• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Bullsh*t -2nd degree murder charge for Z

the_hustleman

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
77
Location
Atlanta
Zimmerman should have been charged, period.

Had he stayed in his vehicle, he wouldn't have had this problem.

*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Zimmerman should have been charged, period.

Had he stayed in his vehicle, he wouldn't have had this problem.

*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*

Assuming he started a confrontation, or continued it after the other person tried to retreat, then perhaps you're right. However we don't know that, and exiting your vehicle in your own neighborhood is no crime, nor is it an act of aggression.
 

the_hustleman

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
77
Location
Atlanta
Assuming he started a confrontation, or continued it after the other person tried to retreat, then perhaps you're right. However we don't know that, and exiting your vehicle in your own neighborhood is no crime, nor is it an act of aggression.


You're acting like he got out of the car, and trayvon just jumped on him.

That's possible, but about as likely as zimmerman running up on him, shouting racial slurs with his gun in hand.

Possible, but not likely.

People have a breaking point that makes them spaz out, something has to set them off, so why is it sup hard to believe trayvon was standing HIS GROUND?

Why us the gun community trying to villainize the deceased?

Because of what zimmerman says?

The court should have been sorting that out.


*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
As far as I'm concerned if Zimmerman was not acting in SD he should go to prison and I'm kind of happy to see a trial so the facts will actually start coming out. If the facts do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty I hope he is released.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
As far as I'm concerned if Zimmerman was not acting in SD he should go to prison and I'm kind of happy to see a trial so the facts will actually start coming out. If the facts do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty I hope he is released.

You are quite the romantic, xman. At this point, the only way he gets released is if the facts show he is innocent beyond a doubt.
 
Last edited:

the_hustleman

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2011
Messages
77
Location
Atlanta
As far as I'm concerned if Zimmerman was not acting in SD he should go to prison and I'm kind of happy to see a trial so the facts will actually start coming out. If the facts do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty I hope he is released.

This

*swyped from the evo so excuse any typos*
 

Gray Rider

New member
Joined
Feb 20, 2009
Messages
80
Location
, ,
Hang 'em High

The reactions of main stream media, and initially even FOX, and some posters remind me of the opening senerio of the movie. Damn the law, the lynch mob had enough circumstantial evidence to conclude character Jed Cooper qualified for hanging so hang him they did. We know how that one played out.

I am suprised that this discussion has carried on so long without specific references to the Florida laws of deadly force. So:


776.06 Deadly force.—
(1) The term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm...

Notice the force does not have to actually cause death or great bodily harm, just be likely to.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Even if Zimmerman initiated the verbal or physical altercation, if he was receiving force likely to cause death or great bodily harm he was entitled to a deadly force response.

I have received considerable training on Use of Force under the auspices of the Florida Department Of Law Enforcement that sets the standards for all Florida LEO agencies. We are trained that blows to the head constitutes deadly force and not to apply blows to the head of a suspect unless a deadly force response is warranted. Likewise if we are receiving blows to the head, or attempted blows to the head, we are justified in a deadly force response. ( We have a Use of Force Martrix that describes the different levels of force to be use against the various levels of force being encountered.)

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

The Sanford Police undoubtedly have received ample training on the subject as well as having experience the amount to damage that is done with the hands and feet of otherwise "unarmed" assailants. Based on the evidence they reported at the scene, their training would tell them that an immediate arrest was not warranted.

Whatever additional significant evidence, if any, the State has against Zimmerman remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
As far as I'm concerned if Zimmerman was not acting in SD he should go to prison and I'm kind of happy to see a trial so the facts will actually start coming out. If the facts do not prove beyond a reasonable doubt he is guilty I hope he is released.

Even if he is acquitted, he is likely to be bankrupted just from mounting a decent defense, coupled with most likely being out of work for heaven knows how long between being arrested and actually being able to go back to work. Such serious financial problems have ended more than one marriage, often creating additional and on-going financial problems what with child support and/or alimony or other costs associated with divorce and splitting up a family.

Not to mention the distinct possibility of the guy being at personal risk of vigilantes for the rest of his life no matter how the trial turns out. Send him to jail and the race based gangs will do their best to kill him. Acquit him and the race based criminal gangs on the outside may well do their best to "get justice" in the case.

