Zimmerman To Be Charged

[TheVictors]

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be trayvon martin or his family either. Welcome to the world of lifelong grief. Funny how some pour out sympathy for the one who killed the young man and show little for th family that had their lives ruined

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

I don't feel a single ounce of sympathy for Zimmerman and would not be surprised if he's harassed or even assaulted at some point ...and know you weren't insinuating that in your snarky little reply to my post.

 

[tinselwolverine]

from the sounds of it, the prosecution did an awful job. the fact that Florida is full of some of the slowest Americans probably didn't help in terms of finding a jury that could see through the sloppy legal work.

I've been wondering why the State didn't include reckless endangerment as an option for the jury.

 

[redandguilty]

The presumption of Zimmerman's innocence = a presumption of Martin's guilt.

 

[Michchamp]

I've been wondering why the State didn't include reckless endangerment as an option for the jury.

I don't know either. maybe the powers that be sandbagged their own case. they charged him with murder to silence the critics, knowing he wouldn't be convicted. they didn't want to see him in jail though.

that's Florida for ya!

 

[tigersofjustice]

He would have been not guilty in Michigan as well:

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.?
---------------------------------------------

As long as you're not doing anything illegal at the time, which theoretically Zimmerman wasn't, then you're allowed to use your firearm with deadly force in any of those three situations (getting your head bashed in would count). In reality, there are a lot of states with a similar law and even in states without it, it likely would have been manslaughter. I don't think you could convict him of 2nd degree murder in any state.

There is common law in most states that supplements these statutory provisions by creating presumptions of reasonableness or unreasonableness and by eliminating the right in situations where one initiates a confrontation that then escalates. That common law is not well defined in Florida.

 

[tigersofjustice]

My big question from the case is, how is it not possible to find out who was on top and who was on the bottom through the physical evidence. You should be able to tell through the bullet angle, through gun powder residue, through the blood splatter, ect.

If Zimmerman was on the bottom and fired, he should have Martin's blood all over him. The bullet passed from an inch under his left nipple into the right ventricle of the heart and the lower right portion of the lung, which is pretty consistent with a very close range shot from a right handed person.

Either way, doesn't matter now, criminal trial over, civil trial likely to follow. Hopefully the US DOJ does not commence a civil action, leave that to the family please.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Zimmerman did not need to use deadly force vs the weaponless youth in order to successfully defend .himself after chasing him down, confronting and scuffling with Martin. He could have shot and wounded him in a non-lethal area of his body (shoulder. legs, arms ect..) that would have incapacitated him ...JMO.

Apparently the skinny teen somehow managed to beat and bloody the larger and heavier "neighborhood watchman" before being shot and killed?

Contrary to popular belief I don't think many people are really capable of shooting someone in the foot during a life or death situation like that - or even a high stress situation like that. You can't say, "hmmm, I think I'll shoot him in the arm".

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

For the umpteenth time:

Florida's stand your ground law might be terrible, and it might have encouraged Zimmerman's loathsome behavior, but he didn't use it as a defense at trial, so it wasn't the issue/reason he was acquitted.

the jury found his self defense claim persuasive and agreed he was justified in using deadly force here... and that's it.

I think it was the wrong verdict. even if not 1st degree murder, it was a lower degree of homicide without question. you can't go around stalking people like that, and then shooting them, even if they defend themselves. you can't create a violent situation yourself (which is exactly what Zimmerman did) and then resolve it through deadly force.

from the sounds of it, the prosecution did an awful job. the fact that Florida is full of some of the slowest Americans probably didn't help in terms of finding a jury that could see through the sloppy legal work.

Everything outside of who started the fight is irrelevant. That's how I see it. Stalking him - not illegal. Ignoring the dispatcher - not illegal. Carrying a gun in that situation - not illegal. And while very stupid moves on his part, he did nothing illegal there. What we don't know, and never will, is if Treyvon jumped Zimmerman (as he claimed) or if Zimmerman actually started the fight. Because the prosecution couldn't prove Zimmerman's claim of self defense wrong - showing that, in fact, he was the aggressor, there was no other verdict but not guilty. IMO that doesn't mean he's innocent, just that there wasn't enough prove to convict him of a crime. Much like the Casey Anthony case.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

My big question from the case is, how is it not possible to find out who was on top and who was on the bottom through the physical evidence. You should be able to tell through the bullet angle, through gun powder residue, through the blood splatter, ect.

