Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[Gigantomachia]

No way is there a deal in this case. The only way this case doesnlt go to trial is if the judge throws it out based on stand your ground. Zimmerman has too good of a chance to beat the charge and the prosecution can't offer a deal without a substainial prison time or the public will not be happy. The sides are way too far apart.Zimmerman will be grented bail, imo. It could be interesting if the judge is disqualified due to a conflict of interest. I doubt it, but still possible.

You should really get a refund on your law degree.

You think there will be a plea deal where there is substainal jail time (greater than 3 year)? $100 says no way to that.

You think he's better off facing a jury if the case isn't thrown out before trial? The smart move would be to take a plea. Whether or not he or his attorney is smart, I have no idea.

You assume everyone things like you do. If Zimmerman knows he's innocent based on self defense, then he'd be stupid to take a plea.

How can he possibly know the verdict will be innocent?

Would you plead guilty to something you knew in your heart to be innocent of? (not saying Zimmerman is innocent)

5-10 out in 3 or face a jury and we go for 15-life.it's what your heart says when facing that choice that really matters. just, maybe so maybe not, reality; damn straight.

 

[jon_mx]

stalking was meant for effect yes, but someone following you in the dark gives you reason to be concerned, hell, zimmerman has already used the same argument to account for following him in the first place. besides, all the prosecution needs to do is show that zimmerman was in fact following the victim, the reasonableness of the victim's response to being followed is all that has to be shown.and okay, you got yourself a bet. should we send the money to someone here to hold? joe could be trusted, but I bet ya $10 he has something against betting? how about Tremps? he only sees numbers, not morals.

I really don't care if someone holds or not. But just so the ground rules are established, if this case gets thrown out or dismissed or goes to the jury for verdict, I win. If there is a plea of which involves either a manslaughter or murder you win. If they fall back to some lame charge gun charge or something that, we will call it a push.

 

[dparker713]

Since when is serving substantial prison time in your clients best interest. The case put forth so far is pathetic. Speculation, innuendo and mind-reading.

Umm, we convict people all the time based upon speculation, innuendo and mind-reading. Hell, most criminal offenses require that the jury decide what exactly the person knew or wanted when they acted. You think if somebody just sits there and doesn't say a word they can't be convicted?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's more likely they somehow inadvertently ended up near each other.

I don't believe this, but I have said as much was a possibility when tracing their routes with the call. If Trayvon went straight home, he had more than enough time be making popcorn waiting for the all-star game to start instead of being 70 yards away in a fight. If Zimmerman went straight back to his car at the end of his call, then he's sitting in it waiting for the police, instead of being in a fight. They both seemed a little too interested in each other.

you mentioned 3 minutes between the time zimm exited his truck till the fight. Now if you listen to one eyewitness account of a conversation and then the fight ,the witness said he left his window to do something and when he heard the voices get louder he returned to his window, thats when he saw the fight start. If you take the time it took zimm to walk around the building and the time it took him to catch up to trey and the time that they talked, insnt it possible that it took 3 minutes for that to unfold? Why do we have to have 2 people playing hide and seek, why cant it just be one person caught up to the other and words were exchanged ,then someone touched someone?

That's in conflict with what we've been told about the GF's report.. She said they spoke just twice each before the physical contact.

 

[Christo]

It's more likely they somehow inadvertently ended up near each other.

I don't believe this, but I have said as much was a possibility when tracing their routes with the call. If Trayvon went straight home, he had more than enough time be making popcorn waiting for the all-star game to start instead of being 70 yards away in a fight. If Zimmerman went straight back to his car at the end of his call, then he's sitting in it waiting for the police, instead of being in a fight. They both seemed a little too interested in each other.

you mentioned 3 minutes between the time zimm exited his truck till the fight. Now if you listen to one eyewitness account of a conversation and then the fight ,the witness said he left his window to do something and when he heard the voices get louder he returned to his window, thats when he saw the fight start. If you take the time it took zimm to walk around the building and the time it took him to catch up to trey and the time that they talked, insnt it possible that it took 3 minutes for that to unfold? Why do we have to have 2 people playing hide and seek, why cant it just be one person caught up to the other and words were exchanged ,then someone touched someone?

That's in conflict with what we've been told about the GF's report.. She said they spoke just twice each before the physical contact.

And that's just speculation on her part.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

No way is there a deal in this case. The only way this case doesnlt go to trial is if the judge throws it out based on stand your ground. Zimmerman has too good of a chance to beat the charge and the prosecution can't offer a deal without a substainial prison time or the public will not be happy. The sides are way too far apart.Zimmerman will be grented bail, imo. It could be interesting if the judge is disqualified due to a conflict of interest. I doubt it, but still possible.

You should really get a refund on your law degree.

You think there will be a plea deal where there is substainal jail time (greater than 3 year)? $100 says no way to that.

You think he's better off facing a jury if the case isn't thrown out before trial? The smart move would be to take a plea. Whether or not he or his attorney is smart, I have no idea.

You assume everyone things like you do. If Zimmerman knows he's innocent based on self defense, then he'd be stupid to take a plea.

How can he possibly know the verdict will be innocent?

Well if you know you are innocent and know there is no evidence against you, you take your chances. What can they possibly offer him, 5 years? I would take a 10% chance of being convicted and looking at a maximum of 20 years versus taking a 100% shot at doing 5 years.

thats easy for you to say, your not sitting in jail for murder

Are you saying an innocent person is likely to take a plea deal in a murder charge? Or are you saying it's hard for us to conceive the mindset so why make presumptions?

