Because, why not have another Zimmerman thread. Every other thread gets Zimmermanded anyway.

It's over! Zimmerman's wife files for divorce

Less than two months after her husband, George Zimmerman, was found not guilty in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, Shellie Zimmerman is filing for divorce.

Kelly Sims, Shellie Zimmerman's attorney, confirmed to CNN that documents were filed Thursday afternoon in Florida's Seminole County Courthouse.

George Zimmerman's brother, Robert Zimmerman Jr, also tweeted the news.

Last week, Shellie Zimmerman made an appearance on Good Morning America and said her marriage was "in jeopardy."

She said she would "have to think about" staying in the marriage, and expressed guilt and regret regarding her actions following Martin's death in February 2012. She recently pleaded guilty to perjury for lying about the state of her family's finances during a bond hearing in April 2012. She had claimed she and her husband were broke, when in reality they had collected about $135,000 in donations.

"I can rationalize a lot of reasons for why I was misleading, but the truth is I knew I was lying,” Shellie Zimmerman told ABC. “I wish a lot things were different. I can’t tell you how many times I have laid at night saying 'God, I wish these circumstances had been different.'”

Zimmerman also said the publicity around the polarizing trial forced her and her husband to live in constant fear.

"I think we have been pretty much like gypsies," she said in the ABC interview. "We lived in a 20-foot trailer in the woods scared every night that someone was going to find us and that we’d be out in the woods alone and that it would be horrific."

Since his acquittal, George Zimmerman has been in the headlines several times. In late July, he reportedly helped a family escape from an overturned SUV. A report from the Seminole County Sheriff's Office confirmed his involvement.

More recently, Zimmerman was pulled over in traffic not once, but twice. The first time, he was given a verbal warning for a traffic violation in Texas, and reportedly told officers he had a firearm in his glove compartment. The second time was in Florida Tuesday, when he was issued a $256 ticket for speeding.

Zimmerman was acquitted of Martin's shooting death by a jury of six women on July 13.

I like where she wants him to have to maintain a life insurance policy with her getting the beneifts of it.

Thats pretty wack job donkey-cave to me.

All because people cant leave well enough alone.

 Frazzled wrote:
I like where she wants him to have to maintain a life insurance policy with her getting the beneifts of it.

Thats pretty wack job donkey-cave to me.

They don't have any kids do they? I think all I have seen is custody of dogs.

I could see it a tiny bit if she is filing for alimony, but it's still shaky.

Now if they had kids and she is requesting a court order for him to have life insurance with the kids getting benefits, then I wouldn't blink an eye about the request.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I like where she wants him to have to maintain a life insurance policy with her getting the beneifts of it.

Thats pretty wack job donkey-cave to me.

They don't have any kids do they? I think all I have seen is custody of dogs.

I could see it a tiny bit if she is filing for alimony, but it's still shaky.

Now if they had kids and she is requesting a court order for him to have life insurance with the kids getting benefits, then I wouldn't blink an eye about the request.

If Zimmerman had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.


Too soon?

 pities2004 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I like where she wants him to have to maintain a life insurance policy with her getting the beneifts of it.

Thats pretty wack job donkey-cave to me.

They don't have any kids do they? I think all I have seen is custody of dogs.

I could see it a tiny bit if she is filing for alimony, but it's still shaky.

Now if they had kids and she is requesting a court order for him to have life insurance with the kids getting benefits, then I wouldn't blink an eye about the request.

If Zimmerman had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.


Too soon?

Zimmerman'ed already...

Back to OP: Divorce is a sucky thing... very rarely a "clean" disengagement.

 pities2004 wrote:

If Zimmerman had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.


Too soon?

Yes it was.

If only she had been armed, he wouldn't have divorced her.

pities2004 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I like where she wants him to have to maintain a life insurance policy with her getting the beneifts of it.

Thats pretty wack job donkey-cave to me.

They don't have any kids do they? I think all I have seen is custody of dogs.

I could see it a tiny bit if she is filing for alimony, but it's still shaky.

Now if they had kids and she is requesting a court order for him to have life insurance with the kids getting benefits, then I wouldn't blink an eye about the request.

If Zimmerman had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.


Too soon?

