Free George Zimmerman

[bigrebnc1775]

but an anonymous racist like TGG isn't the defense attorney. plus, you just can't throw mud at a victim b/c there is prejudice that would attach which outweighs the probative value. they would be allowed to talk only about what occurred THEN...

I doubt they'll be able to bring up the nonsense about him having tats and giving the finger to the camera on twitter...

neither of those things justifies someone being hunted down.

Racist? Give me a break. That's a load of junk. But you're worse than a racist. You're willing to crucify an innocent man b/c you have some sort of political agenda.

So you have already decided that GZ is an innocent man??? Oh, please. You're a joke.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

TGG certainly does not conduct himself as a worthy American adult male here.

Probably a one-hand commando typing away in his room in Mommy's basement.

You're still an emo deuche with nothing important to say; so you fall back on insults instead of joining the discussion. Sorta ironic considering the criticism you just leveled against me.

Says a white supremacist Storm Front doosh? Move along.

No one gives a **** about your little racist rant, no but another racist such as Bee boop.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The question will turn on whether Zimmerman had abandoned the pursuit when he returned to his car and whether it was Zimmerman then followed by Martin.

Zimmerman didn't return to his truck. That was parked on Twin Tree's, the event took place behind the building. For Zimmerman to have returned to his truck and been ambushed by Martin, then Martin would have had to drag Zimmerman back behind the building were the fight progressed and then Zimmerman shot Martin.

Makes no sense.


>>>>

Since two people here think you have carried the work as it was posted let's see what you have got.

Zimmerman WAS returning back to his truck that he left on twin tree, too meet with the police when they arrived,

There is no independent confirmation that Zimmerman had returned to his truck or that he was returning to his truck. During the dispatcher call, the police dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to follow Martin. Zimmerman said "OK", he acknowledged what the dispatcher told him but there is nothing to show that Zimmerman started to proceed back to his truck.

The dispatcher and Zimmerman were arranging for Zimmerman to meet the police at the mailbox, however during the dispatcher call Zimmerman canceled that idea and instead arranged with the dispacther for the police to call Zimmerman on his cell phone so he could tell them where to meet him or he could meet them. That would be arranged when the police called.

He **MAY** have, he **MAY NOT** - that is an unknown.

Now why would he shoot anyone unless he was attacked?

Zimmerman may have been pumped up on adrenalin. He could have felt he was in command of the situation and grabbed Martin (which would be assault (Florida Statute 784.011) on Zimmerman's part) and under Florida Statute 776.012 (Use of force in defense of person) Martin would be the Victim and Zimmerman would be the aggressor. As such Martin was authorized the use of self defense in defense of his own person.

Under this scenario, Zimmerman started the fight, but Martin got a good punch in (making Zimmerman's nose bleed and knocking him down resulting in an injury to the back of the head). Zimmerman continues to wrestle with Martin during the time that someone is calling for help. Zimmerman's family ID's the voice as Zimmerman's, Martin's family ID's the voice as Martins, some witnesses say it was Zimmerman's, some witnesses say it was Martins, and Technical audio experts say they have eliminated Zimmerman as the source. So who was actually calling for help at that point is really unknown. We can assume that the audio samples have been sent to Florida Crime Lab's or the FBI for definitive analysis and more will come out in court.

Of course Martin may have been the aggressor, there is no corroborating evidence one way or the other as to who initiated hostilities. The ONLY testimony available prior to the fight was the audio testimony from the girlfriend and her account of the exchange between Zimmerman and Martin differs from the Zimmerman's account that has been made public through the family. However, in support of the girlfriends account there are definative phone records showing the inbound call to Martin's cell phone and the duration of the call which backs up her claim of being in communications with Martin. Zimmerman called the dispatcher at 19:11, listen to the tape and you will hear that 1 minute 5 seconds in the tape Zimmerman makes the "waistband" comment. The girlfriend called at 19:12, the same time Zimmerman is making the "waistband" comment. The likelihood is then was that Martin was NOT making a threatening gesture, he was reaching into his pants pocket or his hoodie pocket to get his phone (most young people don't wear belt cell phone holsters because they are not "cool", although if Martin was wearing one it would have been taken along with Martins clothes as evidence.)

