17y/o Killed By Neighborhood Watch/CHL

[VMI77]

I know this may sound preposterous to the majority on this forum but has anyone considered the possibility that Zimmerman was involved in a "questionable" self defense shooting and possibly lied to the police to protect himself. Is it possible that somewhere in the investigation there was a flaw identified in his story? Or his story changed? Or the physical evidence didn't match what he described? Has everyone on this forum personally read the investigators reports or personally interviewed the witnesses? Reviewed the time lines of the 911 calls and cell phone calls? Unfortunately I have only had access to what has been in the media and it's certainly not complete nor in many cases, accurate. All the ranting and raving on this post about "the fix is in" and the injustice being done to George Zimmerman is just the opposite, but just as extreme, as we saw by Travon Martin's family, friends and supporters in the six weeks after he was killed.
I still believe in this country's justice system. I have visited too many other countries where justice is not possible and I very much value our system even though it's not perfect. It is now time for Mr. Zimmerman to be "judged by 12 instead of carried by 6" as we see so often posted on this forum regarding hypothetical situations. Now it's time to live up to the saying that we all love so much. I have no favorites in this case. Since I am not on the jury and can't know all the facts I will just follow it like everyone else. Many live were affected by this and we all must accept the outcome once the case is tried in a court of law.

Then I hope you don't get caught up in it. But to your first paragraph.....if there is such evidence as you suppose and would like to believe, why isn't it cited in the indictment affidavit? TAM has already posted a point by point criticism that clearly demonstrates the prosecutor lied in it. Even a Harvard law professor has called her irresponsible and unethical. A fix doesn't get any more obvious than this one.

[VMI77]

That possibility was popular with a number of people on this forum when the situation was first exposed. However, as more and more information (both right, wrong, and altered) was released/leaked, those people mostly fell by the wayside. At this point, the only official statement is the "affidavit of probable cause", which appears to be full of unsupported claims, speculation, and willful misrepresentations, with no mention of any evidence not already known. We also have the 911 calls. We only know what we know. Thats all we have to go on.

Since you seem to think that more is known, why wasn't additional evidence mentioned in the affidavit? The experienced prosecutor MUST have know that was a very weak affidavit.

IANAL but... Here (I think) is the quick answer to your question: http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/affida ... ble-cause/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Angela Corey did not indict George Zimmerman. A judge did. The judge considers the affidavit or affidavits as well as any other evidence and then decides whether to issue an arrest warrant The affidavit does not have to include the most specific details of an alleged crime, but only the basis that the prosecution believes that the crime was committed. The affidavit certainly accomplished that. Perhaps there are not more specific details because they choose not to have them debated by the public additionally contaminating the jury pool. They still have the burden of proof to present in court in order to convince a jury of guilt. My guess is that there is additional evidence that will be presented at the trial that will attempt to support the 2nd degree murder charge. What I have seen debated in the media doesn't appear to support anything worse than a manslaughter charge. It is only speculation on my part and I am ready to withhold judgement until both sides present the case and a jury reaches a decision. It's that "due process" thing and we all will have to wait to know the outcome.

It most certainly did not. That it didn't was stated outright by Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz on national television --a liberal, but apparently an honest one. Furthermore, he called the prosecutor "irresponsible" and "unethical." Your evaluation of it also doesn't square with the fact that it is full of outright lies and gross misrepresentations. This isn't "due process" either, since the normal process was overturned for political reasons, with an obviously directed outcome. Satisfying the mob isn't due process.

[57Coastie]

BillT,

You are so right.

It is not at all unusual for an arrest warrant to be issued with just the barest information in the affidavit needed for the judge to support his issuance of the warrant. Indeed, my experience has been that that is usually the case. The prosecution has no desire to tip its theory and tactics off to the defense earlier than it is compelled to do so (even then, in too many cases). Similarly, when charges are brought by information, rather than by a grand jury indictment, as in this case, it is not at all unusual for the barest of evidence to be put forth in a probable cause hearing to support reference to trial and, in an appropriate case, denial of bail. Again, I believe that is usually the case.

It will be an unusual case indeed where you will find all the government's evidence laid out in either an arrest warrant affidavit or the information/indictment.

Jim

Seems strange, then, that so many people from both sides are knocking it. Calling it unprofessional and inadequate.

Agreed. Some people like to talk just to show that they are so much smarter than the rest of us.

Patience -- the truth will out.

Jim

[BillT]

That possibility was popular with a number of people on this forum when the situation was first exposed. However, as more and more information (both right, wrong, and altered) was released/leaked, those people mostly fell by the wayside. At this point, the only official statement is the "affidavit of probable cause", which appears to be full of unsupported claims, speculation, and willful misrepresentations, with no mention of any evidence not already known. We also have the 911 calls. We only know what we know. Thats all we have to go on.

Since you seem to think that more is known, why wasn't additional evidence mentioned in the affidavit? The experienced prosecutor MUST have know that was a very weak affidavit.