It's never too soon. And you also Zimmerman'd the Zimmerman thread, so bonus points for that.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/us/george-zimmerman-detained/index.html

The saga continues...

Yea...do us all a favor dude and don't breed.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yea...do us all a favor dude and don't breed.

Who are you talking to?

Zimmerman and similar slack jawed yokels.

Justice for Shellie.

I heard Zims has been known to pull a gatt when losing a fight.

Wife not filing charges:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/us/george-zimmerman-detained/index.html?c=homepage-t

He sounds like a winner though.

I'll just leave this leftover here:



How long must he suffer for us all?

I am shocked to learn that a guy who walks around his neighbourhood at night with a gun might be a little erratic in his personal behaviour.

 sebster wrote:
I am shocked to learn that a guy who walks around his neighbourhood at night with a gun might be a little erratic in his personal behaviour.

Lots of Americans concealed carry, and it doesn't have anything to do with being erratic.

He's just standing his ground.

 Hordini wrote:
Lots of Americans concealed carry, and it doesn't have anything to do with being erratic.

Read what I said. Read every word of this; "a guy who walks around his neighbourhood at night with a gun".

Get the difference between what I said and what you read? A guy goes out with his family for dinner, and he concealed carries... whatever. A guy goes out at night, patrolling the neighbourhood streets by himself with a gun... probably a little bit nutty.

In his defense, his wife was wearing a hoodie.

You know, George, in retrospect it may have been a better idea to just stay in the car.

He's starting to live an interesting life. He seems to be good at escalating confrontations, I can see this ending with someone shooting him one day.

I love that everyone is automatically assuming he was at fault or something. I've seen many a messy divorce where the wife called the cops on her husband claiming an "altercation" to help get the courts in her favor.

Let the Zimmerman hatred flow though. No one wanted to wait for facts the first time he made the news, why bother now?

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Lots of Americans concealed carry, and it doesn't have anything to do with being erratic.

Read what I said. Read every word of this; "a guy who walks around his neighbourhood at night with a gun".

Get the difference between what I said and what you read? A guy goes out with his family for dinner, and he concealed carries... whatever. A guy goes out at night, patrolling the neighbourhood streets by himself with a gun... probably a little bit nutty.

Well, when I read "a guy who walks around his neighborhood at night with a gun," I don't immediately think of "patrolling the neighborhood streets by himself with a gun." The point being, most people who are serious about concealed carry generally try to carry as often as possible, which would include any time they're walking around their neighborhood at night.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
I love that everyone is automatically assuming he was at fault or something. I've seen many a messy divorce where the wife called the cops on her husband claiming an "altercation" to help get the courts in her favor.

Let the Zimmerman hatred flow though. No one wanted to wait for facts the first time he made the news, why bother now?

I think it's interesting. Even if we temporarily assume he is at fault in this case, I wonder how much of this behavior has to do with his original personality, and how much of it has to do with the effect of the stresses of the trial and the media ruining his life for the past year or more. Not that that justifies or condones domestic violence or anything of the sort, but I wouldn't be quick to assume that these things are necessarily happening just because it's they way he's always been.

 Hordini wrote:
Well, when I read "a guy who walks around his neighborhood at night with a gun," I don't immediately think of "patrolling the neighborhood streets by himself with a gun."

I think you probably should have, especially considering we're talking about the Zimmerman case here.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Well, when I read "a guy who walks around his neighborhood at night with a gun," I don't immediately think of "patrolling the neighborhood streets by himself with a gun."

I think you probably should have, especially considering we're talking about the Zimmerman case here.

Zimmerman was on his way to (or returning from, I forget which) Target by means of automobile when he spotted Martin and called the police. I'm not sure why referencing patrolling the neighborhood on foot with a gun would be at all relevant.

 Hordini wrote:
Not that that justifies or condones domestic violence or anything of the sort, but I wouldn't be quick to assume that these things are necessarily happening just because it's they way he's always been.

Is this another way of saying he didn't choose the thug life, the thug life chose him?

In any event, it's unfortunate this state that allows the spouse to drop battery charges to avoid further criminal prosecution. I know in many states you cannot do it, and I think the latter is probably the better method - in that charges go forward at the police's determination that battery has probably occurred, rather then based upon the willingness of a cowed and batter spouse to testify.