The girlfriends call when compared to Zimmerman's statements at the police station that night, I predict, will be an important piece of evidence. We have absolute proof that Martin was on the phone for about 4 minutes (I don't remember the exact amount of time - greater than 3 & less than 5). If Zimmerman never mentioned the fact that Martin was talking on a cell phone during police questioning that will look bad for him. Remember during questioning he may not have known there was an audio witness. It makes no sense for Martin to be ambushing someone while carrying on a phone conversation.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, but a lot of your "not facts" were based on speculation or the idea that they are not necessarily proven or known facts. Perhaps I'm just being too critical. Seems like you should have chosen your words better. Perhaps said "not proven" or "not certain." Just b/c you don't know something doesn't make it a "not fact."

Most of the individuals "facts" were based on speculation which were not known or proven facts. It it is "not proven" or "not certain" then logic says it is "not a fact".

Let's take an example. In the first "Fact" the poster says that Zimmerman had a broken nose. Where is the evidence of that? The police report does not say that, it says that his nose was bleeding not that it was broken. Zimmerman received first aid on site from EMT's. Is there an EMT report that has been made available to public stating that his nose was broken? (I haven't seen one.) Zimmerman refused transport to the hospital for his injuries, so there was no medical examination no medical evaluation is part of the record at this time.

To state Zimmerman's nose was broken we would need a medical evaluation showing it was broken. Without confirmation we could have his nose broken or it was simply a bloody nose. We know his nose was bleeding, that is a fact. We don't know is nose was broken (at this point) so it is not a fact it is speculation.


Do you have access to medical reports that his nose was broken?


>>>>

Technically, if something is not proven then it is not a fact. Still, "not a fact" creates the connotation that it is also unproven or untrue. I would not state "not a fact" about something that could still be factually shown. You would have been better off going with truer terms like "uncertain" or "unknown" in many cases. Otherwise, it does make you appear to have an agenda.

Let's take an example. In the first "Fact" the poster says that Zimmerman had a broken nose. Where is the evidence of that? The police report does not say that, it says that his nose was bleeding not that it was broken. Zimmerman received first aid on site from EMT's. Is there an EMT report that has been made available to public stating that his nose was broken?

How often do EMT's diagnose broken noses? I imagine a good percentage of the time. But also a good percentage of the time, they do not. It is often not known whether a nose is broken w/o the benefit of x-ray.

You stated that it's not a fact that his nose was broken. You have no idea for sure whether that is a fact or not though.

--

Your first example is probably uh whatever though. Probably wasn't enough for me to say anything. But go to your second example.

You refute that Zimmerman was knocked on his back. Yes, we don't know if that is true based on a witness account. But for all we know it is true. To call that "not a fact" is very misleading.

On fact 3 regarding Zimmerman's cuts to his head; you again base "not a fact" on total speculation about the scuffle. And you do it while ignoring the likelihood that the cuts were from being attacked (as that is what the eye witness account was). Again, this type of refutation shows that you absolutely appear to have an agenda/opinion despite claims to the contrary.

"Not a fact", "Unknown", "Uncertain" are all equivalent terms.

Your so called "not a fact four" was especially egregious. You disregarded an eye witness in favor of a so-called expert's analysis claiming that was TM calling for help. And the so-called expert was not even that of the prosecution. It was a media source. You disregarded an actual fact based on speculation. Good job bud. I'll stop there. That one really did it. That one really showed your agenda. There's just no doubt. You can't claim impartiality while disregarding facts and claiming non facts as facts.

Yes I have an agenda. That a thorough and complete investigation was/is being conducted and that a determination be made based on actual facts as to whether the death was a justifiable homicide on an unlawful homicide. If justifiable, then that Zimmerman be released and if it was found that he was arrested for political purposes that (a) the parties involved be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and (b) that Zimmerman succeed in a Civil Suit for damages. If the homicide was found to be unlawful, then the pertinent facts be presented in court for a jury to determine culpability. You got me.

What we have right now is:

• Zimmerman's family claiming it was Zimmerman's voice.
• Martin's family claiming it was Martin's voice.
• Audio expert hired by the media that eliminated Zimmerman.
• Witness accounts that it was Zimmerman calling for help.
• Witness accounts that is was Martin call for help.

What we do know is that the claim that it was Zimmerman's voice is "not a fact", "unknown", or "uncertain" as there are conflicting reports. Until we have Florida Crime Lab or FBI results on the analysis of the tapes - it is not a fact that it was Zimmerman's voice. It may have been, then of course it may not have been. We will find out in the future.




>>>>

 

[tinydancer]

Most of the individuals "facts" were based on speculation which were not known or proven facts. It it is "not proven" or "not certain" then logic says it is "not a fact".

