and according to the ME Trayvon had injouries to his knuckles The Link Not sure that helpes zimmerman all that much as his action was the ultimate. What i don't get is how the DOJ can charge a part black man with the hate crime of another black man.
Maybe he pulled a fast one like the creepy guy in the Dirty Harry movie. Callahan did it! He looks too good.
MrD Thank you it makes sense in a nonsensical way I don't always agree with you but I do enjoy when you explain things in a way I can understand
What's really idiotic about this is that now it comes out that the prosecution never asked for the medical records. So they decided to pursue second degree murder charges without even bothering to see whether they would be able to build a case. I assume they picked the charge based on what they thought the public wanted as opposed to what they could actually prove. This is going to be very ugly when the case falls apart and Zimmerman is found not guilty. Rather than blaming an overzealous prosecution, people will blame a "corrupt" legal system where "white" people (yes, Zimmerman will be portrayed as white yet again) get off scott free.
I know the particulars are up for debate, but if you were in the process of getting your eyes, nose and back of head bashed in, would you shoot the guy if you had a gun? Or would you take the beating, hoping against hope that the other guy won't kill you?
Monahorns, That's exactly right. You know in America you are innocent until proven guilty. Some here seem to have forgotten that. There is no way in hell he will be proven guilty and everyone knows it. All the evidence backs Zimmerman's story. This is just a waste of tax payers money for something that has no chance of getting what the race baiters want. So the end result will be riots and that the justice system failed in their eyes.
Im curious as to whether, given this evidence, people do not beleive it was self defense. It seems unlikely to me that Zimmerman chased down Trayvon with the intent to kill and trayvon charged him, beat the crap out of him, and then got shot. Have people changed their stance who thought it was murder or are they too emotionally invested at this point to change their minds?
I hope the media and race baiters are happy when Zimmerman is found innocent and it ignites a string of riots or retributional beatings.
If you haven't noticed yet, the Martin family is gearing up for the Civil Trial. They are looking at cashing in off Trayvon's death. Notice how often their lawyer, why do they have a lawyer, is on the news. They could care less about the Criminal trial, it is the Civil trial they are gearing up for. Maybe someone can explain in better detail the differences between the two, remembering the OJ case, not as much needs to be proved etc.....
Well, basically the civil trial is for money, not for jail time. Zimmerman probably has no money, but maybe somehow the neighborhood group could be hooked in (was he in some official security guard capacity--sorry, I've ignored this....) Maybe they have assets or insurance. The proof standard is "preponderance of the evidence," which is (roughly) better than half the believable evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, in a civil case, more evidence comes in on both sides, and the jury will consider the deceased's comparative negligence. I'm not a Florida lawyer, but in lots of states, if the jury says it's a 50/50 negligence situation between those guys, there is no recovery. Otherwise, you just get a % reduction in damages. So, you end up with: was Zimmerman negligent? If no, case over. If yes, then how does his negligence compare to Martin. Then get a damages number from the jury($; say $5,000,000 or whatever) and reduce by the % of Martin's negligence, or even down to $0 if he exceeds the 50% or whatever Florida's law is on that. Then, you have to collect it. So, maybe there is only $1,000,000 in insurance, so that would be it. (If that's true, though, it probably just settles for the $1m and we never see a trial.) That's basically it.
Well, I tried to simplify the standard with "believable" instead of credible, based on the audience. As I understand it, states fall into either 1. 50% you lose; 2 50%+ you lose, and 3. pure comparison (are there any left?) And, most carriers I have ever dealt with are not going to defend a wrongful death case in a volatile circus environment where the defense costs could easily be $1m., not to mention the liability risk, when Zimmerman's attorneys are certainly stowerizing them (most states have an equivalent) to offer their limits to get the heck out of the public eye. I have defended quite a few wrongful death cases, but again, I'm not in Florida. Usually, even when you have a great defense, you never get to put it on because of the settlement pressures I just laid out.
Thanks that was one of the few things I have ever learned on the West Mall!!!1 Maybe I am reaching here, but could they garnish his wages? What about the property, it is an apartment complex, could they attempt something with that orgnization? The news claimed it was a gated community, I thought nice houses limited access etc, it is a gated apartment community....
Now they're reporting Martin had THC in his system. Trayvon Martin Had Drugs in System, Autopsy Found
There is no complete right or wrong for the 2 people in this incident. Sadly one died. and i don't know what fear Zimmerman felt as he ws on the ground. But the REAL tragedy is there is no good way to resolve this.
The proper way is for the judge to dismiss the case. Oh, and find out where the bag of jewelry came from, thus solving that case as well
Have a trial, let the facts come out, let a judge outline the law and let a jury decide. It's the way of justice in America, not perfect but a very good system to deal with complicated situations like this.
Crockett: Actually, the important piece is if the judge dismisses the case. The judge can still dismiss the case, which would prevent the Civil Case from taking place. I think after seeing the entire police report it is pretty evident that he is going to be proven innocent of Murder in the 2nd degree, by a jury. The question comes down to the judges opinion on the Stand Your Ground Law. If the Judge dismisses, I believe,not 100% sure, but there can be no civil case brought against Zimmerman.
I think Zimmeman is protected by the "Stand Your Ground" law from both a civl and criminal standpoint, but I sure hope this goes to a jury. I don't want conspiracy theories and civil unrest. I think "stand your ground" laws are due a review. I hope this event shows people that while the concept behind the neighborhood watch is wonderful and community-building, packing a pistol on your hip and chasing suspicous characters through your neighborhood is not a good idea.
The Trevor Dooley case, as well as a woman who eventually got 20 for plugging her husband after leaving the room to get a gun, suggest that Z may have a hard time avoiding a trial. The question of whether Z pursued the problem is going to loom large. It would appear he did. At that point his claim of SYG starts to look flimsy, especially as such carries with it an implicit suggestion that Martin may have been standing his own ground. One of them was unarmed, on his way home with candy and beverage, and one was armed and stalking about in contravention of police advice. One of them was an adult and one was a teen. One had reason to know the police were summoned and the other did not. I think that the prosecution is going to be able to make a credible argument that Z was profiling as a self-deputized agent and that, but for his actions, no confrontation or death takes place. The initial police assessment was that Z instigated the problem. He also apparently failed to clarify who he was or his purpose upon being face to face with the kid. If there is any truth to the version provided by the girl M was speaking with when they came across one another then it would appear Martin had some cause to stand his own ground. It is notable that both parties called someone about the other and in both instances the parties were told to avoid confrontation via a form of inaction (though M was told to actually do something, 'run,' which he chose not to do). I really want to see this in a court. That seems most fair and it also will provide the best insight into the workings of a law that I think needs serious trimming.
