Author Topic: Prosecution in Martin/Zimmerman case releases bundle of evidence (Read 6483 times)

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #30 on:** May 18, 2012, 09:23:04 AM »

Quote from: Conan The Librarian on May 18, 2012, 09:19:36 AM

Sounds like another way of saying "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit". Remember that line?

Yeah, but now it's the other way around, or something like that.

On this innocent until proven guilty bit... that's what they tell us. Fed conviction rate is 96-97%. Dont know what it is in FL for this sort of case. Fact is... when you're in the dock, and the state is arrayed against you, jurors figure you're there for a reason, and the deck is stacked against you. Fact.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #31 on:** May 18, 2012, 09:34:54 AM »

Yes, if there is resonable doubt, he must be aquitted. That is constitutional. Resonable doubt is his injuries and very close proximity when he fired the shot. As far as Zimmerman being on medication. Being on medication doesn't keep you from owning or carrying a gun. If you are deemed a mental patient such as bi-polar, or schizophrenic, then you can't own a gun. Normal people can be on medication for stress, weight loss, even an addictive medication if your doctor thinks you need it for pain or something. Marajuana usually mellows a person out from what I heard. Makes them laid back. Probably not enough in Martin's system to do that, but it does show the kid was doing something illegal by using it.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #32 on:** May 18, 2012, 09:39:29 AM »

Quote from Dixie Dude:
" Probably not enough in Martin's system to do that, but it does show the kid was doing something illegal by using it."

Dixie,
Can you with a straight face tell us that you have not broke a speed limit or some other traffic violation in the last month? If you have, you are doing something illegal.
GuzziJohn

jimster · « **Reply #33 on:** May 18, 2012, 10:11:22 AM »

Well Zimmerman followed the first rule that was taught in one of our classes years ago, and that would be the only one left alive, no story but your own. That is in his favor, all other stories would be nothing but made up if there are no witnesses. And if there is a witness, which i think there is, he probably saw Martin on top of Zimmerman...cause guess what...he was. Murder don't fit. If the people had half a brain that charged Zimmerman that would have picked something like negligent homicide...even that would be hard enough to prove.
I bet the locals did it right and followed the law, they had no reason not to. I'll also bet there is someone who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and his life is in some danger if that is true, so you won't be hearing much until it's the right time. And if there is no witness...there is one story...medical records, and not much else. Also, it might just be impossible for Zimmerman to even get a fair trial with the the president of the united states actually opening up his big yap on this case and all the publicity....a judge could just toss the whole case on that alone.
I think Zimmerman will get off one way or the other, and all hell will break lose after that. That's my prediction.

r29l20 · « **Reply #34 on:** May 18, 2012, 10:33:00 AM »

I'm sick of hearing everyone say Z could have avoided it, or could have done something differant. How about t-thug doing something differant, like don't walk around dressed like a gang banger, looking in peoples windows, getting cocky when asked what he was doing, or beating on someone. Z was protecting the gated community, that had recent break ins. He did his job!

finisher · « **Reply #35 on:** May 18, 2012, 11:10:05 AM »

I've seen similar situations. In LA, California they are quite common...only without ending in shootings.

While it is true that Z is the only one left to tell the tale (convenient), there are always (in general) three sides to every story, "yours", "his", and of course, "the truth".

I've worked in security in the past and I hold a guard card in two states. One thing that is common to both states being CA and OR (although I don't know about FL) is that no private person has the right to DETAIN.

If there is the presence of a misdemeanor crime, it has to have been witnessed by said card holder/private person/civilian watch. Or in the case of a felony crime it must have at least been witnessed by someone else as; "private persons" (security/civilian watch etc.) again, do not have the right to detain or question in the manner of conducting an investigation as would a sworn LE officer.

They can only make an arrest under the said circumstances. If they detain and there is no crime present, they can be in serious legal trouble up to a federal level.

The only exception of which I'm aware is for loss prevention specialists operating and there is a very fine line of what they can do.

