Zimmerman Charged w/ 2nd Degree & In Custody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why second degree? The man left his car and approached TM, dam it.

Because to get first degree, the prosecutor would have to PROVE that Zimmerman planned in advance to kill TM. Not saying what Zimmerman was or wasn't thinking, but in this case there is really no way to prove pre-meditation.

Any more than Norwood was nailed with first degree. I don't think that she planned it and more than Zimmerman, but they both were either looking for a fight or were prepared to fight.

Norwood did plan the murder. She bought plastic ties for her hands beforehand so she could stage the crime scene and claim that she was sexually assaulted. Then she called the victim to lure her back to the store saying that she left her wallet.

Pre-meditiation may have occurred in the Zimmerman case but it would have been within the few minutes of seeing Martin. Definitely hard to prove.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still believe that no one had to get shot here. A fist fight doesn't have to escalate to murder. It's manslaughter at the very least.

While I totally agree with your point, in Florida, apparently, the rule is that a fist fight CAN end in the death of one combatant, and it's not a crime/not a murder. That't the lunacy of this "stand your ground" law. If someone is hitting you, you get to shoot and kill them. So, if TM started the fist fight and GZ killed him in the course of that fight, GZ is innocent (or not guilty).

[Anonymous]

He will be found not guilty and dc and la will be burned to the ground reversing dcs positive gentrification.

The prosecuter is really contradictory , she says they will enforce the law and fight stand your ground, but isnt stand your ground a law she is supposed to defend. Can someone provide a book of which laws the state will defend and fight? This prosecuter was completely bias talking a out the sweet sweet family of martin and vilifying zimmerman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He will be found not guilty and dc and la will be burned to the ground reversing dcs positive gentrification.

The prosecuter is really contradictory , she says they will enforce the law and fight stand your ground, but isnt stand your ground a law she is supposed to defend. Can someone provide a book of which laws the state will defend and fight? This prosecuter was completely bias talking a out the sweet sweet family of martin and vilifying zimmerman.

whats with all the race riot gloom and doom? you post this in several different places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutor in this case reminds me of the prosecutor in the Duke Univ. Lacrosse incident; she's hoping to become a household name and run for higher office. I think, ultimately, the state will waste a lot of money, give her a lot of publicity, and he will be acquitted if it actually goes to trial. This whole thing was media oriented.

My DH just said the same thing. He said it felt like the same case.

I went to Duke. This is not the same case at all. In the Duke case, the accuser's account clearly was contradicted by evidence available to the prosecutor, and which was being discussed openly in the press. In this case, it is Zimmerman's story which has potential contradictions, and the victim in the case is dead and can tell no whopping lies.

If you want to pretend the prosecutor's ambition is the cause, you have serious blinders on.

Exactly. Those comparing this to the Duke case are way off base. There is a dead kid involved in this case. That's not up for debate.

[Anonymous]

What does a typical jury venire look like (race-wise) in that county?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The prosecutor in this case reminds me of the prosecutor in the Duke Univ. Lacrosse incident; she's hoping to become a household name and run for higher office. I think, ultimately, the state will waste a lot of money, give her a lot of publicity, and he will be acquitted if it actually goes to trial. This whole thing was media oriented.

My DH just said the same thing. He said it felt like the same case.

Your DH and that pp are idiots. Congrats.

Add me to the list of idiots. While I don't think George Zimmerman's actions are in any way morally justifiable, I think this case is completely media-driven and there is not much of a chance they will get a conviction.

Ok (not that I agree), but it still needs to go to a jury to decide that. There's enough for a charge; the trial will determine if there's enough for a conviction. There needs to be a trial, and Zimmerman needed to be arrested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just because you leave your car and approach someone doesn't show anything about intent to kill. Have you never approached someone you didn't know? Did you intend to get into a physical altercation with that person?

Whoever started the physical fight is the one who is at fault here. Unfortunately, the only one who can testify to that seems to be Mr. Zimmerman. We will probably never really know what happened, but it certainly is possible that Martin started the fight. Just like it is possible that Zimmerman started the fight. Talking to someone or even calling them offensive names doesn't mean you "stalked and murdered" someone.