Let's take an example. In the first "Fact" the poster says that Zimmerman had a broken nose. Where is the evidence of that? The police report does not say that, it says that his nose was bleeding not that it was broken. Zimmerman received first aid on site from EMT's. Is there an EMT report that has been made available to public stating that his nose was broken? (I haven't seen one.) Zimmerman refused transport to the hospital for his injuries, so there was no medical examination no medical evaluation is part of the record at this time.

To state Zimmerman's nose was broken we would need a medical evaluation showing it was broken. Without confirmation we could have his nose broken or it was simply a bloody nose. We know his nose was bleeding, that is a fact. We don't know is nose was broken (at this point) so it is not a fact it is speculation.


Do you have access to medical reports that his nose was broken?


>>>>

Technically, if something is not proven then it is not a fact. Still, "not a fact" creates the connotation that it is also unproven or untrue. I would not state "not a fact" about something that could still be factually shown. You would have been better off going with truer terms like "uncertain" or "unknown" in many cases. Otherwise, it does make you appear to have an agenda.

Let's take an example. In the first "Fact" the poster says that Zimmerman had a broken nose. Where is the evidence of that? The police report does not say that, it says that his nose was bleeding not that it was broken. Zimmerman received first aid on site from EMT's. Is there an EMT report that has been made available to public stating that his nose was broken?

How often do EMT's diagnose broken noses? I imagine a good percentage of the time. But also a good percentage of the time, they do not. It is often not known whether a nose is broken w/o the benefit of x-ray.

You stated that it's not a fact that his nose was broken. You have no idea for sure whether that is a fact or not though.

--

Your first example is probably uh whatever though. Probably wasn't enough for me to say anything. But go to your second example.

You refute that Zimmerman was knocked on his back. Yes, we don't know if that is true based on a witness account. But for all we know it is true. To call that "not a fact" is very misleading.

On fact 3 regarding Zimmerman's cuts to his head; you again base "not a fact" on total speculation about the scuffle. And you do it while ignoring the likelihood that the cuts were from being attacked (as that is what the eye witness account was). Again, this type of refutation shows that you absolutely appear to have an agenda/opinion despite claims to the contrary.

"Not a fact", "Unknown", "Uncertain" are all equivalent terms.

Your so called "not a fact four" was especially egregious. You disregarded an eye witness in favor of a so-called expert's analysis claiming that was TM calling for help. And the so-called expert was not even that of the prosecution. It was a media source. You disregarded an actual fact based on speculation. Good job bud. I'll stop there. That one really did it. That one really showed your agenda. There's just no doubt. You can't claim impartiality while disregarding facts and claiming non facts as facts.

Yes I have an agenda. That a thorough and complete investigation was/is being conducted and that a determination be made based on actual facts as to whether the death was a justifiable homicide on an unlawful homicide. If justifiable, then that Zimmerman be released and if it was found that he was arrested for political purposes that (a) the parties involved be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and (b) that Zimmerman succeed in a Civil Suit for damages. If the homicide was found to be unlawful, then the pertinent facts be presented in court for a jury to determine culpability. You got me.

What we have right now is:

• Zimmerman's family claiming it was Zimmerman's voice.
• Martin's family claiming it was Martin's voice.
• Audio expert hired by the media that eliminated Zimmerman.
• Witness accounts that it was Zimmerman calling for help.
• Witness accounts that is was Martin call for help.

What we do know is that the claim that it was Zimmerman's voice is "not a fact", "unknown", or "uncertain" as there are conflicting reports. Until we have Florida Crime Lab or FBI results on the analysis of the tapes - it is not a fact that it was Zimmerman's voice. It may have been, then of course it may not have been. We will find out in the future.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74kyUhRsLBc&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active]Eye Witness: "Police REFUSED to see Crime Scene in Trayvon Martin Case".mp4 - YouTube[/ame]


>>>>

And now the west coast analyst who is beyond repute saying that the person who tried to give the first analysis that it wasn't Zimmerman screaming for help is full of shit. And is willing to testify that the idiot who claimed his 15 minutes of fame is completely out to lunch. Most interesting.

Before I ever got into politics I was and will remain a murder junkie.Sometimes the worlds collide.

 

[tinydancer]

To me this is the "fubar" moment of all "fubar" moments, Aye carumba. What a mess. Trayvon seems to be a good kid. Zimmerman too.

Both at the wrong place at the wrong time. What a horrid clashing of times.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Zimmerman didn't return to his truck. That was parked on Twin Tree's, the event took place behind the building. For Zimmerman to have returned to his truck and been ambushed by Martin, then Martin would have had to drag Zimmerman back behind the building were the fight progressed and then Zimmerman shot Martin.

