Zimmerman charged

[chickened]

This photo is misleading at best as head wounds bleed profusely even if it is just a nick. A very small wound can cause this type of bleeding. And I mean a pin prick! I am also unhappy about the amount of the photo that has been cropped off.

The photo was apparently taken by the eyewitness with a phone 3 minutes after the shooting not the police.

Some expert testified today that it is wounds similar to a head being banged on the concrete.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote: The new thing that came out today in the hearing was that the investigator clams they have a witness that saw 2 men running, one chacing the other down that ally. That does not fit Mr Zs story.

 

[redhen]

The new thing that came out today in the hearing was that the investigator clams they have a witness that saw 2 men running, one chacing the other down that ally. That does not fit Mr Zs story.

Yeah,.. so who knows..
Probably Zimmerman was chasing him to not "lose" him....bad idea..
Interesting... cant wait till the court date to see where this all goes.

 

[thaiturkey]

The head wound may not prove to be of much use as evidence unless it can be established how it was obtained. There's a presumption that Z was knocked to the ground and hit his head on concrete but there's no corroborating evidence yet.

Also, perhaps Z, even if can reasonably claim self-defence, must explain why there was a single fatal shot and not merely a wound.

Perhaps difficult to explain would be the apparent derogatory description of the youth muttered by Z whilst on the 911 call and his failure to ignore the suggestion that there was no need to follow. It might suggest that he was on a personal mission rather than looking out for the interests of his neighbours.

Similarly, Z had no evidence that the youth had committed a crime so close observation wasn't necessary in any case.

Z is on a sticky wicket, I think. He frequently called the police about strangers in his area, carried a gun when his self-imposed task was to observe and report, muttered insults that were recorded by 911 and appeared determined to follow the youth. There would probably have been no crime if Z had not been determined to create or tempt the creation of an altercation and certainly no suggestion that anything would have happened that justified the taking of a life.

The case seems to hang on whether he was attacked without provocation or whether he frightened or provoked the youth into striking first in his own defence. There is no evidence that the youth was out looking for trouble but you might thinks that Z was.

His best chance of acquittal is the lack, so far, of independent evidence. More likely, he will be sunk by character witnesses against him.

Still, we now have to wait and see.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Isnt it terribly sad that a young man is killed for no reason and people are trying to make out that the killer was justified because he felt in danger. By ignoring the advise to stay in the car and not follow him he put another person in danger and killed him.

 

[thaiturkey]

Isnt it terribly sad that a young man is killed for no reason and people are trying to make out that the killer was justified because he felt in danger. By ignoring the advise to stay in the car and not follow him he put another person in danger and killed him.

Exactly!

I can't help thinking that, if the gun had been in the youth's hands, some people would be calling for his conviction whatever the circumstances.

 

[Mattemma]

I have not followed this story much,but know that I would hve reacted if a man was following ME and getting in my face.

What is the normal reaction when put into a situation-fight or flight? The shooter created a sitauiton where HE provoked an attack.Even if the boy was a drug dealer up to no good it was still the shooter who caused the sitauiton to escalate to the point of the murder.

Regardless he will be out in a few years like many killers are.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The prosecution has to prove that a crime was committed and by whom. The defense does not have to prove that the defendant is innocent. The defense has to convince one member of the jury that the prosecution did not prove its case. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. All the defense has to do is cast doubt. In a murder case, the burden of proof is beyond a shadow of a doubt, not just reasonable doubt. A murder conviction is serious with serious punishment. It should not be based on a maybe. It is not that unusual for a prosecutor to look at the evidence as opresented and decide they cannot convict based on that evidence. There are also laws against false imprisonment and time limits as to how fast charges must be brought if an arrest is made. A judge then makes the decision of the evidence warrants an arrest and trial.

Our legal system is slanted to protect the innocent. No system is perfect, but this means that more criminals go free than innocent people are convicted. If anyone can come up with a perfect system run by humans, let us know. Big Brother would like to know.

To make our system work, justice must be seen to be done. That does not mean that justice must be done. It means that the mob must believe that justice will be done so the mob does not turn into a lynch mob and take vigilante justice whenever something happens. With all the media circus around this case, it is possible Mr. Zimmerman will be convicted of something, possibly a lesser crime like manslaughter, more to appease the mob than because of absolute beyond a shadow of a doubt guilt. It's also possible that the jury will decide that Mr. Zimmerman bears some responsibility for what happened, even if it does not meet the requirements for a murder conviction. Or the jury may decide he is absolutely guilty or that the case was not proven. You never know with a jury.

The media circus around one of these cases can advance the career of a judge, get a prosecutor a high elective office, and bring a defense attorney big money cases in the future. A reporter's career can get a huge boost if they break certain stories. Justice is supposed to be but it really is not blind. The decision of whether to prosecute or not is made by humans and sometimes humans make mistakes or allow their prejudices to get in the way. Sometimes the media needs to expose certain things to get those "mistakes' corrected or get certain people out of office. It's a balancing act that is never clear and never resolved. I don't like the media circus but I see where it is sometimes necessary. Justice does need to be seen to be done.