The only question that matters is who threw the first punch.

Since two separate forensic experts have declared that the voice that was screaming for help on the police tape was NOT Zimmerman's, I think we're way beyond the first punch, regardless of what that insane stand your ground law says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because you leave your car and approach someone doesn't show anything about intent to kill. Have you never approached someone you didn't know? Did you intend to get into a physical altercation with that person?

Whoever started the physical fight is the one who is at fault here. Unfortunately, the only one who can testify to that seems to be Mr. Zimmerman. We will probably never really know what happened, but it certainly is possible that Martin started the fight. Just like it is possible that Zimmerman started the fight. Talking to someone or even calling them offensive names doesn't mean you "stalked and murdered" someone.

The only question that matters is who threw the first punch.

Since two separate forensic experts have declared that the voice that was screaming for help on the police tape was NOT Zimmerman's, I think we're way beyond the first punch, regardless of what that insane stand your ground law says.

Forensic quacks and completely not admissable in court especially with the low percent match, provide the majors they studied for years before getting their 3 month cert in sound

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He will be found not guilty and dc and la will be burned to the ground reversing dcs positive gentrification.

The prosecuter is really contradictory , she says they will enforce the law and fight stand your ground, but isnt stand your ground a law she is supposed to defend. Can someone provide a book of which laws the state will defend and fight? This prosecuter was completely bias talking a out the sweet sweet family of martin and vilifying zimmerman.

If rioting will mean the end of the "positive gentrification" going on in DC, I'm all for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because you leave your car and approach someone doesn't show anything about intent to kill. Have you never approached someone you didn't know? Did you intend to get into a physical altercation with that person?

Whoever started the physical fight is the one who is at fault here. Unfortunately, the only one who can testify to that seems to be Mr. Zimmerman. We will probably never really know what happened, but it certainly is possible that Martin started the fight. Just like it is possible that Zimmerman started the fight. Talking to someone or even calling them offensive names doesn't mean you "stalked and murdered" someone.

The only question that matters is who threw the first punch.

Since two separate forensic experts have declared that the voice that was screaming for help on the police tape was NOT Zimmerman's, I think we're way beyond the first punch, regardless of what that insane stand your ground law says.

Forensic quacks and completely not admissable in court especially with the low percent match, provide the majors they studied for years before getting their 3 month cert in sound

Yep, and there were also forensic experts who said that based on the evidence presented in the 911 tape, it was impossible to determine who was yelling for help.

[Anonymous]

But NOT impossible to determine who was NOT yelling....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because you leave your car and approach someone doesn't show anything about intent to kill. Have you never approached someone you didn't know? Did you intend to get into a physical altercation with that person?

Whoever started the physical fight is the one who is at fault here. Unfortunately, the only one who can testify to that seems to be Mr. Zimmerman. We will probably never really know what happened, but it certainly is possible that Martin started the fight. Just like it is possible that Zimmerman started the fight. Talking to someone or even calling them offensive names doesn't mean you "stalked and murdered" someone.

The only question that matters is who threw the first punch.

Since two separate forensic experts have declared that the voice that was screaming for help on the police tape was NOT Zimmerman's, I think we're way beyond the first punch, regardless of what that insane stand your ground law says.

Forensic quacks and completely not admissable in court especially with the low percent match, provide the majors they studied for years before getting their 3 month cert in sound

Yep, and there were also forensic experts who said that based on the evidence presented in the 911 tape, it was impossible to determine who was yelling for help.

Sure. But they can rule people out. And Zimmerman can be ruled out. If I had a photo of you, I would have no idea who you are. But I could say with certainty that you are not Mr. T or Alan Greenspan.

[Anonymous]

To me this seems like a dog and pony show setup to make it look like the state tried to prosecute zimmerman to appease the media influenced population even though they knows he will get off. If it was any other case and this happened they wouldn't even prosecute the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To me this seems like a dog and pony show setup to make it look like the state tried to prosecute zimmerman to appease the media influenced population even though they knows he will get off. If it was any other case and this happened they wouldn't even prosecute the case.

You are delusional. But it doesn't matter. A trial is the way to sort this out.