As I said before, I've seen similar situations in LA where some "Barney Feif" was out "playing" policeman, and they got a little too mouthy with someone who may or may have not been doing anything wrong (In the case of TM we may never know for sure, not to say he was an angel ...unlikely, I think), and ended up getting their ass kicked up and down the block for not knowing the laws the way they should have before they signed their Guard Card.

This is what I see here based on what I've heard.

TM an angel... likely no.

Up to no good? Who knows, Z was lucky enough to have killed the only other key witness.

I think "a" confrontation could have been avoided by both parties, being completely unnecessary.

"...mans got to know his limitations"

For exceeding his limits, Z got punked and thumped by a "junior grade" thug.

And for having not just kept on walking (for supposedly having done no wrong), TM got his ass dead.

They're both a couple of jack asses. Pardon my "French"

Finisher

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #36 on:** May 18, 2012, 11:28:26 AM »

I

Quote

f there is the presence of a misdemeanor crime, it has to have been witnessed by said card holder/private person/civilian watch. Or in the case of a felony crime it must have at least been witnessed by someone else as; "private persons" (security/civilian watch etc.) again, do not have the right to detain or question in the manner of conducting an investigation as would a sworn LE officer.

Interesting take on the subject! I have not seen any mention of Z trying to "detain" TM.

Casull · « **Reply #37 on:** May 18, 2012, 12:26:44 PM »

Quote

Many here have already convicted Martin.
GuzziJohn

Well, I would say that it is unlikely that he put the beat down on Zimmerman AFTER being shot.

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #38 on:** May 18, 2012, 12:42:46 PM »

I just saw a snippet from the police report on the altercation. The report says that Zimmerman was at fault, because it was 'ultimately avoidable' had he remained in his car.

For our LEOs here - do we have some? - if someone start slugging you guys, are you allowed to shoot them? Or will your shooting them be condemned as unneccesary, because you it wouldn't have happened if you'd stayed in the car?

Casull · « **Reply #39 on:** May 18, 2012, 12:46:13 PM »

Quote

I just saw a snippet from the police report on the altercation. The report says that Zimmerman was at fault, because it was 'ultimately avoidable' had he remained in his car.

For our LEOs here - do we have some? - if someone start slugging you guys, are you allowed to shoot them? Or will your shooting them be condemned as unneccesary, because you it wouldn't have happened if you'd stayed in the car?

Agreed. That is pure BS. That's like saying it's someone's fault for being run over by a drunk driver because it wouldn't have happened if they had stayed home.

williamlayton · « **Reply #40 on:** May 18, 2012, 01:02:56 PM »

Here is the question to be answered.
Was Z instigating a confrontation by getting out of his vehicle and following Martin?
In many ways I think this was the act that caused the end results.
Should a person just ignore being followed? Well if you know it will end up in a killing I wouldsay yes. What I think you have here is a wannabe cop/bag guy/tough guy/Adrenalin freak/ or, someone who was really stupid.
Folks you don't go following folks in the night without very good information. Z had no information/didn't know what kind of a person he was up against. whether Martin was a gangster/bad guy is not pertinent. It is like going into a bar and start shadowing a patron---you better know all of the conditions.
I will be real honest here---IF one of you starts following me, I am going to get you off my ass--one way or the other.
I think Z screwed up and is the one who pushed the confrontation.
Then again, I don't know anything that you folks don't know.
Blessings

jimster · « **Reply #41 on:** May 18, 2012, 01:32:26 PM »

Ya I think I've said a few times on here following someone around was not smart at all...it made trouble. That being said, there must have been another charge besides murder they could have done? Some kind of homicide or manslaughter? I'm just sayin murder is going to be a hard one to prove. I think the prosecution that took over may have bit off more than they can chew...maybe not...we'll see. I still stand by my prediction, if the murder charge does not stick...Zimmerman walks and all heck will break loose.

Since I have no idea what took place anyways I would have to agree with the following...