 

[jon_mx]

Since when is serving substantial prison time in your clients best interest. The case put forth so far is pathetic. Speculation, innuendo and mind-reading.

Umm, we convict people all the time based upon speculation, innuendo and mind-reading. Hell, most criminal offenses require that the jury decide what exactly the person knew or wanted when they acted. You think if somebody just sits there and doesn't say a word they can't be convicted?

He has to testify to beat this.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

No way is there a deal in this case. The only way this case doesnlt go to trial is if the judge throws it out based on stand your ground. Zimmerman has too good of a chance to beat the charge and the prosecution can't offer a deal without a substainial prison time or the public will not be happy. The sides are way too far apart.Zimmerman will be grented bail, imo. It could be interesting if the judge is disqualified due to a conflict of interest. I doubt it, but still possible.

You should really get a refund on your law degree.

You think there will be a plea deal where there is substainal jail time (greater than 3 year)? $100 says no way to that.

You think he's better off facing a jury if the case isn't thrown out before trial? The smart move would be to take a plea. Whether or not he or his attorney is smart, I have no idea.

You assume everyone things like you do. If Zimmerman knows he's innocent based on self defense, then he'd be stupid to take a plea.

How can he possibly know the verdict will be innocent?

Well if you know you are innocent and know there is no evidence against you, you take your chances. What can they possibly offer him, 5 years? I would take a 10% chance of being convicted and looking at a maximum of 20 years versus taking a 100% shot at doing 5 years.

thats easy for you to say, your not sitting in jail for murder

I hope for his sake that wasn't easy for him to say.

If you were innocent, you'd willingly go to jail for 5 years to avoid going to court and the chance to beat the case?

 

[Gigantomachia]

stalking was meant for effect yes, but someone following you in the dark gives you reason to be concerned, hell, zimmerman has already used the same argument to account for following him in the first place. besides, all the prosecution needs to do is show that zimmerman was in fact following the victim, the reasonableness of the victim's response to being followed is all that has to be shown.and okay, you got yourself a bet. should we send the money to someone here to hold? joe could be trusted, but I bet ya $10 he has something against betting? how about Tremps? he only sees numbers, not morals.

I really don't care if someone holds or not. But just so the ground rules are established, if this case gets thrown out or dismissed or goes to the jury for verdict, I win. If there is a plea of which involves either a manslaughter or murder you win. If they fall back to some lame charge gun charge or something that, we will call it a push.

Well, my original bet posted was that he would get man 2, so if it goes to jury and he gets that sentence--but only that sentence--I still win, any other sentence you win. and the rest I am cool with. if he gets a gun charge or something lame we owe each other a beer; just in case. and I am cool with no holders, just a habit

 

[dparker713]

You really don't understand the difference between subjective and objective tests do you? There's no such thing as a compound test for this crime. It's either subjective or objective. Objective reasonableness means what most people would do under the circumstances. Subjective reasonableness means what the subject thought was reasonable under the circumstances.

How do you determine what is reasonable?

Whether you think he's lying.

Then we would use the word "true" not "reasonable."Try again?

No and no.

Yes.If I honestly believe that me wearing khakis means everybody wearing Levi jeans is trying to kill me, I am not justified in killing everybody wearing Levi jeans. My belief may be true. I'm not lying. But it's not reasonable.

You're missing a step. Courts do not make allowances for insane beliefs whether the test is objective or subjective.

Some people believe there is a man in the sky that controls the heavens and Earth. That can read your thoughts and has planned out the universe. This being can part the oceans, spontenously combust a bush, and one day will destroy every living person on this planet because we deserve it. The only way to placate this being is to bow down to him, prostrate yourself before him. He's also a little touchy when you swear in his name or fight with your parents. When a man walks into a court and claims that this being also does not want him to use modern medicine, the court does not investigate whether his beliefs are sane or reasonable. Merely if they're sincere.

 

[Gigantomachia]

now I am kinda excited to see what happens!! betting makes everything better

 

[Courtjester]

This isn't traffic court.When you are facing charges like this, you go to trial unless the plea offer is zero jail.The prosecution is not going to extend a 5-7 year deal. People would lose their mind and scream injustice if they did.I doubt they are even going to extend an offer in a case like this other than plea straight up. It is too high profile.Unless this gets dumped early by the court, this is going to trial.

People plea out murder charges ALL THE TIME. And they often do so under the advice of their attorney. Are all of these people acting against their self interest? The main difference in this case is the media attention. The prosecutors could either be fairly unwilling to deal in this case or they could want to avoid all the additional media attention of a trial and potential appeal. Cuts both ways, so Im unsure how they'll respond. But to want to go to a jury with this case, umm, no.

You are so wrong it isn't even funny. Sure some people plead out, but those are the cases where the guy is caught with the victim's head in his trunk or he is caught on a tape shooting his wife. They plead out to avoid a death sentence in most cases because they know the evidence is overwhelming.The main difference in this case is the guy believes he has a legit defense. There is a law on the books in this state that "may" back his defense. There is not an eyewitness (as far as we know) that can say, "Oh, he shot this kid in cold blood in the back." This will be a he said/he said case with exception one of the he's is dead.This is going to trial unless it gets dumped early.

