time coming for NBC. They are probably going to pay GZ's legal bills.
Eh... isn't it difficult to sue for libel/slander? Isn't that what this is?
29110
Post by: AustonT
Defamation is the suit I believe.
34390
Post by: whembly
I guess that's not the same thing eh? (goes to work on my google-fu)
33125
Post by: Seaward
Good. Drek like this is getting ridiculous. Present the goddamn story, quit crafting a narrative using bits and pieces of it that grab the most attention, strung together in the most salacious manner possible.
Even William Randolph Hearst would be advising cable news to dial it down a bit.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Remember David Jewel...he made serious bank
29110
Post by: AustonT
Findlaw seems to think he has a pretty strong case. As long as he can demonstrate damage. And methinks his current criminal case, called for specifically by NBC on more than one occasion, will provide ample evidence. Plus you know the death threats from the NBP and others.
36184
Post by: Alfndrate
I'm not sure when evidence started surfacing as opposed to when Zimmerman was charged, but what if the prosecutor sees this as a whole giant thing blown way out of proportion due to the media making a huge deal out of this, and charged him with Murder 2, knowing that it probably wouldn't stick.
*tin foil hat on*
The government man...
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Don't forget Obama mentioning the case to
37231
Post by: d-usa
We all talked about the case as well, maybe Yakface will get a letter...
29110
Post by: AustonT
Something something 1996 law something something.
He's immune.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ouze wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Well that change is a bit, but fromm what i understand it was late at night, at an hour when no one should be walking around.
Indeed, his death wasn't tragic at all when you look at it that way. All rather expected, really.
Walking in the rain?
He confronted Zimmerman. Zimmerman's injuries support his argument.
Its simple math. Try to attack a guy who's carrying and life may not turn out well. Automatically Appended Next Post: AustonT wrote:Which part was stupid. Buying snacks? Walking? Or was it being black?
How about attempting to kill someone with his bare hands? Thats usually pretty stupid. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ouze wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Do you wear it late at night at a time when no one should be walking the street?
What are the approved hours for walking the street? I work third shift, should I expect to be shot while walking to or from my car?
Also, I wear a hoodie as well, so I guess my eventual shooting would prove entirely warranted.
If you think someone is following you do you attempt to ambush and kill them?
37231
Post by: d-usa
Frazzled wrote:
If you think someone is following you do you attempt to ambush and kill them?
So you advocate not confronting people that might be following you, but you are okay with shooting people that are leaving if they are on your property?
221
Post by: Frazzled
d-usa wrote: Frazzled wrote: If you think someone is following you do you attempt to ambush and kill them?
So you advocate not confronting people that might be following you, but you are okay with shooting people that are leaving if they are on your property?
If someone is following you I advocate getting to a safe place and calling authorities. That also happens to be EXACTLY what the police recommend you do. Anything else is stupid and could get you killed. Oh look... I didn't advocate any such thing. It helps to0 actually read the posts and not paraphrase what you think and pass it off as someone else's statement. I noted a possible scenario about how a robber who flees but it still in the yard might not make it.
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
AustonT wrote:Findlaw seems to think he has a pretty strong case. As long as he can demonstrate damage. And methinks his current criminal case, called for specifically by NBC on more than one occasion, will provide ample evidence. Plus you know the death threats from the NBP and others.
Yep I think this one's an easy win for George. Now if only we could, as a society, do something about the plague on humanity that is Nancy Grace.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Nancy Grace isnt all bad. Much like most other people she has good and bad points. I'm sure she doesn't strangle puppies. she eats them alive
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
AustonT wrote:Nancy Grace isnt all bad. Much like most other people she has good and bad points. I'm sure she doesn't strangle puppies. she eats them alive
The whimpering adds to the flavor
23
Post by: djones520
Ahtman wrote: AustonT wrote:Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof.
He still has the burden of offering up some evidence; nowhere did I state that the weight of the burden was equal for both sides. He can't just claim self defense and enter no evidence whatsoever to back it up. As you even state here, he has to enter something to back it up, even if it is 'flimsy'.
I'd say this photo along with all the other proof of significant injury that he incurred is all the evidence that he needs.
If this where second degree murder he wouldn't have waited for Martin to smash his head into concrete several times before pulling the gun on him.
12313
Post by: Ouze
AustonT wrote:If that were true how would all those people on judge Judy counter sue?
This has kind of been a long time coming for NBC. They are probably going to pay GZ's legal bills.
Judge Judy is actually binding arbitration dressed up to look like an actual court.
So far as GZ suing NBC; I wish him the best of luck. I think he has a very solid suit and I think he can prove malice.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Ouze wrote: AustonT wrote:If that were true how would all those people on judge Judy counter sue?
This has kind of been a long time coming for NBC. They are probably going to pay GZ's legal bills.
Judge Judy is actually binding arbitration dressed up to look like an actual court.
So far as GZ suing NBC; I wish him the best of luck. I think he has a very solid suit and I think he can prove malice.
They were real suits before they signed a contract. The point remains that civil countersuits are common and that defendants frequently sue people, which is what I was answering with a public example.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
I'm not sure why being involved in a case is even relevant here. Since when do you give up your right to sue someone for maliciously attributing false quotes to you just because they're "reporting" on a criminal case you are part of? The act in question isn't part of the case (unlike, for example, suing a witness for giving testimony against you), and it would be a pretty screwed up legal system if you were free to commit libel against any defendant you want without any fear of consequences.
Also, if you want the real proof, just look at how news coverage of a case always refers to "the alleged murderer" even when the person was caught with the murder weapon in their hands standing over their dying victim, and shot a dozen police officers before they were finally captured. You know why? Because if they don't they can get sued.
|
|