Quote

They're both a couple of jack asses. Pardon my "French"

Casull · « **Reply #42 on:** May 18, 2012, 01:35:02 PM »

Quote

Ya I think I've said a few times on here following someone around was not smart at all

Kind of tough to have a neighborhood watch program if you can't watch someone.

r29l20 · « **Reply #43 on:** May 18, 2012, 03:03:56 PM »

Quote from: Casull on May 18, 2012, 01:35:02 PM

Quote
Ya I think I've said a few times on here following someone around was not smart at all

Kind of tough to have a neighborhood watch program if you can't watch someone.

+1

r29l20 · « **Reply #44 on:** May 18, 2012, 03:06:08 PM »

They over charged Z, so it would be easier to aquit him. The only thing their affaid of, is the black uproar.

jimster · « **Reply #45 on:** May 18, 2012, 03:12:24 PM »

That may be true Casull, I've thought about it, and I decided since I'm usually armed it would not be a good idea for me to be in a program where I had to follow anyone around. I don't like the idea of following anyone anyways armed or not. Now that's just me, and I don't know what the neighborhood watch thing allows, but if I'm not a cop, and I am armed, could turn out bad if I go snoopin around too much. That's just me, could be I just don't want any trouble, too old. I hope I never have to shoot anyone, but if I do, I'm going to be minding my own business. I hope.
All that being said, I would think you still have the right to self defense if someone is trying to hurt you bad or kill you, even if you started it. So this is a complicated case for sure, and it makes it even more so with nobody seeing anything or knowing anything.

Cuts Crooked · « **Reply #46 on:** May 18, 2012, 03:15:24 PM »

If I were on the jury THESE the only things that would have any bearing on the case: Was Z in a place he had a right to be? Was he engaged in unlawful activity? Did he believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm?

The law as written:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Drilling Man · « **Reply #47 on:** May 18, 2012, 03:39:27 PM »

Quote from: williamlayton on May 18, 2012, 01:02:56 PM

Here is the question to be answered.
Was Z instigating a confrontation by getting out of his vehicle and following Martin?
In many ways I think this was the act that caused the end results.
Should a person just ignore being followed? Well if you know it will end up in a killing I wouldsay yes. What I think you have here is a wannabe cop/bag guy/tough guy/Adrenalin freak/ or, someone who was really stupid.
Folks you don't go following folks in the night without very good information. Z had no information/didn't know what kind of a person he was up against. whether Martin was a gangster/bad guy is not pertinent. It is like going into a bar and start shadowing a patron---you better know all of the conditions.
I will be real honest here---IF one of you starts following me, I am going to get you off my ass--one way or the other.
I think Z screwed up and is the one who pushed the confrontation.
Then again, I don't know anything that you folks don't know.
Blessings

The problem with that thinking is, Z says he was retreating when he was attacked, so "no limit nig" changed everything by going after Z and attacking him. Once "no limit nig" persued Z, everything changed and "stand your ground" kicked in!

I would have done exactly the same thing Z did if it was me getting pounded!

DM

Casull · « **Reply #48 on:** May 18, 2012, 03:45:57 PM »

Quote

If I were on the jury THESE the only things that would have any bearing on the case: Was Z in a place he had a right to be? Was he engaged in unlawful activity? Did he believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm?

The law as written:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Spot on, cuts crooked. He certainly seems to have the facts on his side, and most definitely has the law on his side. Only, problem is he doesn't have the media on his side (and he's not the right color).

tobster · « **Reply #49 on:** May 18, 2012, 04:07:13 PM »

FWIW- I just watched the survelience tape of Martin in the conveneince store that night. At 6'2" with the hood of his dark sweatshirt up the entire time he was inside the store, I will say he was a far cry from the pictures of the cute 13 year old the media likes to show. If I was going to follow him it would be from waaaaaaaay back. I would like to know how close Zimmerman was when the police ( NOT 911,by the way) operator told him not to follow.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #50 on:** May 18, 2012, 04:14:44 PM »