 

[Gigantomachia]

You really don't understand the difference between subjective and objective tests do you? There's no such thing as a compound test for this crime. It's either subjective or objective. Objective reasonableness means what most people would do under the circumstances. Subjective reasonableness means what the subject thought was reasonable under the circumstances.

How do you determine what is reasonable?

Whether you think he's lying.

Then we would use the word "true" not "reasonable."Try again?

No and no.

Yes.If I honestly believe that me wearing khakis means everybody wearing Levi jeans is trying to kill me, I am not justified in killing everybody wearing Levi jeans. My belief may be true. I'm not lying. But it's not reasonable.

You're missing a step. Courts do not make allowances for insane beliefs whether the test is objective or subjective.

Some people believe there is a man in the sky that controls the heavens and Earth. That can read your thoughts and has planned out the universe. This being can part the oceans, spontenously combust a bush, and one day will destroy every living person on this planet because we deserve it. The only way to placate this being is to bow down to him, prostrate yourself before him. He's also a little touchy when you swear in his name or fight with your parents. When a man walks into a court and claims that this being also does not want him to use modern medicine, the court does not investigate whether his beliefs are sane or reasonable. Merely if they're sincere.

zimmerman can explain his sincerity, the state will point out that we cannot question t's sincerity, since he was shot.

 

[Christo]

You really don't understand the difference between subjective and objective tests do you? There's no such thing as a compound test for this crime. It's either subjective or objective. Objective reasonableness means what most people would do under the circumstances. Subjective reasonableness means what the subject thought was reasonable under the circumstances.

How do you determine what is reasonable?

Whether you think he's lying.

Then we would use the word "true" not "reasonable."Try again?

No and no.

Yes.If I honestly believe that me wearing khakis means everybody wearing Levi jeans is trying to kill me, I am not justified in killing everybody wearing Levi jeans. My belief may be true. I'm not lying. But it's not reasonable.

You're missing a step. Courts do not make allowances for insane beliefs whether the test is objective or subjective.

Some people believe there is a man in the sky that controls the heavens and Earth. That can read your thoughts and has planned out the universe. This being can part the oceans, spontenously combust a bush, and one day will destroy every living person on this planet because we deserve it. The only way to placate this being is to bow down to him, prostrate yourself before him. He's also a little touchy when you swear in his name or fight with your parents. When a man walks into a court and claims that this being also does not want him to use modern medicine, the court does not investigate whether his beliefs are sane or reasonable. Merely if they're sincere.

Not if he shot someone because of those beliefs.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You've never heard the phrase "the smoking gun" have you.

I am betting there isn't one.

zimmerman was holding it you fool

Killing does not mean its murder.

tell that to treyvons family

Everyone who dies is someones son or daughter, how is that relevant to the facts in this case?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

What if he believes the judge, lawyers and jury are harming him, and may ruin his life... can Zimm shoot them too?

 

[dparker713]

You really don't understand the difference between subjective and objective tests do you? There's no such thing as a compound test for this crime. It's either subjective or objective. Objective reasonableness means what most people would do under the circumstances. Subjective reasonableness means what the subject thought was reasonable under the circumstances.

How do you determine what is reasonable?

Whether you think he's lying.

Then we would use the word "true" not "reasonable."Try again?

No and no.

Yes.If I honestly believe that me wearing khakis means everybody wearing Levi jeans is trying to kill me, I am not justified in killing everybody wearing Levi jeans. My belief may be true. I'm not lying. But it's not reasonable.

You're missing a step. Courts do not make allowances for insane beliefs whether the test is objective or subjective.

Some people believe there is a man in the sky that controls the heavens and Earth. That can read your thoughts and has planned out the universe. This being can part the oceans, spontenously combust a bush, and one day will destroy every living person on this planet because we deserve it. The only way to placate this being is to bow down to him, prostrate yourself before him. He's also a little touchy when you swear in his name or fight with your parents. When a man walks into a court and claims that this being also does not want him to use modern medicine, the court does not investigate whether his beliefs are sane or reasonable. Merely if they're sincere.

Not if he shot someone because of those beliefs.

In other words, you aren't just applying a subjective test to his self defense claim, as you claimed earlier.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

No way is there a deal in this case. The only way this case doesnlt go to trial is if the judge throws it out based on stand your ground. Zimmerman has too good of a chance to beat the charge and the prosecution can't offer a deal without a substainial prison time or the public will not be happy. The sides are way too far apart.

Zimmerman will be grented bail, imo. It could be interesting if the judge is disqualified due to a conflict of interest. I doubt it, but still possible.

You should really get a refund on your law degree.

You think there will be a plea deal where there is substainal jail time (greater than 3 year)? $100 says no way to that.

You think he's better off facing a jury if the case isn't thrown out before trial? The smart move would be to take a plea. Whether or not he or his attorney is smart, I have no idea.

You assume everyone things like you do. If Zimmerman knows he's innocent based on self defense, then he'd be stupid to take a plea.

How can he possibly know the verdict will be innocent?

Would you plead guilty to something you knew in your heart to be innocent of? (not saying Zimmerman is innocent)

5-10 out in 3 or face a jury and we go for 15-life.it's what your heart says when facing that choice that really matters. just, maybe so maybe not, reality; damn straight.

Is this an answer to the question I asked? If so, can I get an interpretation? please

 

[dparker713]

This isn't traffic court.When you are facing charges like this, you go to trial unless the plea offer is zero jail.The prosecution is not going to extend a 5-7 year deal. People would lose their mind and scream injustice if they did.I doubt they are even going to extend an offer in a case like this other than plea straight up. It is too high profile.Unless this gets dumped early by the court, this is going to trial.