I'm not saying this is the case with Zimmerman, I'm speaking in generalities. Who knows what actually happened so far.

 Seaward wrote:
Zimmerman was on his way to (or returning from, I forget which) Target by means of automobile when he spotted Martin and called the police. I'm not sure why referencing patrolling the neighborhood on foot with a gun would be at all relevant.

Zimmerman reported what, a dozen suspicious incidents in the previous six months? Maybe every single time he witnessed a crime he was out on a personal errand. Maybe Zimmerman is a modern day Jessica Fletcher, who just happens to always be in the area when a crime is committed through complete, miraculous chance.

Or maybe its pretty fething obvious to the world that Zimmerman patrolled his area looking for any possible criminal activity.

 sebster wrote:
Zimmerman reported what, a dozen suspicious incidents in the previous six months? Maybe every single time he witnessed a crime he was out on a personal errand. Maybe Zimmerman is a modern day Jessica Fletcher, who just happens to always be in the area when a crime is committed through complete, miraculous chance.

Or maybe its pretty fething obvious to the world that Zimmerman patrolled his area looking for any possible criminal activity.

I believe it was six in the previous couple years, and, if memory serves, all but one were before he acquired his first handgun.

 djones520 wrote:
I love that everyone is automatically assuming he was at fault or something. I've seen many a messy divorce where the wife called the cops on her husband claiming an "altercation" to help get the courts in her favor.

I don't think that would work very well for Mrs. Zimmerman. As credible witnesses go, convicted felons who plead guilty to lying in court don't rank very high.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I love that everyone is automatically assuming he was at fault or something. I've seen many a messy divorce where the wife called the cops on her husband claiming an "altercation" to help get the courts in her favor.

I don't think that would work very well for Mrs. Zimmerman. As credible witnesses go, convicted felons who plead guilty to lying in court don't rank very high.

Well, she recanted on her story when questioned by the cops.

However, Shellie Zimmerman, who filed for divorce last week, later declined to press charges. Lake Mary Police Chief Steve Bracknell told the Associated Press that she had changed her story and never saw a firearm.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/09/george-zimmerman-wife-says-threatened-her-father-with-gun/?test=latestnews#ixzz2eTaWk8nf

Seems like the stress of the last couple years have really impacted everyone. She's gone psycho moonbat (assuming she wasn't before).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Zimmerman reported what, a dozen suspicious incidents in the previous six months? Maybe every single time he witnessed a crime he was out on a personal errand. Maybe Zimmerman is a modern day Jessica Fletcher, who just happens to always be in the area when a crime is committed through complete, miraculous chance.

Or maybe its pretty fething obvious to the world that Zimmerman patrolled his area looking for any possible criminal activity.

I believe it was six in the previous couple years, and, if memory serves, all but one were before he acquired his first handgun.

And he only acquired the handgun on advice from animal control when he had an encounter with a pitbull.

 djones520 wrote:

However, Shellie Zimmerman, who filed for divorce last week, later declined to press charges. Lake Mary Police Chief Steve Bracknell told the Associated Press that she had changed her story and never saw a firearm.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/09/george-zimmerman-wife-says-threatened-her-father-with-gun/?test=latestnews#ixzz2eTaWk8nf

I'm sorry, I'm afraid this conflicts with the narrative we're crafting.

 Seaward wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

However, Shellie Zimmerman, who filed for divorce last week, later declined to press charges. Lake Mary Police Chief Steve Bracknell told the Associated Press that she had changed her story and never saw a firearm.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/09/09/george-zimmerman-wife-says-threatened-her-father-with-gun/?test=latestnews#ixzz2eTaWk8nf

I'm sorry, I'm afraid this conflicts with the narrative we're crafting.

I'm sorry, what was I thinking, introducing evidence that doesn't prove his guilt of being a hardened murderer.

 djones520 wrote:
Well, she recanted on her story when questioned by the cops.

Which doesn't necessarily mean she's lying, either - plenty of victims of domestic violence do so. There's as much evidence of guilt as there is of innocence (i.e. not much either way), and it's not possible to make any determination yet. Maybe when we see a police report; but doubtfully even then.