Guzzi, I haven't gotten a speeding ticket since the 1970's when they lowered it to 55. I can't afford stupidity. I drive a company vehicle that I use to inspect contractors. Thank God in the 37 years I have worked for this company I haven't had an accident. Safety is pounded into us by my company with monthly safety meetings. I once was the safety committee chairman.
Drugs are illegal and dangerous. I never used or tried them. I have never been drunk. Not bragging on myself, but Salvation through Jesus Christ helps keep you out of a lot of trouble. He indwells you by His Holy Spirit and it is like a super conscience.
Thank God about half my company is Evangelical Christians so there is virtually no cursing, ugly talk, etc, on the job. Prayer over company meals or picnics are traditional. We have random drug testing at work, which includes checking for alcohol. If found, you must take mandated company counseling. If that doesn't work, you are fired. This is in part because it is required by the U.S. Department of Transportation for any companies dealing with hazardous, flamable, or other dangerous material.
Too bad Federal employees can't have the same high standards their mandated bureaucracies require.
You also didn't quote my whole statement, that marijuana usually mellows a person out and relaxes them to the point they wouldn't fight. So not enough in his system, but it does show he was using something illegal. That alone would keep him from getting any kind of utility job, and many other jobs. Kids are stupid, they need adult guidance until they grow out of stupid. Sometimes the choices they make will lead to death, just like half of all teenage drunk driving ends in death. This is from statistics from some of my safety meetings. Going out late at night in a gated neighborhood is kind of stupid also. Most have security guards around here operating at night. Armed. People today are afraid, people panic, people do not trust the government, nor other people. Getting God out of schools, prayer, demonizing Christians, situation ethics, have gotten people like this. There is a loss of respect for every type of authority today. Isn't taught in schools. No moral compass. This is what leads to our loss of freedom. Freedom requires responsibility and respect to stay free.

r29l20 · « **Reply #51 on:** May 18, 2012, 04:23:37 PM »

Quote from: Casull on May 18, 2012, 03:45:57 PM

Quote
If I were on the jury THESE the only things that would have any bearing on the case: Was Z in a place he had a right to be? Was he engaged in unlawful activity? Did he believe he was in danger of death or great bodily harm?

The law as written:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Spot on, cuts crooked. He certainly seems to have the facts on his side, and most definitely has the law on his side. Only, problem is he doesn't have the media on his side (and he's not the right color).

I had a case where the law was written out, and I was in the right, but the prosecuter said that doesn't matter what it says.

The juditial system is corupt. I can't trust any of them.

JustaShooter · « **Reply #52 on:** May 18, 2012, 04:52:40 PM »

Quote from: guzzijohn on May 18, 2012, 02:59:16 AM

Not so fast here folks. The marijuana thing is irrelevant. ABC news said that only trace amounts were found in his system. Even if he had been actively high that probably would have reduced the chance of Martin being violent.

I take it you've never seen a pothead get paranoid and freak out then? I've witnessed several episodes at various times in my life, so I know what can happen when these so-called mellow potheads go paranoid, and it can all turn bad right quick and in a hurry.

Just a Shooter

finisher · « **Reply #53 on:** May 18, 2012, 06:17:53 PM »

Interesting take on the subject! I have not seen any mention of Z trying to "detain" TM.

**********************
What I'm trying to figure out is how contact was initiated. I've heard no mention of that.

By CA & OR standards, had an actual crime been commited by the youngster, Z would have been within his rights as a "private person" to make a citizens arrest.

So what was Z doing when contact was initiated; arresting, detaining, conversing...what?

Assuming, and this is a big "ass-u-me"-ption, that TM was minding his business, if I as a teen (having grown up in LA) was approached by some guy that had already been following me for some time, my initial response when being contacted would have been "".

Thats just the enviroment in which I had to live. We'll never know what TM's perspective may have been.

finisher · « **Reply #54 on:** May 18, 2012, 06:22:15 PM »

Quote from: r29l20 on May 18, 2012, 03:03:56 PM

Quote from: Casull on May 18, 2012, 01:35:02 PM
Quote
Ya I think I've said a few times on here following someone around was not smart at all

Kind of tough to have a neighborhood watch program if you can't watch someone.
+1

Observe and report...observe and report. Some where along the line, the observe part got tossed out the window and someone got thumped and someone else got dead. ...wah hawpenned $:-\$ ?

finisher · « **Reply #55 on:** May 18, 2012, 06:34:07 PM »