People plea out murder charges ALL THE TIME. And they often do so under the advice of their attorney. Are all of these people acting against their self interest? The main difference in this case is the media attention. The prosecutors could either be fairly unwilling to deal in this case or they could want to avoid all the additional media attention of a trial and potential appeal. Cuts both ways, so Im unsure how they'll respond. But to want to go to a jury with this case, umm, no.

You are so wrong it isn't even funny. Sure some people plead out, but those are the cases where the guy is caught with the victim's head in his trunk or he is caught on a tape shooting his wife. They plead out to avoid a death sentence in most cases because they know the evidence is overwhelming.The main difference in this case is the guy believes he has a legit defense. There is a law on the books in this state that "may" back his defense. There is not an eyewitness (as far as we know) that can say, "Oh, he shot this kid in cold blood in the back." This will be a he said/he said case with exception one of the he's is dead.This is going to trial unless it gets dumped early.

Believing you have a legit defense, having a legit defense, and getting a jury to agree that you have a legit defense are three entirely different things.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Believing you have a legit defense, having a legit defense, and getting a jury to agree that you have a legit defense are three entirely different things.

Truth.

 

[Christo]

You really don't understand the difference between subjective and objective tests do you? There's no such thing as a compound test for this crime. It's either subjective or objective. Objective reasonableness means what most people would do under the circumstances. Subjective reasonableness means what the subject thought was reasonable under the circumstances.

How do you determine what is reasonable?

Whether you think he's lying.

Then we would use the word "true" not "reasonable."Try again?

No and no.

Yes.If I honestly believe that me wearing khakis means everybody wearing Levi jeans is trying to kill me, I am not justified in killing everybody wearing Levi jeans. My belief may be true. I'm not lying. But it's not reasonable.

You're missing a step. Courts do not make allowances for insane beliefs whether the test is objective or subjective.

Some people believe there is a man in the sky that controls the heavens and Earth. That can read your thoughts and has planned out the universe. This being can part the oceans, spontenously combust a bush, and one day will destroy every living person on this planet because we deserve it. The only way to placate this being is to bow down to him, prostrate yourself before him. He's also a little touchy when you swear in his name or fight with your parents. When a man walks into a court and claims that this being also does not want him to use modern medicine, the court does not investigate whether his beliefs are sane or reasonable. Merely if they're sincere.

Not if he shot someone because of those beliefs.

In other words, you aren't just applying a subjective test to his self defense claim, as you claimed earlier.

No, I am applying a subjective test. While it might be a blatant lie, there is nothing insane about claiming you shot someone because he broke your nose and was bashing your head into the ground.

 

[Marvin]

What if he believes the judge, lawyers and jury are harming him, and may ruin his life... can Zimm shoot them too?

Good question. I wonder if there is a clause in the Stand Your Ground law that covers this.

 

[Fennis]

Jon Stewart

Zimdecision 2012

After doing due diligence, the state of Florida charges George Zimmerman with second-degree murder in the Trayvon Martin case, thus sparking a media frenzy

My link

X 2Especially the last part with the media merely reporting the news.

then youll love this part (which is what I meant to post anyway)My link

 

[Courtjester]

This isn't traffic court.When you are facing charges like this, you go to trial unless the plea offer is zero jail.The prosecution is not going to extend a 5-7 year deal. People would lose their mind and scream injustice if they did.I doubt they are even going to extend an offer in a case like this other than plea straight up. It is too high profile.Unless this gets dumped early by the court, this is going to trial.

People plea out murder charges ALL THE TIME. And they often do so under the advice of their attorney. Are all of these people acting against their self interest? The main difference in this case is the media attention. The prosecutors could either be fairly unwilling to deal in this case or they could want to avoid all the additional media attention of a trial and potential appeal. Cuts both ways, so Im unsure how they'll respond. But to want to go to a jury with this case, umm, no.

You are so wrong it isn't even funny. Sure some people plead out, but those are the cases where the guy is caught with the victim's head in his trunk or he is caught on a tape shooting his wife. They plead out to avoid a death sentence in most cases because they know the evidence is overwhelming.The main difference in this case is the guy believes he has a legit defense. There is a law on the books in this state that "may" back his defense. There is not an eyewitness (as far as we know) that can say, "Oh, he shot this kid in cold blood in the back." This will be a he said/he said case with exception one of the he's is dead.This is going to trial unless it gets dumped early.

Believing you have a legit defense, having a legit defense, and getting a jury to agree that you have a legit defense are three entirely different things.

Amen, you are dead on there,

 

[Carolina Hustler]

What if he believes the judge, lawyers and jury are harming him, and may ruin his life... can Zimm shoot them too?

Of course..You amusing yourself?

 

[GDogg]

If a dispatcher tells someone not to do something, the average person would think they should not do it, whether there is legal authority or not. If that is the best argument the defense can come up with, Zimmerman is in trouble.

I doubt Zimmerman had an internal conversation with himself about the merits, authority and protocol of a 911 dispatcher

Insert "Hero" argument here. I've made the argument several times, so I'll be quick. We are creatures of habit. Zimmerman has called this number 40ish times over the course of 14 months. We know of at least one occasion where he detained a suspicious person (physically, or just followed him is uncertain). That detainment led to an arrest. If he was thought of as a hero and was not told by police at that time that following a suspicious person was wrong, then why would he not follow a suspicious person again?