This is a screwy situation and I wouldn't pick a side if someone paid me. However, I believe my dry humor, unsupported claims, blind pessimism, and unwavering ability to argue about things I don't care about will do this thread some good.

 xole wrote:
This is a screwy situation and I wouldn't pick a side if someone paid me. However, I believe my dry humor, unsupported claims, blind pessimism, and unwavering ability to argue about things I don't care about will do this thread some good.

Welcome home.

 xole wrote:
However, I believe my dry humor, unsupported claims, blind pessimism, and unwavering ability to argue about things I don't care about will do this thread some good.

I am intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 djones520 wrote:
I love that everyone is automatically assuming he was at fault or something. I've seen many a messy divorce where the wife called the cops on her husband claiming an "altercation" to help get the courts in her favor.

Let the Zimmerman hatred flow though. No one wanted to wait for facts the first time he made the news, why bother now?

Well he was at the the father in law's house. This is never a good thing.

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I love that everyone is automatically assuming he was at fault or something. I've seen many a messy divorce where the wife called the cops on her husband claiming an "altercation" to help get the courts in her favor.

Let the Zimmerman hatred flow though. No one wanted to wait for facts the first time he made the news, why bother now?

Well he was at the the father in law's house. This is never a good thing.

It's where he was/is living. The Wife and FiL showed up to the house, to take personal possessions away, that they had agreed to split with the divorce. I guess it was an unexpected arrival, and Z says that she was taking more then was agreed to, which started the argument. From the link I posted earlier.

Mark O'Mara, Zimmerman's trial attorney, said the couple was in the process of splitting up their personal property at their home, which was owned by Shellie Zimmerman's father.
He said his former client was surprised when his estranged wife and her father returned to the house Monday to take more things.
"There was an argument with Shellie's dad over what does and doesn't go," O'Mara said. "Things got a little bit hot."

Your not really a adult till you at least gone through one divorce.

Or had a wiener dog fall asleep on your chest and start snoring in your ear. You may substitute a pit bull or giant pointer if one wants.

 Jihadin wrote:
Your not really a adult till you at least gone through one divorce.

When I called my dad to tell him I was getting married, his response was that "marriage was awesome - everyone should get married 4 or 5 times".

Hahah. I became an adult at 18 then. (My first and hopefully last divorce >.>;

I like the part where she claims he provoked them to step towards him, probably so he could claim "Stand Your Ground" when he shot them. Well played on her part considering his image.

Of course, none of this maybe true too.

 djones520 wrote:


And he only acquired the handgun on advice from animal control when he had an encounter with a pitbull.

Is that a common occurence? Aren't there, you know, steps before we get to "handgun"? Combat boots... pepper spray... nightstick...?

Maybe it's my urban Canadian sensibilities, but it just sounds like a rapid escalation of measures.

And for the record, my dad was attacked by two youths (T'was the night before Christmas, too) in Florida. The officer told him he should buy a gun, and my dad *allegedly* raised his battered, bleeding nose and said "We're Canadian, you know?"

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


And he only acquired the handgun on advice from animal control when he had an encounter with a pitbull.

Is that a common occurence? Aren't there, you know, steps before we get to "handgun"? Combat boots... pepper spray... nightstick...?

Maybe it's my urban Canadian sensibilities, but it just sounds like a rapid escalation of measures.

And for the record, my dad was attacked by two youths (T'was the night before Christmas, too) in Florida. The officer told him he should buy a gun, and my dad *allegedly* raised his battered, bleeding nose and said "We're Canadian, you know?"

It's not that uncommon.

Pit bulls are a breed that have a bad reputation(deservedly or not) and are commonly looked at by people as the dog to get for when they want to appear macho or have some kind of guard animal.
A poorly trained pit bull that decides to go after someone can potentially kill or severely injure an individual. There are very few breeds of dog that I actively avoid unless I know the owner and animal well and pit bulls are one of them.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
And for the record, my dad was attacked by two youths in Florida. The officer told him he should buy a gun"

The officer really gave him that advice? I have very mixed feeling about a cop telling a citizen that he needs to get a hand gun for protection.

 Easy E wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
And for the record, my dad was attacked by two youths in Florida. The officer told him he should buy a gun"

The officer really gave him that advice? I have very mixed feeling about a cop telling a citizen that he needs to get a hand gun for protection.

Erm... why?