Makes no sense.


>>>>

Since two people here think you have carried the work as it was posted let's see what you have got.

Zimmerman WAS returning back to his truck that he left on twin tree, too meet with the police when they arrived,

There is no independent confirmation that Zimmerman had returned to his truck or that he was returning to his truck. During the dispatcher call, the police dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to follow Martin. Zimmerman said "OK", he acknowledged what the dispatcher told him but there is nothing to show that Zimmerman started to proceed back to his truck.

The dispatcher and Zimmerman were arranging for Zimmerman to meet the police at the mailbox, however during the dispatcher call Zimmerman canceled that idea and instead arranged with the dispacther for the police to call Zimmerman on his cell phone so he could tell them where to meet him or he could meet them. That would be arranged when the police called.

He **MAY** have, he **MAY NOT** - that is an unknown.

Now why would he shoot anyone unless he was attacked?

Zimmerman may have been pumped up on adrenalin. He could have felt he was in command of the situation and grabbed Martin (which would be assault (Florida Statute 784.011) on Zimmerman's part) and under Florida Statute 776.012 (Use of force in defense of person) Martin would be the Victim and Zimmerman would be the aggressor. As such Martin was authorized the use of self defense in defense of his own person.

Under this scenario, Zimmerman started the fight, but Martin got a good punch in (making Zimmerman's nose bleed and knocking him down resulting in an injury to the back of the head). Zimmerman continues to wrestle with Martin during the time that someone is calling for help. Zimmerman's family ID's the voice as Zimmerman's, Martin's family ID's the voice as Martins, some witnesses say it was Zimmerman's, some witnesses say it was Martins, and Technical audio experts say they have eliminated Zimmerman as the source. So who was actually calling for help at that point is really unknown. We can assume that the audio samples have been sent to Florida Crime Lab's or the FBI for definitive analysis and more will come out in court.

Of course Martin may have been the aggressor, there is no corroborating evidence one way or the other as to who initiated hostilities. The ONLY testimony available prior to the fight was the audio testimony from the girlfriend and her account of the exchange between Zimmerman and Martin differs from the Zimmerman's account that has been made public through the family. However, in support of the girlfriends account there are definative phone records showing the inbound call to Martin's cell phone and the duration of the call which backs up her claim of being in communications with Martin. Zimmerman called the dispatcher at 19:11, listen to the tape and you will hear that 1 minute 5 seconds in the tape Zimmerman makes the "waistband" comment. The girlfriend called at 19:12, the same time Zimmerman is making the "waistband" comment. The likelihood is then was that Martin was NOT making a threatening gesture, he was reaching into his pants pocket or his hoodie pocket to get his phone (most young people don't wear belt cell phone holsters because they are not "cool", although if Martin was wearing one it would have been taken along with Martins clothes as evidence.)

The girlfriends call when compared to Zimmerman's statements at the police station that night, I predict, will be an important piece of evidence. We have absolute proof that Martin was on the phone for about 4 minutes (I don't remember the exact amount of time - greater than 3 & less than 5). If Zimmerman never mentioned the fact that Martin was talking on a cell phone during police questioning that will look bad for him. Remember during questioning he may not have known there was an audio witness. It makes no sense for Martin to be ambushing someone while carrying on a phone conversation.


>>>>

There is no independent confirmation that Zimmerman had returned to his truck or that he was returning to his truck. During the dispatcher call, the police dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to follow Martin. Zimmerman said "OK", he acknowledged what the dispatcher told him but there is nothing to show that Zimmerman started to proceed back to his truck.

The dispatcher and Zimmerman were arranging for Zimmerman to meet the police at the mailbox, however during the dispatcher call Zimmerman canceled that idea and instead arranged with the dispacther for the police to call Zimmerman on his cell phone so he could tell them where to meet him or he could meet them. That would be arranged when the police called.

He **MAY** have, he **MAY NOT** - that is an unknown.

No Zimmerman never returned to his truck because he was jumped by Trayvon trying to make it back to his truck.

The girlfriends call when compared to Zimmerman's statements at the police station that night, I predict, will be an important piece of evidence.

You really want to use a person who has changed what she said, plus if Trayvon was so concerned with being followed why didn't he call 911 or his father?