Quote from: Drilling Man on May 18, 2012, 03:39:27 PM

Quote from: williamlayton on May 18, 2012, 01:02:56 PM
Here is the question to be answered.
Was Z instigating a confrontation by getting out of his vehicle and following Martin?
In many ways I think this was the act that caused the end results.
Should a person just ignore being followed? Well if you know it will end up in a killing I wouldsay yes. What I think you have here is a wannabe cop/bag guy/tough guy/Adrenalin freak/ or, someone who was really stupid.
Folks you don't go following folks in the night without very good information. Z had no information/didn't know what kind of a person he was up against. whether Martin was a gangster/bad guy is not pertinent. It is like going into a bar and start shadowing a patron---you better know all of the conditions.
I will be real honest here---IF one of you starts following me, I am going to get you off my ass--one way or the other.
I think Z screwed up and is the one who pushed the confrontation.
Then again, I don't know anything that you folks don't know.
Blessings

The problem with that thinking is, Z says he was retreating when he was attacked, so "no limit nig" changed everything by going after Z and attacking him. Once "no limit nig" persued Z, everything changed and "stand your ground" kicked in!

I would have done exactly the same thing Z did if it was me getting pounded!

DM

********************
On that note I guess it all depends on who you believe. Being that dead men tell no tales it makes no sense to assume in favor of either party without hearing both sides. We may never know.

IF pursued upon my retreat, I agree with you. But that is and will remain a BIG "IF".

Casull · « **Reply #56 on:** May 18, 2012, 06:46:03 PM »

Quote

Some where along the line, the observe part got tossed out

That's a mighty big assumption. Zimmerman may well have been observing right up till the time Martin started beating. The autopsy report made no mention of any damage to Martin, other than the gun shot wound (unless the injuries to his knuckles were from Zimmerman beating Martin's fists with his face). As I noted previously, it is highly doubtful that Zimmerman shot Martin prior to Martin laying the smack down on him.

ironglow · « **Reply #57 on:** May 19, 2012, 12:54:06 AM »

1) All this occurred on a basically public sidewalk.

2) One a resident, the other a guest, both had a "right" to be there..especially the resident/neighborhood watch.

3) Technically, one can follow the other so long as physical contact is not made.

4) Tragically, apparently Z did not identify himself as neighborhood watch, nor did TM ask why he was being followed.

5) It APPEARS the act of "following" was abandoned BEFORE the physical contact was made.

6) Whether or not that is the case, whoever made FIRST physical contact bears a great deal of the blame.

7) As I related earlier, I often patrol on neighborhood watch. As a leader, I insist that we remember we are 'watch dogs', NOT 'attack dogs'. We also wear special baseball caps with a large, reflective NW on the front.

I should be allowed to follow anyone... at a respectful, observable distance, It is one of the methods of deterrence. Any of them would have the same right to follow me in a public venue... and one should be allowed to ask the other if/why they are being followed.

9) Tragically, a simple inquiry could have saved the whole situation. Perhaps the NW on the cap could have been instrumental, especially if such caps were already known as the Neighborhood Watch cap.

10) The situation still boils down to... Who made the bold, aggressive move to initiate PHYSICAL contact ?

11) From what we have to observe , it appears that the picture is clarifying. Not convincing yet, but surely getting there.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #58 on:** May 19, 2012, 01:07:32 AM »

In my opinion, Zimmerman had a gun. He could have said halt, who are you? However, he didn't pull it out early to let Martin know he was armed. Therefore, I think Martin jumped Zimmerman, thus Zimmerman pulled the gun and shot in self defence. Z did call 911. Obviously from the call, Martin was acting strangly.

williamlayton · « **Reply #59 on:** May 19, 2012, 01:31:52 AM »

I don't think that Z had a "right" to stop and question anyone.
It is fairly obvious to me that Z was doing more than observing--was it stalking?
The whole problem here is no one was thinking.
How many bar room fights break out because someone looks at someone wrong?
If you are very careful things can go wrong. Would I have shot? Yes, most likely! Now the question is could that have been an illegal shot?
We shall see.
Blessings