Trayvon Martin Continued

Discussion in 'The Furball Forum' started by RowdyatHeart, Mar 29, 2012.

  1. I have been following that blog and the updates. It seems that they put some serious work into it and reference sources. It shows very clearly why GZ should never have been charged and why this charge should be dismissed at the immunity hearing. It's a great source of information.

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Saw it. They are pretty much tearing apart Benjamin Crump (Martin family attorney).
  3. Hum... there once was a man whose child was abducted. That man went on to develop a T.V. show about such things. Probably copyrighted it. Makes sense. Allows him to control what will be done and not done with the tragedy that touched his child and the subsequent T.V. program.

    Mr. & Mrs. Martin are wise to take the appropriate legal steps to restrict others from using the tragic killing of their son as a vehicle for commercial gain.

    Will they "write a book?" Possibly. Will they use a ghost writer? That is entirely up to them. Many fine books have been written by people who relied on ghost writers to help in the process of actually getting their thoughts on paper. If zimmerman does write a book, fine. Whether or not he will be able to profit from any book he might write will be entirely dependent upon what the jury decides.

    As to cc, this incident puts on glaring display the problems that attend to the use of a weapon ostensibly in self-defense when common sense argues otherwise. If as written the Fla. law shields zimmerman, then the law is an abomination that will need to be re-written so as to be an actual means of justice rather than a tool to be used by a criminal.

  4. Glad you have made up your mind about the case. You saved so much time waiting for those pesky facts. Sorry to hear that his actions, as reported so far, don't meet up to your standards. Omniscience is such a burden:upeyes:
  5. Glockdude1

    Glockdude1 Federal Member

    Americas Most Wanted.........

  6. A poor woman go to the store to buy some food for her children.

    She is carrying a concealed weapon.

    She is attacked by a much larger man who bangs her head on the concrete.

    She shoots and kills the attacker.

    Under the old law she would have to proved that she tried to retreat. Under the 'stand your ground' law she does not.
  7. If the prosecution can prove that Zimmerman caused the fight because of a confrontation and didn't get blindsided on the way back to his car (like he claims), then he has no right to claim self defense, and therefore stand your ground is null and void. If the prosecution is smart, this is where they'll concentrate their efforts. If they want to be stupid, they will push the hate/race/profiling agenda, which will fail.

    I love how everyone speculates, though, when it is obvious that all the evidence and eye-witness testimony is NOT public. But my gut tells me that Zimmerman's story is not all together factual. Some of the 911 calls dispute what he said, as well as Martin's girlfriend.

    We'll see what evidence comes out in the trial, if there is one.

    Prosecution also made the mistake of charging with 2nd degree murder, which is way harder to prove than manslaughter. Epic mistake.
    #48 WinterWizard, Apr 25, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012

  8. Well of course there was a "confrontation" a fight is a form of confrontation. :upeyes: Bear in mind there was ample opportunity for Martin to have called the police and reported a suspicious person following him, which is what a reasonable and prudent person would do. Come to think of it, one person DID call the police and report someone they thought was suspicious. You folks that seem so interested in convicting Zimmerman might sound reasonable IF Martin had called the cops, and Zimmerman hadn't. Do not forget that the police DID investigate this incident and they and the prosecutor were satisfied that no case existed and it is the media. media whores, and politicians (I know, redundancy) who have brought about the legal situation, not for justice but to curry favor. Remember, this case is probably going to revolve around the actions of someone who DIDN'T think calling the police was the way to handle the situation.
  9. I was referring to the actions by either person that led to the fight, not the fight itself.

    And the lead detective initially wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter and signed an affidavit to that effect. The state attorney (I believe) instructed him not to after a few hour's worth of investigation, ignoring possible evidence and eye-witness testimony. The fact that the new prosecution team had probable cause to arrest and charge with 2nd degree murder after a proper, thorough investigation proves that the initial handling of the case was bungled, unless you want to accuse the new prosecution team of of fabricating evidence or not knowing the law.

    I love how everyone wants to jump to a conclusion when not nearly all of the evidence has been made public. You have probably half the facts or less, therefore your opinions are half-baked. A wise man once said, "An uninformed opinion is worth nothing."

    The fact is, until the trial is over (if there is one), and all the facts and evidence are public record, no one can speak intelligently on the matter.
    #50 WinterWizard, Apr 26, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012
  10. "I love how everyone" or "I find it funny" are usually tip offs that the writer is going to say the obvious. And, you do not fail us with "jump to a conclusion when not nearly all of the evidence has been made public." Of course, people can only offer opinion on what has been made public. They can not make opinions on info they do not know.

  11. Talk about assumptions and spinning the situation to meet a preconceived conclusion.

    Your statement implies that an investigator knows more about what meets legal standards than the prosecutor in that jurisdiction. In my area it is the District Attorney that makes that call, not a Detective.

    Your overall naivette about the purpose of the new "special" prosecution team is rather telling, as to you experience or awareness of such an "operation". How many times, in high profile cases has a " States attorney" or even a Federal Attorney been brought in that DIDN'T result in a trial, genenrally based on an allegeded "new view" or "Fresh evidence"? These are Dog and Pony shows to appease a segment of the population and actually represent a misuse of our criminal justice system for political purposes. There have been dozens of cases, since this incident, of Blacks shooting Blacks all over the Country, but those case won't get "Special Prosecutors" and "State's Attorneys and Investigators" because Al Sharpton and the media don't care about them.

    This incident WAS handled according to the law, and you really should have watched the lead investigtator's testimony at the bail hearing for Zimmerman. Talk about shakey grounds for prosecution.
    #52 countrygun, Apr 26, 2012
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2012

  12. [​IMG]

    Uploaded with
  13. RDW


  14. That's pretty much what Alan Dershowitz has said...who is decidedly not on the side of gun owners, and is certainly a more accomplished jurist than Angela Corey.
    #55 badge315, May 10, 2012
    Last edited: May 10, 2012
  15. Which is why, in one my previous posts, I said, "Prosecution also made the mistake of charging with 2nd degree murder, which is way harder to prove than manslaughter. Epic mistake."

    I agree with Dershowitz on the 2nd degree charge. Should have been manslaughter. The prosecution is going after the wrong angle in this case. They are attacking the profiling angle. They should be, from the start, going after the illegal use of deadly force angle.

    There is no doubt that Zimmerman was getting beat down by Martin. But what caused the fight is the issue, not who had the upper hand in the fight. Like I've said before, if Zimmerman was indeed the instigator, you forfeit your claim to self defense at that point, along with stand your ground.
  16. I don't see how you can charge somebody with manslaughter when they've already stated that they shot the other person intentionally.:dunno:
  17. Voluntary manslaughter...
  18. Politics in action: witnesses on the scene confirmed Zimmerman was the guy on the ground crying for help while Martin (on top) pounded his skull into the ground. That's the reason Martin was not initially charged. Had it not gone public, that would have been the end of it. Now the "special investigator" card is played so they can charge him and drag him through a trial where he will be acquitted.... and then they can blame the jury. What a crock.
    #59 Alizard, May 11, 2012
    Last edited: May 11, 2012
  19. concretefuzzynuts

    concretefuzzynuts Brew Crew

    Why don't you wait until all the evidence is presented before posting your slanted opinion, Alitard. You people who cast final judgement on cases before trial make me sick.


Share This Page

Duty Gear at CopsPlus