Free George Zimmerman

[BDBoop]

Trayvon’s mother: Zimmerman’s family is hurting, but we lost our son | The Raw Story

When asked what they would do or say if they came face with George Zimmerman today, both said that first and foremost, they want Zimmerman to be held accountable. Fulton said that she believes that the gunman should first apologize. She said that she thinks that the shooting was “an accident,” that things escalated and got “out of control.” However, she said, while she knows that the Zimmerman family is in pain, she has lost her son.

“It’s just very difficult to live with day in and day out,” she told “Today” anchor Ann Curry, “I’m sure (George Zimmerman’s) parents can pick up the phone and call him, but we can’t pick up the phone and call Trayvon anymore.”

 

[JakeStarkey]

I simply repeating what I heard Dershowitz saying, that the affidavit would not pass muster other than for preliminary actions, such as holding GZ. I have no idea what an "information" as you are using it. One, I imagine, is for preliminaries, and the other is what the judge will use to see if the charge will even be allowed into a trial?

 

[BDBoop]

Now if the prosecutor thought like the mother - wouldn't he have been charged with manslaughter?

 

[Peach]

I simply repeating what I heard Dershowitz saying, that the affidavit would not pass muster other than for preliminary actions, such as holding GZ. I have no idea what an "information" as you are using it. One, I imagine, is for preliminaries, and the other is what the judge will use to see if the charge will even be allowed into a trial?

The Information is the formal charge(s).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks, Peach. Then AD was saying in the interview that no judge in her right mind would accept what was in the affidavit as acceptable for actual charges in trial. That makes sense.

Do you think prosecution is pushing for a plea to voluntary manslaughter?

 

[Peach]

Thanks, Peach. Then AD was saying in the interview that no judge in her right mind would accept what was in the affidavit as acceptable for actual charges in trial. That makes sense.

Do you think prosecution is pushing for a plea to voluntary manslaughter?

I have no idea, but it is a possibility.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The question is just that, GG, whether GZ used lawful, deadly force in the face of Martin's attack. No evidence exists that "the legal system is already abusing him at this point". TM's mother says it was her son yelling for help, others saying it was GZ as TM was beating him for messing in his life without cause.

The prosecution is going to have to prove "moral depravity" if it wants a conviction of Murder in the 2nd Degree.

Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard liberal lawyer and professor, says that the prosecution affidavit, as it is now written is a shabby artifact, not at all possible of passing judicial review for a trial with Murder in the 2nd Degree as the charge.

Hmmm, impartial eye witness vs. subjective arguments. Use your brain for once.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The eyewitness statements are always subjective, GG, and quite distrusted by prosecution and defense attorneys.

You are trying to pigeon hole a case that won't be corralled for some time.

Please let your prejudices go. You have no special knowledge or super power about this case.

Time will tell.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course you don't...because you already decided he was guilty.
How would Zimmerman know that Martin didn't have a gun on him?
Did Martin live in that "gated community" that had been having problems with break-ins? Zimmerman was out there "watching" because that area HAD had quite a few break-ins recently, so of course he would wonder why this kid was in the neighborhodd, if he didn't live there.

And why, once Zimmerman turned around and went back to his truck did Martin decide to confront him instead of keep walking home (if that's what he was doing)? I think Martin was looking for trouble, otherwise he would have just walked away (as Zimmerman did). If he'd done that, none of this would have happened.

Well, there you go thinking again.

Zimmerman didn't "walk away". He followed this kid AFTER being told not to by a 911 operator.

Because the kid was black.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The eyewitness statements are always subjective, GG, and quite distrusted by prosecution and defense attorneys.

You are trying to pigeon hole a case that won't be corralled for some time.

Please let your prejudices go. You have no special knowledge or super power about this case.

Time will tell.

Dude. Its not hard to tell in a fight; who is getting their ass whooped and who is doing the ass whooping. Again, you are intentionally disregarding a cornerstone of evidence to fit your agenda (deuche).

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Well, there you go thinking again.