Zimmerman may have been pumped up on adrenalin. He could have felt he was in command of the situation and grabbed Martin (which would be assault (Florida Statute 784.011) on Zimmerman's part) and under Florida Statute 776.012 (Use of force in defense of person) Martin would be the Victim and Zimmerman would be the aggressor. As such Martin was authorized the use of self defense in defense of his own person.

No sorry when Trayvon ran he fled the area that he felt he was in danger he was out so stand your ground no longer exist anymore for Trayvon. Ambushing a person is not standing your ground after you have fled the area you felt in danger.

Of course Martin may have been the aggressor, there is no corroborating evidence one way or the other as to who initiated hostilities. The ONLY testimony available prior to the fight was the audio testimony from the girlfriend and her account of the exchange between Zimmerman and Martin differs from the Zimmerman's account that has been made public through the family.

You're using the girlfriend as some key piece of evidence. Zimmerman never mentioned that Trayvon was on the phone when he was talking with the dispatcher, and according to Zimmerman martin had his hands around or in his waistband. This is the way I see it Trayvon called his girlfriend after he fled the seine and told her he was going to jack a mother ****** up and Zimmerman was the intended target. And to add the girlfriend never heard any conversion between Trayvon and Zimmerman.

If Zimmerman never mentioned the fact that Martin was talking on a cell phone during police questioning that will look bad for him. Remember during questioning he may not have known there was an audio witness. It makes no sense for Martin to be ambushing someone while carrying on a phone conversation.

Zimmerman never mentioned Trayvon having a phone because Trayvon wasn't using it until after he fled the area he felt danger in. Again why call your Girlfriend which was in a city 4 hours away when he could have called 911 or his father? It is my opinion Trayvon was bragging about what he was about to do to his girl friend and be a tough guy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To me this is the "fubar" moment of all "fubar" moments, Aye carumba. What a mess. Trayvon seems to be a good kid. Zimmerman too.

Both at the wrong place at the wrong time. What a horrid clashing of times.

Don't let that baby face image fool you, Trayvon was suspended from school three times. Each time worse than the last.

 

[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.

If Trayvon attacked him, it was because he followed him after being told not to by a 911 operator. In short, his negligence in getting into that situation negates any mitigation during the situation.

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.

What statute or law did Zimmerman violate? I have asked you this several times

The one against second degree murder, apparently...

Say buh-buy to your hero, he's going to be learning the joys of Anal Sex for the next ten years.

 

[LockeJaw]

I don't see any evidence that exonerates Zimmerman.

If Trayvon attacked him, it was because he followed him after being told not to by a 911 operator. In short, his negligence in getting into that situation negates any mitigation during the situation.

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.

What statute or law did Zimmerman violate? I have asked you this several times

The one against second degree murder, apparently...

Say buh-buy to your hero, he's going to be learning the joys of Anal Sex for the next ten years.

Statements like this show you don't give a rip about justice for either party in this case. All you care about is being able to say "I told you so!"

You're pathetic, boy who cried corporations.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't see any evidence that exonerates Zimmerman.

If Trayvon attacked him, it was because he followed him after being told not to by a 911 operator. In short, his negligence in getting into that situation negates any mitigation during the situation.

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.

What statute or law did Zimmerman violate? I have asked you this several times

The one against second degree murder, apparently...

Say buh-buy to your hero, he's going to be learning the joys of Anal Sex for the next ten years.

Since when is standing up for due process making someone a hero? OH never mind you communist don't like due process.

I don't see a case for 2nd degree murder under Florida law, maybe stalking but he's not being charged with stalking is he?

Florida Aggravated Stalking Laws

Aggravated stalking is engaging in a willful and malicious course of conduct that continuously harass a person with a credible threat, either expressed or implied, that places the victim in fear that they will suffer bodily harm, injury or even death. Aggravated stalking is a serious offense. It is a third degree felony, with a sentence punishable up to fifteen years in prison.
Florida Aggravated Stalking Laws

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

The woman is incompetent of the law

 

[LockeJaw]

What statute or law did Zimmerman violate? I have asked you this several times

The one against second degree murder, apparently...

Say buh-buy to your hero, he's going to be learning the joys of Anal Sex for the next ten years.

Since when is standing up for due process making someone a hero? OH never mind you communist don't like due process.

I don't see a case for 2nd degree murder under Florida law, maybe stalking but he's not being charged with stalking is he?