That is a pretty high price to pay and I hope there is some substantial evidence to counter his claims of self-defense seeing as how it now looks like he is going to be subjected to those costs regardless. There are any number of persons who need to be arrested and charged with crimes ranging from inciting violence to making threats of violence as to the second list of costs that may be incurred by Zimmerman.

For the direct financial problems, it is clear to me that so-called limits on prosecution don't do much to really protect when it is needed most. I think what is needed is a statute providing for compensation of legal fees and other incurred costs of anyone who is acquitted of charges related to illegal use of force after claiming self-defense.

For each of us, a cautionary tale of how costly it can be to be involved in a self-defense shooting. Before drawing a gun or pulling the trigger, make sure that the consequences of not doing so really are worse than the very possible results of using deadly force. And before that, we need to be constantly asking ourselves if we are starting down a path that could lead to a situation we'd have rather avoided.

Charles
 

JimMullinsWVCDL

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 25, 2007
Messages
676
Location
Lebanon, VA
Even if he is acquitted, he is likely to be bankrupted just from mounting a decent defense, coupled with most likely being out of work for heaven knows how long between being arrested and actually being able to go back to work. Such serious financial problems have ended more than one marriage, often creating additional and on-going financial problems what with child support and/or alimony or other costs associated with divorce and splitting up a family.
Sadly, Mr. Zimmerman will indeed face a high legal bill, even if the pending charge is dismissed at the pretrial evidentiary hearing on the defense's expected motion for immunity under Fla. Stat. § 776.032 and the Florida Supreme Court's interpretation of the immunity statute in Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456 (Fla. 2010), which held that “the plain language of section 776.032 grants defendants a substantive right to assert immunity from prosecution and to avoid being subjected to a trial.” Id. at 462. Procedurally, “where a criminal defendant files a motion to dismiss on the basis of section 776.032, the trial court should decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity.” Id. at 458. This decision followed the 25-year-old precedent in People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987), which held that Colorado’s similar immunity statute “authorized a trial court to dismiss a criminal prosecution at the pretrial stage and did not merely create an affirmative defense for adjudication at trial.” Dennis, 51 So.3d at 459 (citing Guenther, 740 P.2d at 976).

In Dennis, the Florida Supreme Court specifically approved of the reasoning of the earlier decision of Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeals in Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), which “h[e]ld that when immunity under this law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes. The court may not deny a motion simply because factual disputes exist.” Id. at 29. Moreover, if the court denies a motion to dismiss under the immunity statute, the defendant “is not precluded from submitting the matter to the jury as an affirmative defense in his criminal trial.” Id. The court found that “The wording selected by our Legislature makes clear that it intended to establish a true immunity and not merely an affirmative defense. In particular, in the preamble to the substantive legislation, the session law notes, ‘[T]he Legislature finds that it is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families, and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.’ Ch.2005-27, at 200, Laws of Fla.” Id.

Unlike a trial, the burden of proof in an immunity hearing under Fla. Stat. § 776.032 is a preponderance of evidence. “[T]he trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunity attaches.” Peterson, 983 So.2d at 29; see also Gray v. State, 13 So.3d 114, 115 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (on motion for certification) (agreeing with Peterson); State v. Gallo, 76 So.3d 407, 409 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (same) (collecting cases). At trial, however, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense.

The only upside Mr. Zimmerman has to facing prosecution now is that if the charges are dismissed based on the motion for immunity, or if he is acquitted at trial, jeopardy will attach and he will be forever free from future criminal prosecution. Moreover, if he wins the motion for immunity, he will also be immune from a civil lawsuit and would be entitled to collect attorney's fees from anyone who improperly sues him in violation of the immunity statute. If Mr. Zimmerman prevails against the pending criminal charge, he will likely get paid interviews, a book deal, and will likely sue a litany of individuals who have defamed (e.g., the peacock) or threatened physical harm to him (e.g., the Black Panthers) over the last couple of months, the proceeds of which he will be able to use to pay his legal bills from the criminal case.

Not to mention the distinct possibility of the guy being at personal risk of vigilantes for the rest of his life no matter how the trial turns out. Send him to jail and the race based gangs will do their best to kill him. Acquit him and the race based criminal gangs on the outside may well do their best to "get justice" in the case.
While the optimist in me would like to believe that once the truth is revealed in a court of law, the irrational anger in some quarters will subsize, I fear an incendiary reaction is more likely.

