State v Zimmerman

[Coito ergo sum]

An analysis of the prosecution's bullshit probable cause affidavit -- http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/04/14/zi ... affidavit/

[Warren Dew]

An analysis of the prosecution's bullshit probable cause affidavit -- http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/04/14/zi ... affidavit/

Sounds like it's time to incorporate the grand jury clause against the states.

[Seth]

None of the facts conflict with the picture of Zimmerman carrying a gun in the hope that one day, he can be a "hero" who takes out a punk, and gets attention and praise, and it might even help in his ambition to be a cop.
If he did have this in mind, he would certainly have it in mind that he had to establish a clear case of self-defence.
Hence his call to report the intruder.
Hence his fighting with the intruder, when he could have just pulled the gun and threatened him.
Hence his ludicrous over-the-top screaming, as he was struggling with Martin.
And hence his waiting around for the cops.

Ah, conspiracy theorists, the cream of the "I don't want to believe the truth" crop.

[Tero]

There are no alines or NSA or other tinhats in his conspiracy theory. And one man conspiracies are the best at succeeding.

[mistermack]

The general attitude seems to be that an incident is self-defence, unless proved otherwise.
But there's an awful lot of hypocrisy involved in that.

If Zimmerman had died, of a broken skull, Martin would most definitely been immediately charged. Even if he said, like Zimmerman, that he had been attacked. There would most definitely NOT have been a presumption that his story was true.

Equally, if someone killed a cop, and claimed that they feared for their life, it wouldn't be a case of proving it.
The person who did it would find that it was them who had to prove their case.

I think it's ridiculous to presume self-defence, just because someone claims it.

That's pushing innocent till proven guilty past the point of reasonableness. If you claim that you feared for your life, it should be for you to prove that to a jury. Otherwise, it's a general licence to kill anybody. The dead should have an equal right to a presumption of innocence.
Where is the logic in presuming that the dead party is the guilty one?

[FBM]

Meh. It's what happens when a wannabe cop meets a wannabe gangsta. Shouldn't even be news, imo.

[Seth]

The general attitude seems to be that an incident is self-defence, unless proved otherwise.
But there's an awful lot of hypocrisy involved in that.

If Zimmerman had died, of a broken skull, Martin would most definitely been immediately charged. Even if he said, like Zimmerman, that he had been attacked. There would most definitely NOT have been a presumption that his story was true.

Equally, if someone killed a cop, and claimed that they feared for their life, it wouldn't be a case of proving it.
The person who did it would find that it was them who had to prove their case.

I think it's ridiculous to presume self-defence, just because someone claims it.

Nobody presumed anything you nincompoop. The police did a thorough investigation and concluded there was NOT probable cause to charge Zimmerman, and then a JURY examined that evidence and also found him not guilty.

That's pushing innocent till proven guilty past the point of reasonableness. If you claim that you feared for your life, it should be for you to prove that to a jury.

How so? One is either innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent. In this country it's the former. In other countries, like the UK in ages past, it is or was the latter. We prefer the former.

And Zimmerman cooperated fully with the police at the time, even making tape-recorded reenactions and statements that he was under NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO MAKE. He had the right to remain SILENT. He need not have said a single word during the whole trial, even to claiming self-defense. His lawyers could have brought forth the evidence that it was a justifiable shooting at ANY TIME in their presentation. They need not have even told the prosecution that's what they were claiming.

A jury, ANY jury considering a murder case is obligated under the law to consider a self-defense claim in every single such case, bar none, because lawful self-defense is both a civil right and an absolute bar to conviction.

And why should the prosecution be freed from the responsibility to prove that a killing was NOT lawful self-defense? Why should that burden be put on the defendant? Because you don't like him?

I'm betting that if it was YOU, or your wife or child who stuck a knife in the guts of a rapist you'd be shouting "SELF-DEFENSE" from every rooftop. Not that it would do you any good in the UK, where they prosecute victims for defending themselves all the time.

Your complaint seems to be the same as every other Trayvon Martin fan; you are simply incapable of believing that a strapping 17 year old black youth was fully capable of physically attacking and overcoming an overweight man 10 years his senior and trying to crack his skull on the sidewalk.

I'd say that this is willful ignorance. My 16 year old nephew, a football player and wrestler, can take me down if he really wants to and I outweigh him by 120 pounds and have many years of cunning and explicit training NOT to be taken down. But I'm getting old and slow and he isn't old or slow, he's quick as lightning and benches 200.