He seems to follow this neighborhood watch program of Sanford to the "T". He was elected captain. However, no where in on the Sanford Neighborhood Watch site does it say not to follow suspicious people or don't carry a weapon.

Sorry for those who keep reading this.

You keep trotting this out like it means something. The fact that there is no specific prohibition is not going to make much of an impression with a jury.As has been noted in several articles about Neighborhood Watch: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch

Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, said Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.

First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.

"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," Tutko said. "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he's overzealous."

Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit.

"There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said.

He broke no laws in doing so. The jury prosecution may say he was told not to do so. If I was the defense, I would bring up that he broke no laws by carrying or following. In fact he is considered a hero by the neighborhood.

And if I was on the prosecution I would hope the defense lawyer makes those arguments. Jurors try to reach verdicts based on the court's instructions, but common sense comes into play. As noted above, irrelevant he broke no laws, as the sheriff said "There's no reason to carry a gun."

Chances are I will be able to drive to Target and back home without fearing for my life. There is no reason for me to carry a gun, then. Why does anyone with a permit to carry do so then?

To shoot people.

 

[identikit]

Jon Stewart

Zimdecision 2012

After doing due diligence, the state of Florida charges George Zimmerman with second-degree murder in the Trayvon Martin case, thus sparking a media frenzy

My link

X 2Especially the last part with the media merely reporting the news.

then youll love this part (which is what I meant to post anyway)My link

Not far from how it'll be.

 

[jon_mx]

If a dispatcher tells someone not to do something, the average person would think they should not do it, whether there is legal authority or not. If that is the best argument the defense can come up with, Zimmerman is in trouble.

I doubt Zimmerman had an internal conversation with himself about the merits, authority and protocol of a 911 dispatcher

Insert "Hero" argument here. I've made the argument several times, so I'll be quick. We are creatures of habit. Zimmerman has called this number 40ish times over the course of 14 months. We know of at least one occasion where he detained a suspicious person (physically, or just followed him is uncertain). That detainment led to an arrest. If he was thought of as a hero and was not told by police at that time that following a suspicious person was wrong, then why would he not follow a suspicious person again?

He seems to follow this neighborhood watch program of Sanford to the "T". He was elected captain. However, no where in on the Sanford Neighborhood Watch site does it say not to follow suspicious people or don't carry a weapon.

Sorry for those who keep reading this.

You keep trotting this out like it means something. The fact that there is no specific prohibition is not going to make much of an impression with a jury.As has been noted in several articles about Neighborhood Watch: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch

Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, said Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.

First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.

"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," Tutko said. "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he's overzealous."

Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit.

"There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said.

He broke no laws in doing so. The jury prosecution may say he was told not to do so. If I was the defense, I would bring up that he broke no laws by carrying or following. In fact he is considered a hero by the neighborhood.

And if I was on the prosecution I would hope the defense lawyer makes those arguments. Jurors try to reach verdicts based on the court's instructions, but common sense comes into play. As noted above, irrelevant he broke no laws, as the sheriff said "There's no reason to carry a gun."

Chances are I will be able to drive to Target and back home without fearing for my life. There is no reason for me to carry a gun, then. Why does anyone with a permit to carry do so then?

To shoot people.

 

[Underachievers]

If a dispatcher tells someone not to do something, the average person would think they should not do it, whether there is legal authority or not. If that is the best argument the defense can come up with, Zimmerman is in trouble.

I doubt Zimmerman had an internal conversation with himself about the merits, authority and protocol of a 911 dispatcher

Insert "Hero" argument here. I've made the argument several times, so I'll be quick. We are creatures of habit. Zimmerman has called this number 40ish times over the course of 14 months. We know of at least one occasion where he detained a suspicious person (physically, or just followed him is uncertain). That detainment led to an arrest. If he was thought of as a hero and was not told by police at that time that following a suspicious person was wrong, then why would he not follow a suspicious person again?

He seems to follow this neighborhood watch program of Sanford to the "T". He was elected captain. However, no where in on the Sanford Neighborhood Watch site does it say not to follow suspicious people or don't carry a weapon.

Sorry for those who keep reading this.

You keep trotting this out like it means something. The fact that there is no specific prohibition is not going to make much of an impression with a jury.As has been noted in several articles about Neighborhood Watch: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch

Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, said Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.

First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.

"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," Tutko said. "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he's overzealous."

Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit.

"There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said.

He broke no laws in doing so. The jury prosecution may say he was told not to do so. If I was the defense, I would bring up that he broke no laws by carrying or following. In fact he is considered a hero by the neighborhood.

And if I was on the prosecution I would hope the defense lawyer makes those arguments. Jurors try to reach verdicts based on the court's instructions, but common sense comes into play. As noted above, irrelevant he broke no laws, as the sheriff said "There's no reason to carry a gun."

Chances are I will be able to drive to Target and back home without fearing for my life. There is no reason for me to carry a gun, then. Why does anyone with a permit to carry do so then?

To shoot people.

To protect yourself from thugs?

 

[Neofight]

If a dispatcher tells someone not to do something, the average person would think they should not do it, whether there is legal authority or not. If that is the best argument the defense can come up with, Zimmerman is in trouble.