Zimmerman didn't "walk away". He followed this kid AFTER being told not to by a 911 operator.

Because the kid was black.

He followed him b/c he was an unknown entity in a neighborhood that had a recent history of break-ins. And the 9-1-1 Operator did say "we don't need you to follow him," but that doesn't mean he broke any laws, so stop pretending that he did. He had every right to be there as Trayvon. Therefore, it truly is a matter of who attacked who. It was Travvon that attacked and if that hag, Angela Corey would have convened a grand jury this thing would not even be going to trial.

 

[JoeB131]

I really believe he was arrested just to appease the people that have been screaming for his arrest...whether they had real evidence or not.

They had WEEKS to make this decision. I may be wrong, but i think they had to come up with something that the protestors would be satisfied with. 2nd Degree Murder sounds good...but i have a feeling that he will probably walk away with a very short sentence, or none at all, once the jury hears all the evidence. There are many out there that will not accept a not guilty verdict, no matter what the evidence is. In fact i believe there are many that will protest (or riot) anything less than a 10 yr sentence, no matter if the evidence happens to prove that Zimmerman is telling the truth.

I don't see any evidence that exonerates Zimmerman. That's b/c you're full of shit and assumed he was guilty when you still "knew" he was white.

If Trayvon attacked him, it was because he followed him after being told not to by a 911 operator. When did 911 operators get that authority? and fyi, she never told him not to, that's another lie. In short, his negligence in getting into that situation negates any mitigation during the situation. more bullshit.

Kind of like a drunk driver doesn't get off because he was drunk.

Do I think there were politics involved here? Absolutely. But I think that a law that allows a loose cannon like Zimmerman to walk around packing a 9MM and shoot a kid in the street is pure insanity.

It's called the Second Amendment.

I know, I know. As a liberal you hate that and will do everything in your power to remove that right, but us Freedom loving Americans will always fight back, with the truth.

Sorry, man, not a liberal. Just don't subscribe the clinical insanity that passes for "conservatism" these days.

Guy, I don't care about the whole "2nd Amendment" thing one way or the other. The Amendment was about militias, not gun ownership, but as a practical matter you can't ban guns after there are already 100 million+ of them out there. And I think most gun owners are responsible and should be allowed the privilage of gun ownership.

But the point you guys who support gun "rights" (there are no rights, only privilages the rest of us let you have) always make is that we should hold the gunowner responsible for his or her actions when they do something wrong.

Fair enough.

Shooting an unarmed kid who was committing no crime. Can't imagine it getting more "wrong" than that.

You gun nuts should be screaming as loudly for Zimmerman being held accountable as anyone.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, there you go thinking again.

Zimmerman didn't "walk away". He followed this kid AFTER being told not to by a 911 operator.

Because the kid was black.

He followed him b/c he was an unknown entity in a neighborhood that had a recent history of break-ins. And the 9-1-1 Operator did say "we don't need you to follow him," but that doesn't mean he broke any laws, so stop pretending that he did. He had every right to be there as Trayvon. Therefore, it truly is a matter of who attacked who. It was Travvon that attacked and if that hag, Angela Corey would have convened a grand jury this thing would not even be going to trial.

Or she just realized she didn't need weeks of Grand Jury testimony to get a charge that she wasn't going to get anyway.

Even I admit, a first degree murder charge was out of line. Second degree is probalby a bit of a stretch. Manslaughter is probably about right here.

Point is, I don't want to get shot because some weirdo who thinks he's Batman doesn't know me from the hood. I've lived in my current condo complex for 8 years now, I don't know 90% of the people who live here.

 

[jillian]

Lets let the justice system take it's course. We will know more as the trial develops. There is no need to speculate. The only thing I hope for is justice.

Exactly.

I'm not quite sure why the racists are so vested in there not being a trial.

Although not everyone that didn't think there should be a trial is racist. The important thing is that the people responsible with making the decision on a trial or not, made the decision, perhaps based on information we don't know yet.