That is a pretty high price to pay and I hope there is some substantial evidence to counter his claims of self-defense seeing as how it now looks like he is going to be subjected to those costs regardless. There are any number of persons who need to be arrested and charged with crimes ranging from inciting violence to making threats of violence as to the second list of costs that may be incurred by Zimmerman.

For the direct financial problems, it is clear to me that so-called limits on prosecution don't do much to really protect when it is needed most. I think what is needed is a statute providing for compensation of legal fees and other incurred costs of anyone who is acquitted of charges related to illegal use of force after claiming self-defense.
This may finally be the case that brings nationwide exposure to Washington's unique, 35-year-old self-defense prosecution reimbursement law, Wa. Rev. Code § 9A.16.110. If duplicated in Florida and other states that have "immunity from prosecution" statutes, the Washington reimbursement statute would need to be modified to also apply to criminal cases in which charges are dismissed at the pretrial immunity hearing. I would also suggest adding interest at the judgment rate, as the Washington statute has been construed to not provide interests on these awards. State v. Lee, 96 Wash.App. 336, 345, 979 P.2d 458, 463 (Wash. App. Div. 2, 1999). As Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman noted last year when there were efforts to repeal Washington’s reimbursement statute: “The statute is not simply an avenue for compensation. It is also a deterrent to overzealous anti-self-defense prosecutors who might be compelled – if the law were repealed – to push cases against people simply to make them 'an example.' Under the current law, if a prosecutor pursues such a case and loses, not only are the taxpayers out the cost of the prosecution, they’re also out the cost of the defense.”
 

MackTheKnife

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2007
Messages
198
Location
Jacksonville, Florida
Probable cause affidavit

I read the three page affidavit Angela Corey used to charge Zimmerman. It is short on facts, uses the phrase "profiling" and makes no mention of the alleged three witnesses who saw Trayvon attack Zimmerman punching him and hitting his head against the sidewalk. The affidavit states that Zimmerman followed Trayvon and initiated the whole thing. So much for the reports that Zimmerman broke off contact, went back to his vehicle, and then was approached/attacked by Trayvon. And why didn't Corey let a grand jury decide whether or not to charge him? So much for the "no pressure or politics".
 

rvrctyrngr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
363
Location
SE of DiSOrDEr, ,
I read the three page affidavit Angela Corey used to charge Zimmerman. It is short on facts, uses the phrase "profiling" and makes no mention of the alleged three witnesses who saw Trayvon attack Zimmerman punching him and hitting his head against the sidewalk. The affidavit states that Zimmerman followed Trayvon and initiated the whole thing. So much for the reports that Zimmerman broke off contact, went back to his vehicle, and then was approached/attacked by Trayvon. And why didn't Corey let a grand jury decide whether or not to charge him? So much for the "no pressure or politics".

There was no way in hell she was going to risk a GJ returning a 'no true bill'. She set out to charge him, and worked backwards from there, IMO.

Here's what another attorney/judge had to say about it:

I saw the press conference. My thought at the time was that here is just another prosecutor with visions of a “Law and Order” appearance strutting her stuff. No way in hell is this 2d degree murder and she knows it. She had to get the word Murder in the charge in order to satisfy the Black Panthers. Manslaughter isn’t near sexy enough. As soon as I heard she was bypassing the Grand Jury, I knew a charge was coming. She didn’t want to take the chance that a Grand Jury might return a “no true bill” which is what would have happened if the GJ listened to the law. This is a gal with definite Judicial aspirations and very little character. If she is so law and order, why no action against the Black Panthers for crimes committed on television? As expected, I heard nothing from Pam Bondi and she has said nothing on TV. The solicitation to Murder and Kidnap has been repeated several times without a word from her or any other law enforcement person. It will be interesting to see what happens.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
There was no way in hell she was going to risk a GJ returning a 'no true bill'. She set out to charge him, and worked backwards from there, IMO.

Here's what another attorney/judge had to say about it:

Give Pam Bondi a break. She has to make sure there are no more bath salts out there that she wants to ban.
 