I doubt Zimmerman had an internal conversation with himself about the merits, authority and protocol of a 911 dispatcher

Insert "Hero" argument here. I've made the argument several times, so I'll be quick. We are creatures of habit. Zimmerman has called this number 40ish times over the course of 14 months. We know of at least one occasion where he detained a suspicious person (physically, or just followed him is uncertain). That detainment led to an arrest. If he was thought of as a hero and was not told by police at that time that following a suspicious person was wrong, then why would he not follow a suspicious person again?

He seems to follow this neighborhood watch program of Sanford to the "T". He was elected captain. However, no where in on the Sanford Neighborhood Watch site does it say not to follow suspicious people or don't carry a weapon.

Sorry for those who keep reading this.

You keep trotting this out like it means something. The fact that there is no specific prohibition is not going to make much of an impression with a jury.As has been noted in several articles about Neighborhood Watch: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-24/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321_1_zimmerman-community-ties-neighborhood-watch

Chris Tutko, director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association, said Zimmerman broke some cardinal rules.

First, he approached a stranger he suspected of wrongdoing.

"If you see something suspicious, you report it, you step aside and you let law enforcement do their job," Tutko said. "This guy went way beyond the call of duty. At the least, he's overzealous."

Second, Zimmerman carried a handgun. Police departments and sheriff's offices that train volunteers advise them never to carry weapons — though Zimmerman broke no laws by doing so because he has a concealed-weapons permit.

"There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said.

He broke no laws in doing so. The jury prosecution may say he was told not to do so. If I was the defense, I would bring up that he broke no laws by carrying or following. In fact he is considered a hero by the neighborhood.

And if I was on the prosecution I would hope the defense lawyer makes those arguments. Jurors try to reach verdicts based on the court's instructions, but common sense comes into play. As noted above, irrelevant he broke no laws, as the sheriff said "There's no reason to carry a gun."

Chances are I will be able to drive to Target and back home without fearing for my life. There is no reason for me to carry a gun, then. Why does anyone with a permit to carry do so then?

To shoot people.

To protect yourself from thugs?

To needlepoint?

 

[ATC1]

Chances are I will be able to drive to Target and back home without fearing for my life. There is no reason for me to carry a gun, then. Why does anyone with a permit to carry do so then?

To shoot people.

To protect yourself from thugs?

To needlepoint?

I need the exercise, so I carry the extra weight.

 

[BoneYardDog]

All the defense lawyer has to do is put John on the stand and tell what he saw and heard, just like you all heard in that video and there is no way you will get 12 jurors to convict him of murder...

Everything else is irrelevant...

 

[BustedKnuckles]

You've never heard the phrase "the smoking gun" have you.

I am betting there isn't one.

zimmerman was holding it you fool

Killing does not mean its murder.

tell that to treyvons family

Everyone who dies is someones son or daughter, how is that relevant to the facts in this case?

its not...whats your point?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

All the defense lawyer has to do is put John on the stand and tell what he saw and heard, just like you all heard in that video and there is no way you will get 12 jurors to convict him of murder...Everything else is irrelevant...

 

[Sebowski]

Meanwhile a murder of a black guy in his own home in South Florida 4 years ago has yet to go to trial and no one gives a ####.

Still no trial for murder of Sean Taylor

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Meanwhile a murder of a black guy in his own home in South Florida 4 years ago has yet to go to trial and no one gives a ####.

Still no trial for murder of Sean Taylor

i care

 

[Sebowski]

Meanwhile a murder of a black guy in his own home in South Florida 4 years ago has yet to go to trial and no one gives a ####.

Still no trial for murder of Sean Taylor

i care

Seems like with the Trayvon case everyone is jumping to take a shade of gray while none gives a #### about these clack and white cases like can Taylor's murder.

 

[jomar]

It's more likely they somehow inadvertently ended up near each other.

I don't believe this, but I have said as much was a possibility when tracing their routes with the call. If Trayvon went straight home, he had more than enough time be making popcorn waiting for the all-star game to start instead of being 70 yards away in a fight. If Zimmerman went straight back to his car at the end of his call, then he's sitting in it waiting for the police, instead of being in a fight. They both seemed a little too interested in each other.

you mentioned 3 minutes between the time zimm exited his truck till the fight. Now if you listen to one eyewitness account of a conversation and then the fight ,the witness said he left his window to do something and when he heard the voices get louder he returned to his window, thats when he saw the fight start. 1. If you take the time it took zimm to walk around the building and the time it took him to catch up to trey and the time that they talked, insnt it possible that it took 3 minutes for that to unfold?

2. Why do we have to have 2 people playing hide and seek, why cant it just be one person caught up to the other and words were exchanged ,then someone touched someone?

1. No. It isn't plausible that he took that long to catch up to Tray at a spot he'd seen Tray run from, a spot he hustled to in about 10-15 seconds from getting out of his car. George was on the phone for two of those minutes giving the dispatcher directions.

2. If Tray merely walked home he had time to spare before they ever met. How can George catch up to him 20-30 yards from his truck 3 minutes later? George walked or ran to the crime scene while still on the phone (for two minutes), and he didn't meet Trayvon at that spot for a minute or longer after hanging up. Trayvon wasn't at the T/crime scene while George was on the phone, but he did come back to it. Maybe he climbed onto a roof and then jumped? Nah.

Another obvious point is that we're (or at least I am) not sure exactly where Zs car was and where Trayvon was when he started running.

 

[Neofight]

Chances are I will be able to drive to Target and back home without fearing for my life. There is no reason for me to carry a gun, then. Why does anyone with a permit to carry do so then?