If Zimmerman was on the bottom and fired, he should have Martin's blood all over him. The bullet passed from an inch under his left nipple into the right ventricle of the heart and the lower right portion of the lung, which is pretty consistent with a very close range shot from a right handed person.

Either way, doesn't matter now, criminal trial over, civil trial likely to follow. Hopefully the US DOJ does not commence a civil action, leave that to the family please.

The evidence showed that Treyvon was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. They analyzed the clothing and bullet angle. But that doesn't mean anything. Zimmerman could have started the fight and ended up losing, in which case he pulled out his gun and shot. Not likely 2nd degree murder, more manslaughter, but still a crime. The problem being, nothing in the evidence proved his self defense claim wrong.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Zimmerman did not need to use deadly force vs the weaponless youth in order to successfully defend .himself after chasing him down, confronting and scuffling with Martin. He could have shot and wounded him in a non-lethal area of his body (shoulder. legs, arms ect..) that would have incapacitated him ...JMO.

Apparently the skinny teen somehow managed to beat and bloody the larger and heavier "neighborhood watchman" before being shot and killed?

If he was indeed in fear of his life I bet its not easy to wound in a certain place. "Move to the left, kid. I need to shoot your leg." You just shoot.

And this isn't a Florida thing, he wouldn't have been found guilty anywhere.

 

[Thumb]

The presumption of Zimmerman's innocence = a presumption of Martin's guilt.

I wish more people understood the difference between not guilty, and innocent.

All not guilty means is the state failed to prove it's case, but I have already read so many comments proving people don't know the difference.

The funny thing is nobody seems to look at Treyvons side of the deadly force thing, he was being pursued, lost his pursuer, and was pursued again, confronted by a guy with a gun, all while doing nothing more criminal than walking to the store to buy some skittles, and when an altercation happens it's Zimmerman who had reason to fear for his life?

If Treyvon has wrestled the gun away from Zimmerman and shot him, how many of the Zimmerman defenders would think Treyvon was justified?

 

[Mitchrapp]

I wish more people understood the difference between not guilty, and innocent.

All not guilty means is the state failed to prove it's case, but I have already read so many comments proving people don't know the difference.

The funny thing is nobody seems to look at Treyvons side of the deadly force thing, he was being pursued, lost his pursuer, and was pursued again, confronted by a guy with a gun, all while doing nothing more criminal than walking to the store to buy some skittles, and when an altercation happens it's Zimmerman who had reason to fear for his life?

If Treyvon has wrestled the gun away from Zimmerman and shot him, how many of the Zimmerman defenders would think Treyvon was justified?

Or they didn't have a case. What's the proof, thumb? You say why was he following the kid, well why didn't the kid just run away and go home? It works both ways.

And some times not guilt means the guy was not guilty.

 

[lostleader]

Everything outside of who started the fight is irrelevant. That's how I see it. Stalking him - not illegal. Ignoring the dispatcher - not illegal. Carrying a gun in that situation - not illegal. And while very stupid moves on his part, he did nothing illegal there. What we don't know, and never will, is if Treyvon jumped Zimmerman (as he claimed) or if Zimmerman actually started the fight. Because the prosecution couldn't prove Zimmerman's claim of self defense wrong - showing that, in fact, he was the aggressor, there was no other verdict but not guilty. IMO that doesn't mean he's innocent, just that there wasn't enough prove to convict him of a crime. Much like the Casey Anthony case.

Good Post.

I dont believe he is guilty of murder, from what I have read nothing leads to a guilty conviction of murder. He was not out looking to kill someone. With that being said I was surprised he wasn't charged with manslaughter or something along those lines.

If the DOJ gets involved it will be a disgrace. The only thing it will prove is this case is over race and not right or wrong.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Stalking him - not illegal. Ignoring the dispatcher - not illegal. Carrying a gun in that situation - not illegal. And while very stupid moves on his part, he did nothing illegal there.

Except - in light of the resulting consequence - maybe he did.

I posted the definition of reckless endangerement in a previous post; here's the definition of criminal negligence.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Except - in light of the resulting consequence - maybe he did.

I posted the definition of reckless endangerement in a previous post; here's the definition of criminal negligence.

I think it would be hard to relate any of those actions to the death of Treyvon. I don't think any person would think that they were going to be involved in a defensive shooting of someone if they followed a kid down the street until the police arrived. Usually the action is directly tied to the result. Example: I was shooting with my friend at the range, the gun jammed and I pointed the gun in his direction and tried to unjam it causing the gun to go off which killed my friend. My negligence in that instance is that I pointed the loaded gun at my friend while trying to clear the jam - an action a common person would not have done, which lead to the death.