Otherwise, it's a general licence to kill anybody. The dead should have an equal right to a presumption of innocence.

They do, but then again they are dead. It was proven beyond any reasonable doubt to the jury that Martin was shot dead in the commission of a potentially deadly felony assault, and that Zimmerman's belief that he was facing serious injury or death was reasonable, and therefore that he was authorized to use deadly force to stop the attack.

Where is the logic in presuming that the dead party is the guilty one?

Nobody but nincompoops thinks that anybody presumed anything about either party. He was tried, he was found not guilty. Logically therefore Martin's actions raised a reasonable presumption in Zimmerman's mind that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, which authorized Zimmerman to use deadly force.

Now maybe Martin was just trying for a kiss as a prelude to taking Zimmerman's cod up his ass, but if that's the case he was singularly inept at his amorous advances. Personally, it looks to me like Martin was a typical black youth walking around with a chip on his shoulder who became enraged when some "creepy cracker" had the temerity to follow him and ask him a question, and he decided he'd been "dissed" by Zimmerman and stalked him and attacked him with the intention of killing or doing serious bodily harm in revenge for the perceived slight.

Funny how nobody wants to even admit that's a possibility, but it is in fact the most likely scenario...as the jury obviously concluded.

[Collector1337]

You guys need to listen to this juror get interviewed!

Anderson Cooper: "People have now remarked subsequently that he gets his gun back . And there's some people who have said, that the idea that he can have a gun worries them. Does that worry you?"

Juror B-37: "That doesn't worry me. I think he'd be more responsible than anybody else on this planet right now."

[Animavore]

I've been reading up on this. I think Zimmerman is a coward. If you decide to tackle someone and you get owned then you take your beating like a man. It's your own tough shit for being a fool. What he did was perfectly legal, of course, but cowardly none the less.

[Collector1337]

I've been reading up on this. I think Zimmerman is a coward. If you decide to tackle someone and you get owned then you take your beating like a man. It's your own tough shit for being a fool. What he did was perfectly legal, of course, but cowardly none the less.

What evidence is there that Zimmerman tackled Martin?

[Animavore]

I've been reading up on this. I think Zimmerman is a coward. If you decide to tackle someone and you get owned then you take your beating like a man. It's your own tough shit for being a fool. What he did was perfectly legal, of course, but cowardly none the less.

What evidence is there that Zimmerman tackled Martin?

Is this a joke?

[Collector1337]

I've been reading up on this. I think Zimmerman is a coward. If you decide to tackle someone and you get owned then you take your beating like a man. It's your own tough shit for being a fool. What he did was perfectly legal, of course, but cowardly none the less.

What evidence is there that Zimmerman tackled Martin?

Is this a joke?

Nope. The evidence shows that Trayvon was the aggressor. The jury agreed.

[Animavore]

I've been reading up on this. I think Zimmerman is a coward. If you decide to tackle someone and you get owned then you take your beating like a man. It's your own tough shit for being a fool. What he did was perfectly legal, of course, but cowardly none the less.

What evidence is there that Zimmerman tackled Martin?

Is this a joke?

Nope. The evidence shows that Trayvon was the aggressor. The jury agreed.

It is. It's a joke. You're joking, right?

[Collector1337]

I've been reading up on this. I think Zimmerman is a coward. If you decide to tackle someone and you get owned then you take your beating like a man. It's your own tough shit for being a fool. What he did was perfectly legal, of course, but cowardly none the less.

What evidence is there that Zimmerman tackled Martin?

Is this a joke?

Nope. The evidence shows that Trayvon was the aggressor. The jury agreed.

It is. It's a joke. You're joking, right?

Apparently you have not been following the facts of the case, nor aware of Florida's self-defense laws.

Are you going to actually answer my question or just continue with the "are you joking?"

[Animavore]

What evidence is there that Zimmerman tackled Martin?

Is this a joke?

Nope. The evidence shows that Trayvon was the aggressor. The jury agreed.

It is. It's a joke. You're joking, right?

Apparently you have not been following the facts of the case, nor aware of Florida's self-defense laws.

Are you going to actually answer my question or just continue with the "are you joking?"

I am aware of the defence laws and have not argued against its legality, even stating it was legal. Its legality is not relevant to its cowardice. He was a have-a-go hero who bit off more than he could chew. He's a clown.