 

[chickened]

Will be interesting to see the make up of the jury. I think each side chooses 6 evenly although I am not sure in murder trials.



The public outcry by supporters of Trayvon Martin's family, for the arrest of George Zimmerman, has the public weighing a question that our country's legal system has already asked and answered: A suspect is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The problem in this case, of course, is that the target of Trayvon supporters has admitted his role in the death of Martin, and that the Sanford Police, as a law enforcement agency, never felt a warrant for his arrest should be executed. So they didn't arrest him.
In any other town, for any other crime, that would equate to case closed. But the racial card has been played in this case, with Martin's supporters demanding Zimmerman's arrest, even if they have to resort to bullying "and breaking the law".
Martin's younger supporters have already tried, for lack of a better word, what amounts to bullying the Sanford Police Department, by staging a protest movement in front of the PD—a movement that shut down police work at Sanford's official headquarters, according to WESH News in Orlando.
That protest resulted in the entire law enforcement agency being forced to close their doors to the public at their official site, hindering others in the community from being served there.
What's next, a lynch mob?
But Sanford PD didn't use force against the protestors then, instead choosing to diffuse the potential controversy that they felt some were trying to create. So they moved their daily operations to City Hall and worked from there.
The protestors, also known as the "Dream Defenders" movement, however, also threatened to "break the law" if they have to in order to see Zimmerman get arrested, according to WESH.
The Martin family attorney, Natalie Jackson, shockingly, supported the students' actions, saying "These students are beautiful; I have to tell you, they have the passion and determination to do what they did."
Martin's family says all they want is justice. Sanford Police say they gave it to them by not arresting a man they didn't feel was guilty of intentionally killing their loved one—or that it can't be proven that he did.
Many Americans who have experienced the death of a loved one want justice, too. But what kind of justice can a court give a family if the person who took their loved one's life wasn't in the wrong—or it can't be proven in a court of law?
Our court systems require that a burden of proof be met in order to convict someone of murder. Would Americans really want it any other way?
And our police departments require a burden of proof be met before a person is arrested for a crime. Otherwise, we have the Civil Rights issues all over again, right? And no one wants that.
And our prosecutors require that even if police suspect a person might be guilty of a crime, but they can't give enough evidence to prove it and gain a conviction, that they not waste taxpayer money-making an arrest--or trying a case that can't be won.
That's what Trayvon Martin's family and supporters don't seem to understand. They are hoping for something that just can't happen. And their supporters' actions to get that justice is proving to be anything but "just" when you consider their willingness to "break the law" if necessary.
Just what kind of warped justice is that?
Today it is being reported by CNN that the Grand Jury scheduled to hear testimony and case details about the night Trayvon Martin was shot and killed has been cancelled, and that special prosecutor Angela Corey will decide if George Zimmerman should stand trial or not.
Some speculate that a personal request to Pres. Obama may be made for "justice" by Martin supporters if their media and protest efforts don't result in Zimmerman's arrest, or if the Justice Department can't influence the special prosecutor to agree to an arrest.
But that would be asking for more racial tensions than already exist in the case, giving the appearance that Pres. Obama shows favoritism to his race, even though the country's legal and law enforcement agencies felt an arrest was not warranted—or provable in a court of law.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

The head wound may not prove to be of much use as evidence unless it can be established how it was obtained. There's a presumption that Z was knocked to the ground and hit his head on concrete but there's no corroborating evidence yet.

Also, perhaps Z, even if can reasonably claim self-defence, must explain why there was a single fatal shot and not merely a wound.

Perhaps difficult to explain would be the apparent derogatory description of the youth muttered by Z whilst on the 911 call and his failure to ignore the suggestion that there was no need to follow. It might suggest that he was on a personal mission rather than looking out for the interests of his neighbours.

Similarly, Z had no evidence that the youth had committed a crime so close observation wasn't necessary in any case.

Z is on a sticky wicket, I think. He frequently called the police about strangers in his area, carried a gun when his self-imposed task was to observe and report, muttered insults that were recorded by 911 and appeared determined to follow the youth. There would probably have been no crime if Z had not been determined to create or tempt the creation of an altercation and certainly no suggestion that anything would have happened that justified the taking of a life.

The case seems to hang on whether he was attacked without provocation or whether he frightened or provoked the youth into striking first in his own defence. There is no evidence that the youth was out looking for trouble but you might thinks that Z was.

His best chance of acquittal is the lack, so far, of independent evidence. More likely, he will be sunk by character witnesses against him.

Still, we now have to wait and see.

I dont think the fact that he was carrying a gun will be as much of a issue as you may think. Remember in Florida an all of the states that border it, about 10% of the population have pistol permits to carry on there person an I wont even guess what % of the population has guns in there home an cars. Carrying a gun to buy food is normal, doing the same to do neighborhood watch is not unusual.

I dont get this part. "must explain why there was a single fatal shot and not merely a wound." Shooting to wound is a movie thing, not reality. Usually people unload the whole gun. Mr Zs gun failed to eject the first round so he could not fire again. Why is an interesting question.


Is this news in Thailand?