To shoot people.

To protect yourself from thugs?

To needlepoint?

I need the exercise, so I carry the extra weight.

Most on this board do.

 

[Chaos Commish]

It's more likely they somehow inadvertently ended up near each other.

I don't believe this, but I have said as much was a possibility when tracing their routes with the call. If Trayvon went straight home, he had more than enough time be making popcorn waiting for the all-star game to start instead of being 70 yards away in a fight. If Zimmerman went straight back to his car at the end of his call, then he's sitting in it waiting for the police, instead of being in a fight. They both seemed a little too interested in each other.

you mentioned 3 minutes between the time zimm exited his truck till the fight. Now if you listen to one eyewitness account of a conversation and then the fight ,the witness said he left his window to do something and when he heard the voices get louder he returned to his window, thats when he saw the fight start. 1. If you take the time it took zimm to walk around the building and the time it took him to catch up to trey and the time that they talked, insnt it possible that it took 3 minutes for that to unfold?

2. Why do we have to have 2 people playing hide and seek, why cant it just be one person caught up to the other and words were exchanged ,then someone touched someone?

1. No. It isn't plausible that he took that long to catch up to Tray at a spot he'd seen Tray run from, a spot he hustled to in about 10-15 seconds from getting out of his car. George was on the phone for two of those minutes giving the dispatcher directions.

2. If Tray merely walked home he had time to spare before they ever met. How can George catch up to him 20-30 yards from his truck 3 minutes later? George walked or ran to the crime scene while still on the phone (for two minutes), and he didn't meet Trayvon at that spot for a minute or longer after hanging up. Trayvon wasn't at the T/crime scene while George was on the phone, but he did come back to it. Maybe he climbed onto a roof and then jumped? Nah.

Another obvious point is that we're (or at least I am) not sure exactly where Zs car was and where Trayvon was when he started running.

I'm not entirely sure but according the initial information that was soon taken down, after George walked some officers through his step by step ordeal, it was reported his vehicle was very near the cut through cross walk. On the phone while giving directions he said, "Go left past the clubhouse... go straight past the clubhouse then left past the mailboxes... (inaudible) you'll see my truck."Green Circle

Purple box is the mailboxes.

There's debate as to what side of the road makes most sense. It matters if these things are interesting to you, but it really doesn't matter much in the big picture. I can explain this when I have the time (er motivation), but I believe his vehicle was directly across the street from the end of the yellow arrow. Past the building but before the crosswalk, certainly before the hard right turn.

 

[Neofight]

Not that a jury can or will base anything on interviews from members of each family, but the Martin family (particularly this interview with Trayvon's older brother Jahvaris Fulton) come across as way more sympathetic and infinitely more believable than the Zimmerman's.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out if this thing gets to a trial.

 

[jon_mx]

Not that a jury can or will base anything on interviews from members of each family, but the Martin family (particularly this interview with Trayvon's older brother Jahvaris Fulton) come across as way more sympathetic and infinitely more believable than the Zimmerman's.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out if this thing gets to a trial.

As believable as anyone else may or may not be, there is only one person alive who knows what happened. This whole case relies on the credibility of his testimony. It will be interesting on what they will be able to piece together about what went on with the forensic evidence. It will also be interesting on what Zimmerman's story he told the police.

 

[Neofight]

Not that a jury can or will base anything on interviews from members of each family, but the Martin family (particularly this interview with Trayvon's older brother Jahvaris Fulton) come across as way more sympathetic and infinitely more believable than the Zimmerman's.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out if this thing gets to a trial.

As believable as anyone else may or may not be, there is only one person alive who knows what happened. This whole case relies on the credibility of his testimony. It will be interesting on what they will be able to piece together about what went on with the forensic evidence. It will also be interesting on what Zimmerman's story he told the police.

True, Zimmerman is the only one who survived that night having experienced the confrontation. However, if he has anger issues that are as serious as reported, even he may not know what really happened that night.

 

[jon_mx]

Not that a jury can or will base anything on interviews from members of each family, but the Martin family (particularly this interview with Trayvon's older brother Jahvaris Fulton) come across as way more sympathetic and infinitely more believable than the Zimmerman's.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out if this thing gets to a trial.

As believable as anyone else may or may not be, there is only one person alive who knows what happened. This whole case relies on the credibility of his testimony. It will be interesting on what they will be able to piece together about what went on with the forensic evidence. It will also be interesting on what Zimmerman's story he told the police.

True, Zimmerman is the only one who survived that night having experienced the confrontation. However, if he has anger issues that are as serious as reported, even he may not know what really happened that night.

The reporting on this story is batting about .250, I would not put much weight on it. Emotions and ratings are trumping solid reporting of the news.

 

[Neofight]

Not that a jury can or will base anything on interviews from members of each family, but the Martin family (particularly this interview with Trayvon's older brother Jahvaris Fulton) come across as way more sympathetic and infinitely more believable than the Zimmerman's.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out if this thing gets to a trial.

As believable as anyone else may or may not be, there is only one person alive who knows what happened. This whole case relies on the credibility of his testimony. It will be interesting on what they will be able to piece together about what went on with the forensic evidence. It will also be interesting on what Zimmerman's story he told the police.

True, Zimmerman is the only one who survived that night having experienced the confrontation. However, if he has anger issues that are as serious as reported, even he may not know what really happened that night.