MainelyGlock

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
615
Location
Portland, ME
I won't say how I feel about his charges because, like everyone who was not there on the street that night, I don't know exactly what happened, and without having all of the information I will withhold my opinion. I will say that there is (unfortunately) no way in hell he is getting a fair trial after all of the media coverage. I bet the jury hangs him in ten minutes.
 

Shoobee

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
599
Location
CCCP (Calif)
Almost everyone is surprised that the Florida special prosecutor came up with a murder-2 charge.

Many were expecting a manslaughter charge of some degree instead. Many others feel that the SYG law justifies the shooting, on the other hand.

The prosecutor may be over-charging, in order to promote a plea deal for manslaughter.

Or the prosecutor may simply believe that Z was indeed profiling (actually he was), stalking (actually he was), confronted (we don't know exactly yet), threatened (this is also under debate still), and shot M (no doubt he shot him and that M died of the wound).

There have been several predictions on the news and commentary shows that Z will cop to manslaughter. Although his new lawyer has indicated the trial will go forward and that Z will testify.
 

Shoobee

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
599
Location
CCCP (Calif)
I won't say how I feel about his charges because, like everyone who was not there on the street that night, I don't know exactly what happened, and without having all of the information I will withhold my opinion. I will say that there is (unfortunately) no way in hell he is getting a fair trial after all of the media coverage. I bet the jury hangs him in ten minutes.

If Casey Marie Anthony vs People of Florida is any indication, the jury may aquit him in 10 minutes.

As for me, I will keep an open mind on this one, either way, until I hear both sides present their cases and their rebuttals in court.
 
Last edited:

Shoobee

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
599
Location
CCCP (Calif)
There was no way in hell she was going to risk a GJ returning a 'no true bill'. She set out to charge him, and worked backwards from there, IMO.

Here's what another attorney/judge had to say about it:

Politically speaking, the best thing for everyone is to let this one go to trial by jury.

This puts off the rioting long enough to let almost everyone calm down.

I feel sorry for whoever will be on the jury.
 

Shoobee

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
599
Location
CCCP (Calif)
I read the three page affidavit Angela Corey used to charge Zimmerman. It is short on facts, uses the phrase "profiling" and makes no mention of the alleged three witnesses who saw Trayvon attack Zimmerman punching him and hitting his head against the sidewalk. The affidavit states that Zimmerman followed Trayvon and initiated the whole thing. So much for the reports that Zimmerman broke off contact, went back to his vehicle, and then was approached/attacked by Trayvon. And why didn't Corey let a grand jury decide whether or not to charge him? So much for the "no pressure or politics".

Profiling is when you assume someone may be guilty of a crime absent any facts and based only on their appearance.

I thought that was a good call on her part in the affidavit.

Z states openly on the "9-1-1 call" to the switchboard at the station that he was basing his suspicions on things that had happened in the neighborhood in the past, and not having actually witnessed a crime in progress.

M was suspicious to Z simply because he was there.

Z sounds very paranoid to me.

I read the affidavit as well, and it sounds like a good summary of the prosecution's best case. This is why we have trials and juries, to determine actual facts when someone is killed.

And the magistrate-judge quickly sent it off to trial, probably to have his own hands free of it, being an elected official, and not wanting to become the lightning rod on this hot national issue.
 
Last edited:

rvrctyrngr

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
363
Location
SE of DiSOrDEr, ,
Profiling is when you assume someone may be guilty of a crime absent any facts and based only on their appearance.

I thought that was a good call on her part in the affidavit.

Z states openly on the "9-1-1 call" to the switchboard at the station that he was basing his suspicions on things that had happened in the neighborhood in the past, and not having actually witnessed a crime in progress.

M was suspicious to Z simply because he was there.

Z sounds very paranoid to me.

I read the affidavit as well, and it sounds like a good summary of the prosecution's best case. This is why we have trials and juries, to determine actual facts when someone is killed.

And the magistrate-judge quickly sent it off to trial, probably to have his own hands free of it, being an elected official, and not wanting to become the lightning rod on this hot national issue.

With all due respect, you don't have a flippin' clue what you're talking about as it pertains to Florida law. That PC affidavit was nothing but speculation and conjecture. The only fact in it was that Martin is currently deceased.
 
Top