The police officers that I know tells me this... since they know that they can't be everywhere to protect everyone.

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

 djones520 wrote:


And he only acquired the handgun on advice from animal control when he had an encounter with a pitbull.

Is that a common occurence? Aren't there, you know, steps before we get to "handgun"? Combat boots... pepper spray... nightstick...?

Maybe it's my urban Canadian sensibilities, but it just sounds like a rapid escalation of measures.

And for the record, my dad was attacked by two youths (T'was the night before Christmas, too) in Florida. The officer told him he should buy a gun, and my dad *allegedly* raised his battered, bleeding nose and said "We're Canadian, you know?"

Actually with a pit bull its chainsaw first. I had one. If he wanted to crush all the ribs in your chest, he was going to crush all the ribs in your chest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
A poorly trained pit bull that decides to go after someone can potentially kill or severely injure an individual. There are very few breeds of dog that I actively avoid unless I know the owner and animal well and pit bulls are one of them.

Kanluwen and I agree on something. Quick someone hold me, I'm scared.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
And for the record, my dad was attacked by two youths in Florida. The officer told him he should buy a gun"

The officer really gave him that advice? I have very mixed feeling about a cop telling a citizen that he needs to get a hand gun for protection.

A police captain, and an attorney both told the wife she should.

PD screwed up. It's pretty common for women to reverse their story after an episode of domestic violence. They should have questioned the wife and father in law separately. Most of all they should have searched the car for a gun. WTF are they doing not searching for a gun when one was reported during a domestic?

 djones520 wrote:
I love that everyone is automatically assuming he was at fault or something. I've seen many a messy divorce where the wife called the cops on her husband claiming an "altercation" to help get the courts in her favor.

Let the Zimmerman hatred flow though. No one wanted to wait for facts the first time he made the news, why bother now?

To clarify, my statement wasn't about George's guilt or lack thereof, but simply a comment on the ruin his life is becoming after the fact.

 schadenfreude wrote:
PD screwed up. It's pretty common for women to reverse their story after an episode of domestic violence. They should have questioned the wife and father in law separately. Most of all they should have searched the car for a gun. WTF are they doing not searching for a gun when one was reported during a domestic?

It's a witch hunt, this guy will be in the news every time he takes a dump.

 pities2004 wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
PD screwed up. It's pretty common for women to reverse their story after an episode of domestic violence. They should have questioned the wife and father in law separately. Most of all they should have searched the car for a gun. WTF are they doing not searching for a gun when one was reported during a domestic?

It's a witch hunt, this guy will be in the news every time he takes a dump.

Its possible there was no gun and his wife is a crazy bitch. That doesn't change the fact if the wife reports being threatened by a gun in a domestic the police should search the car for the gun 100% of the time regardless if the wife changes her story. PD screwed up.

 pities2004 wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
PD screwed up. It's pretty common for women to reverse their story after an episode of domestic violence. They should have questioned the wife and father in law separately. Most of all they should have searched the car for a gun. WTF are they doing not searching for a gun when one was reported during a domestic?

It's a witch hunt, this guy will be in the news every time he takes a dump.

If he starts eating belly bombers (ie, White Castles)... then, dayum man, that's like crime against humanity for all those gastronomical 'splosions.

 schadenfreude wrote:
PD screwed up. It's pretty common for women to reverse their story after an episode of domestic violence. They should have questioned the wife and father in law separately. Most of all they should have searched the car for a gun. WTF are they doing not searching for a gun when one was reported during a domestic?

Is there a notation that they didn't?

 Easy E wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
And for the record, my dad was attacked by two youths in Florida. The officer told him he should buy a gun"

The officer really gave him that advice? I have very mixed feeling about a cop telling a citizen that he needs to get a hand gun for protection.

Ever hear the quote "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."?

Or how about "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."?

 Frazzled wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
PD screwed up. It's pretty common for women to reverse their story after an episode of domestic violence. They should have questioned the wife and father in law separately. Most of all they should have searched the car for a gun. WTF are they doing not searching for a gun when one was reported during a domestic?

Is there a notation that they didn't?

Sources I have read so far indicate Zimmerman was out of his car when pd arrived, compliant with police searching his person, but they didn't search the car because they were unsure if they had PC or needed a warrant.