Our justice system is not perfect, but it's the best in the world. No need to look at it with cynisim now, and there wasn't a need before he was arrested. Let's trust that he gets a fair trial, and ultimately hope for justice.

i think the people who are rabidly defending someone who hunted down a black kid are racist. i have no vested interest in a conviction. i do think, however, that the failure to properly investigate this and bring charges immediately tainted the case and anyone responsible for that failure should be removed from their jobs.

That said, i don't think they are going to get a conviction. I think that too much evidence was lost because of their failure to process zimmerman. they didn't even take his clothing. I also would have thought a lesser charge more appropriate. so does the special prosecutor know more?

we'll find out.

i also don't know if we have the "best" system in the world. we have a good system... flaws and all.

but the best? i wouldn't know. i have no experience with other countries legal systems.

 

[koshergrl]

I don't see any evidence that exonerates Zimmerman. That's b/c you're full of shit and assumed he was guilty when you still "knew" he was white.

If Trayvon attacked him, it was because he followed him after being told not to by a 911 operator. When did 911 operators get that authority? and fyi, she never told him not to, that's another lie. In short, his negligence in getting into that situation negates any mitigation during the situation. more bullshit.

Kind of like a drunk driver doesn't get off because he was drunk.

Do I think there were politics involved here? Absolutely. But I think that a law that allows a loose cannon like Zimmerman to walk around packing a 9MM and shoot a kid in the street is pure insanity.

It's called the Second Amendment.

I know, I know. As a liberal you hate that and will do everything in your power to remove that right, but us Freedom loving Americans will always fight back, with the truth.

Sorry, man, not a liberal. Just don't subscribe the clinical insanity that passes for "conservatism" these days.

Guy, I don't care about the whole "2nd Amendment" thing one way or the other. The Amendment was about militias, not gun ownership, but as a practical matter you can't ban guns after there are already 100 million+ of them out there. And I think most gun owners are responsible and should be allowed the privilage of gun ownership.

But the point you guys who support gun "rights" (there are no rights, only privilages the rest of us let you have) always make is that we should hold the gunowner responsible for his or her actions when they do something wrong.

Fair enough.

Shooting an unarmed kid who was committing no crime. Can't imagine it getting more "wrong" than that.

You gun nuts should be screaming as loudly for Zimmerman being held accountable as anyone.

Liar.

And you have no way of knowing he wasn't committing a crime.

And the use of kid is disengenuous. His own mother called him a young man...

 

[Rocko]

Exactly.

I'm not quite sure why the racists are so vested in there not being a trial.

Although not everyone that didn't think there should be a trial is racist. The important thing is that the people responsible with making the decision on a trial or not, made the decision, perhaps based on information we don't know yet.

Our justice system is not perfect, but it's the best in the world. No need to look at it with cynisim now, and there wasn't a need before he was arrested. Let's trust that he gets a fair trial, and ultimately hope for justice.

i think the people who are rabidly defending someone who hunted down a black kid are racist. i have no vested interest in a conviction. i do think, however, that the failure to properly investigate this and bring charges immediately tainted the case and anyone responsible for that failure should be removed from their jobs.

That said, i don't think they are going to get a conviction. I think that too much evidence was lost because of their failure to process zimmerman. they didn't even take his clothing. I also would have thought a lesser charge more appropriate. so does the special prosecutor know more?

we'll find out.

i also don't know if we have the "best" system in the world. we have a good system... flaws and all.

but the best? i wouldn't know. i have no experience with other countries legal systems.

There were many people, including myself, who didn't think there wasn't enough evidence out there for an indictment, and race was NOT a factor in coming to that conclusion. Having said that. The decision for a trial could have come based on evidence not available to the public yet, and was made by a person more qualified than me to make that judgement.

It does seem strange to me that it took so long for a arrest....A cynic could suggest it was motivated by politics. I'm not going to jump to that conclusion.

It may be a cliche, to say we have the best justice system in world. I'm guilty as charged. No pun intended.

 

[Sallow]

It's called the Second Amendment.