Florida Aggravated Stalking Laws

Aggravated stalking is engaging in a willful and malicious course of conduct that continuously harass a person with a credible threat, either expressed or implied, that places the victim in fear that they will suffer bodily harm, injury or even death. Aggravated stalking is a serious offense. It is a third degree felony, with a sentence punishable up to fifteen years in prison.
Florida Aggravated Stalking Laws

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

The woman is incompetent of the law

I think she knows she can't get him on 2nd deg murder, she's going to offer a plea bargain for manslaughter. We just have to see if anything new justifies that plea being taken by Zimmerman. If it turns out there is no significant new evidence, Zimmerman should turn it down.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of us, who know relatively little, are great with the advice!

But that is the magic of USMB!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The one against second degree murder, apparently...

Say buh-buy to your hero, he's going to be learning the joys of Anal Sex for the next ten years.

Since when is standing up for due process making someone a hero? OH never mind you communist don't like due process.

I don't see a case for 2nd degree murder under Florida law, maybe stalking but he's not being charged with stalking is he?

Florida Aggravated Stalking Laws

Aggravated stalking is engaging in a willful and malicious course of conduct that continuously harass a person with a credible threat, either expressed or implied, that places the victim in fear that they will suffer bodily harm, injury or even death. Aggravated stalking is a serious offense. It is a third degree felony, with a sentence punishable up to fifteen years in prison.
Florida Aggravated Stalking Laws

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

The woman is incompetent of the law

I think she knows she can't get him on 2nd deg murder, she's going to offer a plea bargain for manslaughter. We just have to see if anything new justifies that plea being taken by Zimmerman. If it turns out there is no significant new evidence, Zimmerman should turn it down.

I agree he should turn it down. I will add even if she uses aggravated stalking as a justification for charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder she would have had an additional charge of aggravated stalking which I don't think she did.

 

[LockeJaw]

All of us, who know relatively little, are great with the advice!

But that is the magic of USMB!

I've been meaning to ask you why you're using an avatar that mocks the justice for Trayvon side of the argument?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What statute or law did Zimmerman violate? I have asked you this several times

The one against second degree murder, apparently...

Say buh-buy to your hero, he's going to be learning the joys of Anal Sex for the next ten years.

Statements like this show you don't give a rip about justice for either party in this case. All you care about is being able to say "I told you so!"

You're pathetic, boy who cried corporations.

AMEN

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of us, who know relatively little, are great with the advice!

But that is the magic of USMB!

I've been meaning to ask you why you're using an avatar that mocks the justice for Trayvon side of the argument?

Silly questions that make no sense, except to a disturbed mind, don't get answered.

Edit: I can see bigrebnc stuttering below me. I know he has nothing worth to say.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All of us, who know relatively little, are great with the advice!

But that is the magic of USMB!

I've been meaning to ask you why you're using an avatar that mocks the justice for Trayvon side of the argument?

Jake's clueless after you've been here a while you will understand what I am talking about. He's known for the name jokey for a reason.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All of us, who know relatively little, are great with the advice!

But that is the magic of USMB!

I've been meaning to ask you why you're using an avatar that mocks the justice for Trayvon side of the argument?

Silly questions that make no sense, except to a disturbed mind, don't get answered.

Spiking the ball so soon? yep that's the normal jake we know of.

 

[LockeJaw]

Since when is standing up for due process making someone a hero? OH never mind you communist don't like due process.

I don't see a case for 2nd degree murder under Florida law, maybe stalking but he's not being charged with stalking is he?

Florida Aggravated Stalking Laws

Aggravated stalking is engaging in a willful and malicious course of conduct that continuously harass a person with a credible threat, either expressed or implied, that places the victim in fear that they will suffer bodily harm, injury or even death. Aggravated stalking is a serious offense. It is a third degree felony, with a sentence punishable up to fifteen years in prison.
Florida Aggravated Stalking Laws

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

The woman is incompetent of the law

I think she knows she can't get him on 2nd deg murder, she's going to offer a plea bargain for manslaughter. We just have to see if anything new justifies that plea being taken by Zimmerman. If it turns out there is no significant new evidence, Zimmerman should turn it down.

I agree he should turn it down. I will add even if she uses aggravated stalking as a justification for charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder she would have had an additional charge of aggravated stalking which I don't think she did.

True. IMO, She charged him with 2nd degree murder for two main reasons. 1- To calm the most ardent of those who fell for the race bait hook line and sinker, she had to come up with a very serious charge or Sharpton and the left wing activist media would've kicked the racial tension rhetoric into overdrive, even more than it already has been and she knew charging him with murder 1 would've made it too obvious. 2- As a bluff to try to scare Zimmerman into pleading guilty to manslaughter and end this quick.

Let's see where it goes during the trial though.