 Zathras wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:
And for the record, my dad was attacked by two youths in Florida. The officer told him he should buy a gun"

The officer really gave him that advice? I have very mixed feeling about a cop telling a citizen that he needs to get a hand gun for protection.

Ever hear the quote "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."?

Or how about "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."?

Sure, I have also heard the saying that "Violence only begets violence" and "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind". That doesn't mean I want cops giving me that kind of advice either way.

I'm especially leery of a cop telling me to buy a gun for protection since that same cop who told me to get a gun should be arresting me if I had to use it.

Exactly. We should all sing our way out of trouble. It works as long as your heart's pure.

Some people just like to look for trouble as well though. Possible while singing.

I guess I'm not scared enough yet? Sorry to let America down.... again.

 Easy E wrote:
I guess I'm not scared enough yet? Sorry to let America down.... again.

Fire doesn't particularly scare me, but we still have an extinguisher in the house.

I've worked in a Burn Center, fire should scare everybody!

Of course I alwys scan for where the emergency exits are if I am somewhere new, that probably makes me paranoid...

 Easy E wrote:

I'm especially leery of a cop telling me to buy a gun for protection since that same cop who told me to get a gun should be arresting me if I had to use it.

Why should a police officer be arresting someone who used a weapon in the course of legal self-defense? I'm assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "if I had to use it."

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I guess I'm not scared enough yet? Sorry to let America down.... again.

Fire doesn't particularly scare me, but we still have an extinguisher in the house.

Ever since the wildfires here that effectively help take out Grandmother Frazzled, I get semi-panic attacks whenever I smell wood smoke. If I smell it at night I get the full blown variety panic attacks. The wife had to talk me down from Austin when I stepped outside to turn off the sprinkler and smelled wood smoke a few weeks back.

 Hordini wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

I'm especially leery of a cop telling me to buy a gun for protection since that same cop who told me to get a gun should be arresting me if I had to use it.

Why should a police officer be arresting someone who used a weapon in the course of legal self-defense? I'm assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "if I had to use it."

Because he is from MN, we pretty much don't have legal self-defense. We can only legally able to defend ourselves if we can't run away.

 d-usa wrote:
Of course I alwys scan for where the emergency exits are if I am somewhere new, that probably makes me paranoid...

Nope, just sensible

sparkywtf wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

I'm especially leery of a cop telling me to buy a gun for protection since that same cop who told me to get a gun should be arresting me if I had to use it.

Why should a police officer be arresting someone who used a weapon in the course of legal self-defense? I'm assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "if I had to use it."

Because he is from MN, we pretty much don't have legal self-defense. We can only legally able to defend ourselves if we can't run away.

Yup. I thought that was the case in the majority of states.

Plus, if I killed a guy wouldn't I have to be arrested until the investigation showed it was self-defense? The fact is I killed someone. Everything else needs to be investigated.

 Easy E wrote:

sparkywtf wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

I'm especially leery of a cop telling me to buy a gun for protection since that same cop who told me to get a gun should be arresting me if I had to use it.

Why should a police officer be arresting someone who used a weapon in the course of legal self-defense? I'm assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "if I had to use it."

Because he is from MN, we pretty much don't have legal self-defense. We can only legally able to defend ourselves if we can't run away.

Yup. I thought that was the case in the majority of states.

Plus, if I killed a guy wouldn't I have to be arrested until the investigation showed it was self-defense? The fact is I killed someone. Everything else needs to be investigated.

Not really, although it would probably depend on schematics of the words. You can likely expect to be detained (and placed in detention) while the officers investigate, that would probably be something like "Am I free to go?" "No, not until...", and could probably include a trip to the station.

Getting arrested usually implies some sort of charges being filed, at least I think it does. So you can expect to be detained until the officers decide to arrest you or let you go.

Of course you don't have to wait to be arrested to request your lawyer before talking to a cop in that scenario.

If it's true that Traywoman initiated the altercation by hitting him with papers, Zimmerjohn is fully entitled to defend himself with legal force. Defendants have no duty to try and settle under Florida's Stand Your Ground legislation.

 Ouze wrote:
I heard Zims has been known to pull a gatt when losing a fight.