IANAL but... Here (I think) is the quick answer to your question: http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/affida ... ble-cause/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Angela Corey did not indict George Zimmerman. A judge did. The judge considers the affidavit or affidavits as well as any other evidence and then decides whether to issue an arrest warrant The affidavit does not have to include the most specific details of an alleged crime, but only the basis that the prosecution believes that the crime was committed. The affidavit certainly accomplished that. Perhaps there are not more specific details because they choose not to have them debated by the public additionally contaminating the jury pool. They still have the burden of proof to present in court in order to convince a jury of guilt. My guess is that there is additional evidence that will be presented at the trial that will attempt to support the 2nd degree murder charge. What I have seen debated in the media doesn't appear to support anything worse than a manslaughter charge. It is only speculation on my part and I am ready to withhold judgement until both sides present the case and a jury reaches a decision. It's that "due process" thing and we all will have to wait to know the outcome.

It most certainly did not. That it didn't was stated outright by Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz on national television --a liberal, but apparently an honest one. Furthermore, he called the prosecutor "irresponsible" and "unethical." Your evaluation of it also doesn't square with the fact that it is full of outright lies and gross misrepresentations. This isn't "due process" either, since the normal process was overturned for political reasons, with an obviously directed outcome. Satisfying the mob isn't due process.

On what day did you and Mr. Dershowitz interview the witnesses and review the evidence collected at the scene and elsewhere? I am not aware of anyone that is making the rounds of the all the news talk shows, the Dershowitz's, Nancy Grace's, etc. that have been invited to personally review the evidence. But if you have actually seen the proof of the "outright lies and gross misrepresentations" please share it with us. You are in a unique position. The rest of us just have the media to rely on, and anyone who believes everything they hear on TV or read on the internet would not be welcome on my jury! These people who make these talk show rounds as "experts" in their former professions are damaged goods looking for fame in my opinion. They are personalities brought in for headlines and impact. Not for their investigative ability or legal understanding! I'll leave it to the current working professionals of the prosecution and the defense to sort this one out!

[ScooterSissy]

...I'll leave it to the current working professionals of the prosecution and the defense to sort this one out!

See, that sounds so good when it's put that way.
However, it can also, just as factually be put this way:

Why leave it to an elected official, during an election year, to overturn what the local officials had already determined, just because it's demanded by a state and national mob?

I hope you see our point.

I'll go a step further.

If there was probable cause, why are those officials not also being pursued for civil rights violations. The feds already opted out of that one, and I suspect for a good reason.

[VMI77]

That possibility was popular with a number of people on this forum when the situation was first exposed. However, as more and more information (both right, wrong, and altered) was released/leaked, those people mostly fell by the wayside. At this point, the only official statement is the "affidavit of probable cause", which appears to be full of unsupported claims, speculation, and willful misrepresentations, with no mention of any evidence not already known. We also have the 911 calls. We only know what we know. Thats all we have to go on.

Since you seem to think that more is known, why wasn't additional evidence mentioned in the affidavit? The experienced prosecutor MUST have know that was a very weak affidavit.

IANAL but... Here (I think) is the quick answer to your question: http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/affida ... ble-cause/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Angela Corey did not indict George Zimmerman. A judge did. The judge considers the affidavit or affidavits as well as any other evidence and then decides whether to issue an arrest warrant The affidavit does not have to include the most specific details of an alleged crime, but only the basis that the prosecution believes that the crime was committed. The affidavit certainly accomplished that. Perhaps there are not more specific details because they choose not to have them debated by the public additionally contaminating the jury pool. They still have the burden of proof to present in court in order to convince a jury of guilt. My guess is that there is additional evidence that will be presented at the trial that will attempt to support the 2nd degree murder charge. What I have seen debated in the media doesn't appear to support anything worse than a manslaughter charge. It is only speculation on my part and I am ready to withhold judgement until both sides present the case and a jury reaches a decision. It's that "due process" thing and we all will have to wait to know the outcome.

It most certainly did not. That it didn't was stated outright by Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz on national television --a liberal, but apparently an honest one. Furthermore, he called the prosecutor "irresponsible" and "unethical." Your evaluation of it also doesn't square with the fact that it is full of outright lies and gross misrepresentations. This isn't "due process" either, since the normal process was overturned for political reasons, with an obviously directed outcome. Satisfying the mob isn't due process.

On what day did you and Mr. Dershowitz interview the witnesses and review the evidence collected at the scene and elsewhere? I am not aware of anyone that is making the rounds of the all the news talk shows, the Dershowitz's, Nancy Grace's, etc. that have been invited to personally review the evidence. But if you have actually seen the proof of the "outright lies and gross misrepresentations" please share it with us. You are in a unique position. The rest of us just have the media to rely on, and anyone who believes everything they hear on TV or read on the internet would not be welcome on my jury! These people who make these talk show rounds as "experts" in their former professions are damaged goods looking for fame in my opinion. They are personalities brought in for headlines and impact. Not for their investigative ability or legal understanding! I'll leave it to the current working professionals of the prosecution and the defense to sort this one out!