Did following Treyvon cause the death? I don't think you can relate that in the same way. It was some series of events, not one specific thing, that lead to the shooting death of Treyvon - that may or may not have been justified. And because there's a reasonable chance that it was justified, I don't think Zimmerman will ever be charged with anything, even in a civil suit.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Good Post.

I dont believe he is guilty of murder, from what I have read nothing leads to a guilty conviction of murder. He was not out looking to kill someone. With that being said I was surprised he wasn't charged with manslaughter or something along those lines.

He was charged with manslaughter. The judge instructed the jury that their options were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of murder 2, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of manslaughter, or not guilty.

Manslaughter was the prosecution's fallback if they couldn't get a conviction on murder 2.

The prosecution went for too much.

They should have gone after him for manslaughter, with the fallback being reckless endangerment or criminal negligence.

No reasonable person could be persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's actions leading up to the confrontation weren't reckless and negligent - at least I don't think one could.

 

[Michchamp]

Everything outside of who started the fight is irrelevant. That's how I see it. Stalking him - not illegal. Ignoring the dispatcher - not illegal. Carrying a gun in that situation - not illegal. And while very stupid moves on his part, he did nothing illegal there. ...

you know that may be true, but those things didn't occur in a vacuum.

stalking a kid while carrying a gun certainly makes the later shooting look less like self-defense or accidental.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I think it would be hard to relate any of those actions to the death of Treyvon.

You're kidding right?

Or maybe you're just trolling...if that's the case I'm not gonna go down that road.

They are of course all relatable to the death of Treyvon - my evidence? - if Zimmerman hadn't done them, Treyvon wouldn't have died as a result of the confrontation, because there would have never been any confrontation.

Your own words describing Zimmerman's actions "very stupid" - just like pointing a jammed gun in somebody's direction at a shooting range - which would also result in a charge of some type of negligent criminality.

 

[Mitchrapp]

My big question from the case is, how is it not possible to find out who was on top and who was on the bottom through the physical evidence. You should be able to tell through the bullet angle, through gun powder residue, through the blood splatter, ect.

If Zimmerman was on the bottom and fired, he should have Martin's blood all over him. The bullet passed from an inch under his left nipple into the right ventricle of the heart and the lower right portion of the lung, which is pretty consistent with a very close range shot from a right handed person.

Either way, doesn't matter now, criminal trial over, civil trial likely to follow. Hopefully the US DOJ does not commence a civil action, leave that to the family please.

I can't say I know much about where the blood goes after a guy gets shot but wouldn't blood be on him regardless if he was on top or bottom? At that close range?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

You're kidding right?

Or maybe you're just trolling...if that's the case I'm not gonna go down that road.

They are of course all relatable to the death of Treyvon - my evidence? - if Zimmerman hadn't done them, Treyvon wouldn't have died as a result of the confrontation, because there would have never been any confrontation.

Your own words describing Zimmerman's actions "very stupid" - just like pointing a jammed gun in somebody's direction at a shooting range - which would also result in a charge of some type of negligent criminality.

I'm not trolling at all. The action isn't directly related to the death in the same way as pointing a gun at someone when it accidentally goes off. Pointing the gun is what ends up killing the person. Following Treyvon is not the action that lead to his death. There had to be a confrontation, a physical fight and then the shooting after the following incident.

I'm sure it happens quite often that someone from a neighborhood watch follows someone or confronts them who they find suspicious. Probably not a smart move - but not because it endangers the other person because it endangers you (and that's why it's stupid). That's also what makes this different from the incident I described. Pointing the gun at my friend, endangers my friend - not me. It's an action that endangers another person. Following someone is dumb because you put yourself at risk. Nothing Zimmerman did (that we know of) put Treyvon in danger - and that's the key.

And from that point - we don't know what happens. If Zimmerman attacks Treyvon, he's at least guilty of manslaughter. If Treyvon attacks Zimmerman because he's some overly protective neighborhood watchman following him, then Treyvon is at fault and Zimmerman had every right to use his firearm. If it happened as Zimmerman said, Treyvon could have walked away and he would still be alive today - and that is why your case for criminal negligence just doesn't hold up. None of the actions Zimmerman took up until the point of confronting Treyvon put Treyvon in any risk.