Spoken like someone who punched the wrong "crazy ass cracka".

 d-usa wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

sparkywtf wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

I'm especially leery of a cop telling me to buy a gun for protection since that same cop who told me to get a gun should be arresting me if I had to use it.

Why should a police officer be arresting someone who used a weapon in the course of legal self-defense? I'm assuming that's what you're referring to when you say "if I had to use it."

Because he is from MN, we pretty much don't have legal self-defense. We can only legally able to defend ourselves if we can't run away.

Yup. I thought that was the case in the majority of states.

Plus, if I killed a guy wouldn't I have to be arrested until the investigation showed it was self-defense? The fact is I killed someone. Everything else needs to be investigated.

Not really, although it would probably depend on schematics of the words. You can likely expect to be detained (and placed in detention) while the officers investigate, that would probably be something like "Am I free to go?" "No, not until...", and could probably include a trip to the station.

Getting arrested usually implies some sort of charges being filed, at least I think it does. So you can expect to be detained until the officers decide to arrest you or let you go.

Of course you don't have to wait to be arrested to request your lawyer before talking to a cop in that scenario.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

In MN, it will depend on what city/county you are in and the politics of that area. Even within the metro it swings back and forth over how they handle it. Most important is having a lawyer present before answering anything but identification (name, DoB, address). But that is true in any state. Miswording something can get you in trouble, even though you may have been in your legal rights.

We talking/discussing Z trial again or going with Z divorce?

 Seaward wrote:
I believe it was six in the previous couple years, and, if memory serves, all but one were before he acquired his first handgun.

Whatever, it still shows pretty clearly what the guy was doing with his spare time. And personally, I think that's a really weird way for someone to spend their spare time. It's not putting on a batsuit, but it's along that same continuum.

Well, he was part of the neighborhood watch. That is something that plenty of people do.

I thought that was disputed.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I thought that was disputed.

That he was a member of the Neighborhood Watch isn't in dispute but rather the context, seeing as Zimmerman was essentially the only member of the Neighborhood Watch, and did not operate with any permission or approval from the Home Owners Association. How much support he had in his community for his actions as a Watchmen is unknown.

 Hordini wrote:
Well, he was part of the neighborhood watch. That is something that plenty of people do.

Yeah, he was part of his Neighbourhood Watch, but Neighbourhood Watch doesn't involve individuals patrolling their neighbourhoods by themselves. For reasons that should be obvious to everyone, and that Zimmerman had to learn the hard way.

Stick with the divorce are this thread going to get locked when personnel feeling comes into play on the trial

 Jihadin wrote:
Stick with the divorce are this thread going to get locked when personnel feeling comes into play on the trial

There really isn't that much to say as to the divorce honestly (beyond that Zimmerman is having a really bad time right now). If I'm remembering correctly, his wife wasn't home the night of the shooting due to a fight with her husband then as well. The martial strife seems to predate the Martin shooting, so this might have just happened anyway, though the stress of everything probably accelerated the process

Perception is that his relationship with his wife accelerated his mental capacity to shoot someone. Pretty damn dumb that people are trying to link what was going on with his personnel life to killing someone. Its just another Z beat stick and one that will get this thread locked.

 Jihadin wrote:
Perception is that his relationship with his wife accelerated his mental capacity to shoot someone. Pretty damn dumb that people are trying to link what was going on with his personnel life to killing someone. Its just another Z beat stick and one that will get this thread locked.

Awfully similar to people parading around Martin's life troubles, isn't it? Not very fair I agree.

I'm not looking for it now, but I'm surprised not to see it in this thread: I read last night that the police are pulling data off the ipad and he could be charged with destroying evidence. Purportedly, the reason he smashed the ipad was that the wife was recording the altercation.

There is also some dispute over whether or not he lied to the police about having the gun but to be frank that seems to be in that really unreliable grey area news outlets have when they have no new news but need to say something to fill the air, so maybe lets wait and see on that.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not looking for it now, but I'm surprised not to see it in this thread: I read last night that the police are pulling data off the ipad and he could be charged with destroying evidence. Purportedly, the reason he smashed the ipad was that the wife was recording the altercation.

By my reading of Florida law, by recording the altercation without the consent of all parties involved she was committing a crime punishable by a year in prison.

No district attorney in the country is going to bring someone up on wiretapping charges for shooting video of their spouse inside their own home.