DId you actually watch Dershowitz?...perhaps you should. I already pointed you to a listing of the lies and misrepresentations and they're easy to detect, because they don't rely on any "secret" evidence, they're based entirely on what is publicly available. There are no witnesses to what happened. Maybe you missed that. And since the obvious motive is to get Zimmerman and undermine CC and self-defense law, and to stir up racial hatred, if there was ANY evidence that contradicted Zimmerman and made him look guilty, it would be spouted from every MSM source 24/7, and they wouldn't have to lie about what happened to serve their agenda. I don't watch talk shows. For that matter I don't watch ANY commercial television, or any MSM propaganda pretending to be "news." And btw, Dershowitz is now a professor at Harvard, but he spent plenty of time in the courtroom and tried some very high-profile cases.

Finally, working "professionals" don't render incitements to satisfy mobs. There's another name for "reporters" and prosecutors who play to the mob.....but come to think of it, I guess you could call them "working professionals," in fact, members of the world's oldest profession.

[baldeagle]

Food for scary thought. We are all Zimmerman.

[Beiruty]

Food for scary thought. We are all Zimmerman.

I still do not understand the following:
Someone who is volunteering to be crime stopper is called a vigilante, racist, and social-profiler bent on hunting other minorities.
Where as someone who promotes "no-snitch on your bros", don't help the LEOs nab your kind's criminals, are called what? Social workers????

[Heartland Patriot]

Food for scary thought. We are all Zimmerman.

I still do not understand the following:
Someone who is volunteering to be crime stopper is called a vigilante, racist, and social-profiler bent on hunting other minorities.
Where as someone who promotes "no-snitch on your bros", don't help the LEOs nab you kind's criminals, are called what? Social workers????

I think the phrase is "community organizer"!

[57Coastie]

Will Zimmerman be granted bail?

Here is an interesting article from the left side. Perhaps the left and right might have a common ground for a change.

http://www.talkleft.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

[Oldgringo]

Rhetoric and opinions aside, would any of this have happened if Zimmerman had done what the Dispatcher told him to do? One guy is dead and the other will probably wish he was before it's over. ITMT, our CHL's and Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" have drawn much unwelcome scrutiny and unfavorable attention from an otherwise "sleeping dog".

[OldCannon]

Rhetoric and opinions aside, would any of this have happened if Zimmerman had done what the Dispatcher told him to do?

But he did do exactly that.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

The rest of the conversation was George giving them his number and discussing where the police can meet him at.

Perhaps you're thinking of a different George Zimmerman?

There's no evidence from the call that GZ gave pursuit and harassed Mr. Innocent-Baby-With-Skittles-In-Pocket.

[57Coastie]

Rhetoric and opinions aside, would any of this have happened if Zimmerman had done what the Dispatcher told him to do? One guy is dead and the other will probably wish he was before it's over. ITMT, our CHL's and Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" have drawn much unwelcome scrutiny and unfavorable attention from an otherwise "sleeping dog".

While there may still be some differences of opinion about what the dispatcher said to Zimmerman, or perhaps only about what he said meant, it may be a bit early to say that the dispatcher told Zimmerman to do or not do something.

It does appear that those who have heard the recording of the discussion are saying that the dispatcher said, "you don't have to do that," which is quite different from an instruction to not do it.

The affidavit supporting the arrest warrant read, in pertinent part, "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher...." Again, this is quite different from failing to obey the dispatcher's instructions, and the affidavit in this respect was quite arguably deceptive. For example: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/ ... davit.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If indeed the dispatcher "instructed" Zimmerman to do something or not do something, a new question arises.

Did the dispatcher have the authority to instruct anybody to do or not do something? Does it make a difference whether the dispatcher is a police officer (not often the case, I suspect). This question may be reached in this case, but it may not have to be reached.

Jim

[RottenApple]

While there may still be some differences of opinion about what the dispatcher said to Zimmerman, or perhaps only about what he said meant, it may be a bit early to say that the dispatcher told Zimmerman to do or not do something.

It does appear that those who have heard the recording of the discussion are saying that the dispatcher said, "you don't have to do that," which is quite different from an instruction to not do it.

The affidavit supporting the arrest warrant read, in pertinent part, "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher...." Again, this is quite different from failing to obey the dispatcher's instructions, and the affidavit in this respect was quite arguably deceptive.

If indeed the dispatcher "instructed" Zimmerman to do something or not do something, a new question arises.

Did the dispatcher have the authority to instruct anybody to do or not do something? Does it make a difference whether the dispatcher is a police officer (not often the case, I suspect). This question may be reached in this case, but it may not have to be reached.

Jim

Whether the dispatcher had the authority to give an order or not doesn't really matter as all indications (publicly released so far) show that Zimmer did comply and was headed back to his vehicle.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok

The rest of the conversation was George giving them his number and discussing where the police can meet him at.

[Oldgringo]

As has often been said on this forum, "...a CC permit/license is not a Batman license. Inasmuch as I wasn't there, I don't know who was the aggressor.

Regardless of what the Dispatcher said or by what authority, Zimmerman apparently left the security of his vehicle. Y'all can debate this incident until the cows come home but Zimmerman, rightfully or wrongly, brought this on himself when he got out of his vehicle.

I need to go mow the yard.