The reporting on this story is batting about .250, I would not put much weight on it. Emotions and ratings are trumping solid reporting of the news.

As skeptical as I am of the media (that is to say, I am extremely skeptical), I have even more doubts about the numbers you consistently pull out of thin air.

 

[pantherclub]

Not that a jury can or will base anything on interviews from members of each family, but the Martin family (particularly this interview with Trayvon's older brother Jahvaris Fulton) come across as way more sympathetic and infinitely more believable than the Zimmerman's.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out if this thing gets to a trial.

As believable as anyone else may or may not be, there is only one person alive who knows what happened. This whole case relies on the credibility of his testimony. It will be interesting on what they will be able to piece together about what went on with the forensic evidence. It will also be interesting on what Zimmerman's story he told the police.

True, Zimmerman is the only one who survived that night having experienced the confrontation. However, if he has anger issues that are as serious as reported, even he may not know what really happened that night.

The reporting on this story is batting about .250, I would not put much weight on it. Emotions and ratings are trumping solid reporting of the news.

As skeptical as I am of the media (that is to say, I am extremely skeptical), I have even more doubts about the numbers you consistently pull out of thin air.

 

[Guest]

Well if you know you are innocent and know there is no evidence against you, you take your chances. What can they possibly offer him, 5 years? I would take a 10% chance of being convicted and looking at a maximum of 20 years versus taking a 100% shot at doing 5 years.

What case are we talking about now?

This one. There is not one piece of evidence revealed to date which shows Zimmerman murdered Treyvon.

You've never heard the phrase "the smoking gun" have you.

I am betting there isn't one.

zimmerman was holding it you fool

Killing does not mean its murder.

So you can tell the difference between "killing" and "murder" but not "some evidence" and "no evidence"?Stop living in a dream world, hippie.

 

[jon_mx]

Well if you know you are innocent and know there is no evidence against you, you take your chances. What can they possibly offer him, 5 years? I would take a 10% chance of being convicted and looking at a maximum of 20 years versus taking a 100% shot at doing 5 years.

What case are we talking about now?

This one. There is not one piece of evidence revealed to date which shows Zimmerman murdered Treyvon.

You've never heard the phrase "the smoking gun" have you.

I am betting there isn't one.

zimmerman was holding it you fool

Killing does not mean its murder.

So you can tell the difference between "killing" and "murder" but not "some evidence" and "no evidence"?

I should have spoken most precisely. There is no evidence which proves this killing was murder. Yes, the fact that Zimmerman killed Martin is not disputed. We have Zimmerman's word that it was self-defense. We have evidence that there was some struggle and that there were some minor injuries to Zimmerman. There is nothing that shows Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation. There is nothing which shows Zimmerman was not in danger. Two people struggling and a gun involved. Yes, if Zimmerman lost the fight he had a legitimate concern for his life.

 

[identikit]

Well if you know you are innocent and know there is no evidence against you, you take your chances. What can they possibly offer him, 5 years? I would take a 10% chance of being convicted and looking at a maximum of 20 years versus taking a 100% shot at doing 5 years.

What case are we talking about now?

This one. There is not one piece of evidence revealed to date which shows Zimmerman murdered Treyvon.

You've never heard the phrase "the smoking gun" have you.

I am betting there isn't one.

zimmerman was holding it you fool

Killing does not mean its murder.

So you can tell the difference between "killing" and "murder" but not "some evidence" and "no evidence"?

I should have spoken most precisely. There is no evidence which proves this killing was murder. Yes, the fact that Zimmerman killed Martin is not disputed. We have Zimmerman's word that it was self-defense. We have evidence that there was some struggle and that there were some minor injuries to Zimmerman. There is nothing that shows Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation. There is nothing which shows Zimmerman was not in danger. Two people struggling and a gun involved. Yes, if Zimmerman lost the fight he had a legitimate concern for his life.

First of all, we don't know all the evidence.Period.

And second of all, the trial will decide all this, not someone on a message board with 'evidence' supplied by the media/internet/message board.

 

[jon_mx]

Well if you know you are innocent and know there is no evidence against you, you take your chances. What can they possibly offer him, 5 years? I would take a 10% chance of being convicted and looking at a maximum of 20 years versus taking a 100% shot at doing 5 years.

What case are we talking about now?

This one. There is not one piece of evidence revealed to date which shows Zimmerman murdered Treyvon.

You've never heard the phrase "the smoking gun" have you.

I am betting there isn't one.

zimmerman was holding it you fool

Killing does not mean its murder.

So you can tell the difference between "killing" and "murder" but not "some evidence" and "no evidence"?

I should have spoken most precisely. There is no evidence which proves this killing was murder. Yes, the fact that Zimmerman killed Martin is not disputed. We have Zimmerman's word that it was self-defense. We have evidence that there was some struggle and that there were some minor injuries to Zimmerman. There is nothing that shows Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation. There is nothing which shows Zimmerman was not in danger. Two people struggling and a gun involved. Yes, if Zimmerman lost the fight he had a legitimate concern for his life.

First of all, we don't know all the evidence.Period.

And second of all, the trial will decide all this, not someone on a message board with 'evidence' supplied by the media/internet/message board.

Most of the evidence early on was leaked. I am not holding my breath to learn too many more facts about what went on besides some of the forensic evidence. The case will revolve around character assassination of Zimmerman. But like in the Casey Anthony case, this will come down to just because we might not like Zimmerman, that alone does not make him guilty.