I know, I know. As a liberal you hate that and will do everything in your power to remove that right, but us Freedom loving Americans will always fight back, with the truth.

Sorry, man, not a liberal. Just don't subscribe the clinical insanity that passes for "conservatism" these days.

Guy, I don't care about the whole "2nd Amendment" thing one way or the other. The Amendment was about militias, not gun ownership, but as a practical matter you can't ban guns after there are already 100 million+ of them out there. And I think most gun owners are responsible and should be allowed the privilage of gun ownership.

But the point you guys who support gun "rights" (there are no rights, only privilages the rest of us let you have) always make is that we should hold the gunowner responsible for his or her actions when they do something wrong.

Fair enough.

Shooting an unarmed kid who was committing no crime. Can't imagine it getting more "wrong" than that.

You gun nuts should be screaming as loudly for Zimmerman being held accountable as anyone.

Liar.

And you have no way of knowing he wasn't committing a crime.

And the use of kid is disengenuous. His own mother called him a young man...

Most ridiculous post ever.

Grats.

 

[JoeB131]

It's called the Second Amendment.

I know, I know. As a liberal you hate that and will do everything in your power to remove that right, but us Freedom loving Americans will always fight back, with the truth.

Sorry, man, not a liberal. Just don't subscribe the clinical insanity that passes for "conservatism" these days.

Guy, I don't care about the whole "2nd Amendment" thing one way or the other. The Amendment was about militias, not gun ownership, but as a practical matter you can't ban guns after there are already 100 million+ of them out there. And I think most gun owners are responsible and should be allowed the privilage of gun ownership.

But the point you guys who support gun "rights" (there are no rights, only privilages the rest of us let you have) always make is that we should hold the gunowner responsible for his or her actions when they do something wrong.

Fair enough.

Shooting an unarmed kid who was committing no crime. Can't imagine it getting more "wrong" than that.

You gun nuts should be screaming as loudly for Zimmerman being held accountable as anyone.

Liar.

And you have no way of knowing he wasn't committing a crime.

And the use of kid is disengenuous. His own mother called him a young man...

Sorry, at my age, a 17 year old is a kid. And, nope, he wasn't committing a crime. He was buying Skittles.

What's with the weird underlinging shit? That's kind of obsessive.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Sorry, man, not a liberal. Just don't subscribe the clinical insanity that passes for "conservatism" these days.

Guy, I don't care about the whole "2nd Amendment" thing one way or the other. The Amendment was about militias, not gun ownership, but as a practical matter you can't ban guns after there are already 100 million+ of them out there. And I think most gun owners are responsible and should be allowed the privilage of gun ownership.

But the point you guys who support gun "rights" (there are no rights, only privilages the rest of us let you have) always make is that we should hold the gunowner responsible for his or her actions when they do something wrong.

Fair enough.

Shooting an unarmed kid who was committing no crime. Can't imagine it getting more "wrong" than that.

You gun nuts should be screaming as loudly for Zimmerman being held accountable as anyone.

Liar.

And you have no way of knowing he wasn't committing a crime.

And the use of kid is disengenuous. His own mother called him a young man...

Sorry, at my age, a 17 year old is a kid. And, nope, he wasn't committing a crime. He was buying Skittles.

What's with the weird underlinging shit? That's kind of obsessive.

Joe you spread lies all over this board. Trayvon attacked George. If you're going to sanitize your arguments then there's no point dealing with you.

 

[konradv]

Liar.

And you have no way of knowing he wasn't committing a crime.

And the use of kid is disengenuous. His own mother called him a young man...

Sorry, at my age, a 17 year old is a kid. And, nope, he wasn't committing a crime. He was buying Skittles.

What's with the weird underlinging shit? That's kind of obsessive.

Joe you spread lies all over this board. Trayvon attacked George. If you're going to sanitize your arguments then there's no point dealing with you.

Why are you saying attacked? Why not "stood his ground", when confronted by a man with a gun? It would seem he had a better justification on that score than Zimmerman.