 Ouze wrote:
No district attorney in the country is going to bring someone up on wiretapping charges for shooting video of their spouse inside their own home.

Wrong.

By the way, the Eleventh District, of which Florida is a part, is one of the ones that does not permit recording your spouse in their own home without their permission.

Even if the DA doesn't decide to press it, it would probably very easily get tossed as evidence, and any charges brought up because of it, thrown out as well, if any where to be made.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
No district attorney in the country is going to bring someone up on wiretapping charges for shooting video of their spouse inside their own home.

Wrong.

Do you understand the story you linked in no way refutes what I said; that any and all of the acts the people in your news story are absolutely dissimilar to what I outlined? It's a pretty far throw from "taping your spouse while holding on an ipad" and "installing software on their phone surreptitiously to monitor their calls" which are pretty much the textbook definition of unlawful wiretapping.

Granted, I shouldn't have spoken in absolutes, and should have inserted the word "openly" before shooting video; but I stand by my statement.

 djones520 wrote:
Even if the DA doesn't decide to press it, it would probably very easily get tossed as evidence, and any charges brought up because of it, thrown out as well, if any where to be made.

I'm inclined to agree with this solely because the local police have publicly made statements indicating they wished they hadn't been dragged into this chapter of the Zimmerman Show; and it seems likely the local DA will feel exactly the same way about what I bet are probably misdemeanors.

It seems the police are examining inconsistencies in the wife's story now. Apparently the only thing she said in the 911 call that was true was that George was there.

She may find herself in a bit more hot water over this.

Again.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the news report I saw last night said that Zimmerman was filmed 'breaking' the iPad on the house's security camera.

Presumably he would not have consented to being recorded committing a crime, so the security camera will be due a year in prison.

Wasn't she conviscted of perjury regarding how much income the family had?

I wonder how much her conviction and the $$$ from being 2nd Amendment celebrities comes into the picture here?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably he would not have consented to being recorded committing a crime, so the security camera will be due a year in prison.

I'm not sure of anyone consenting to seeing their ugly mug(s) on a security camera while they commit a crime, but if that were the case, then if you rob a liquor store and the security camera gets you on film the person you robbed would go to prison for a year since you never consented to that either.

I believe such things only require 1 party know they're on tape/being recorded.

 Alfndrate wrote:
I'm not sure of anyone consenting to seeing their ugly mug(s) on a security camera while they commit a crime, but if that were the case, then if you rob a liquor store and the security camera gets you on film the person you robbed would go to prison for a year since you never consented to that either.

I believe such things only require 1 party know they're on tape/being recorded.

You get to the right conclusion, but you're commingling 2 different elements of the same law. You are correct that some states are one party notification laws: for example Iowa being one, I am free to record any call I like since one party (me) knows they are being recorded.

However, the above example of the liquor store robbery, the same law covering wiretaps go into an enormous amount of exceptions to the above, the one being salient here that you're free to openly record in a public place where there is no expectation of privacy.

Unfortunately it varies from state to state, which has led to an incredibly unfortunate event where the police have arrested bystanders for filming them in public under the principle that they had audio recording as well, and the state statute lacks the second element above. Outrageous, but true.

 Ouze wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I'm not sure of anyone consenting to seeing their ugly mug(s) on a security camera while they commit a crime, but if that were the case, then if you rob a liquor store and the security camera gets you on film the person you robbed would go to prison for a year since you never consented to that either.

I believe such things only require 1 party know they're on tape/being recorded.

You are commingling 2 different elements of the same law.

I'm okay being wrong, this is why I'm not a lawyer. If I was a lawyer, I would most likely be this lawyer:

Plus if you lose the case, the pizza is free - that adds up.

I don't see Zimmerman getting into much trouble over this baring some dazzling revelation. If everyone involved in martial strife went to prison for being angry, aggressive, lying to police about particulars, there'd be even less room in the US penal system than there already is.

This is only notable because it involves Zimmerman. It's probably happening somewhere right now at this very moment etc etc to someone else.

I wonder if the police are ignoring any more important cases to work on this one.

 xole wrote:
I wonder if the police are ignoring any more important cases to work on this one.

Because when they ignore cases without investigating and someone dies people claim the police aren't doing they're job.