George Zimmerman certainly made a killing off the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, as he reportedly made a whopping $200,000 via solicitations on his website. Remember the outrage the website cost in the first place? Yeah, well this doesn't make him look good. In fact, it looks like he's not only free on a possible homicide, but he's capitalizing off of it, doubling the cost of his bond in just such a short time.
What do you think of all this? Do you think George Zimmerman is enjoying the near quarter of a million he just made off of what very well could turn into a miscarriage of justice? Hopefully every single dime of it goes to his defense, because he's going to need it!
But wait, this source reveals that the family of the self-appointed neighborhood watch imbecile used $5,000 and their home mortgage to bond him out of jail. So what is he doing with that $200,000? His lawyer claims that he didn't know about it until after he was released from jail, but Zimmerman has reportedly used the money to pay for his living expenses.
His family claimed to not know where to get the money to bond the man out, and they pleaded to have his bond lowered. Meanwhile they were racking up the big bucks via the badly designed website that pandered to those who mistook this slaying of a child as some backwoods gun rights campaign. Good job.
The politics at play in this case are disgusting. There are people defending this man because they're racist, either admittedly or not, or they're simply confused. There are people twisting this into a sickening display of political division of "right vs. left," and it frankly needs to stop -- but it won't. That's not how people of that mentality operate. No, this will turn into a war on whether or not race fueled the murder of Trayvon Martin or if politics did. The NRA and their lackeys will continue to spread misinformation and the political pundits on various programs (both right and left) will continue garnering sympathy for whatever social causes they support -- all in the name of a 17-year-old's blood.
The very fact of the matter is simple in this case. Forget about race and forget about the foaming-at-the-mouth political fanatics. This was a 17-year-old boy who was not armed. Whether there was an altercation or not, George Zimmerman used excessive force. He hunted the boy down after police told him on the phone that they did not need him to follow the kid, and then he shot him.
This isn't a case of whether or not a racist gun toting moron shot a kid, and it's not a case of whether or not a black thug razzing the wrong "hero" (eye roll). This is a case of taking things way too far. It's a case of a citizen taking the law into his own hands and now a child is dead, unable to even give his side of the story.
And now the suspect is getting rich.
Crime analyst and profiler Chelsea Hoffman can be found on The Huffington Post, Chelsea Hoffman: Case to Case and many other outlets. Follow @TheRealChelseaH on Twitter or click here to contact Chelsea directly.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 204 ( 30 removed by Chelsea Hoffman )
lol
Wouldn't be surprised if the NRA sent money to his cause.
This isn't a case of whether or not a racist gun toting moron shot a kid, and it's not a case of whether or not a black thug razzing the wrong "hero" (eye roll). This is a case of taking things way too far.
The above paragraph makes the point very clear. Have racism debates on your own articles. This is for a discussion of crime and punishment. Not whatever race baiting others want to participate in. That is not welcomed on this post.
Good gravy.
Your boy running south would have made it home and the game would have been over. But he came back and gave Zimmerman the trouble that he thought the man was looking for ... that he deserved.
You never explained why the boy running south 200+ yards never arrived home and went inside? How did he end up back at the North end? If Zimmerman was "chasing" him this would have happened at the South end of the sidewalk by the Ms. Greens home there.
I don't discuss with desperate people unless they can back up what they say. (that means with evidence not ad hominem attacks and wordy comments that do nothing but further prove my own points)
Have a good one.
It's all in how you paint the picture of someone ... but you have no evidence of a chase. "Are you following him" "Yep" "We don't need you to do that"
Follow - to go or come after; move behind in the same direction: Drive ahead, and I'll follow you.
Chase -
1. to pursue in order to seize, overtake, etc.: The police officer chased the thief.
2. to pursue with intent to capture or kill, as game; hunt: to chase deer.
* You see in portraying it as a CHASE you make Zimmerman an agressive person chasing down the kid to kill or capture him. There are no facts or evidence to support that - that I know of. But if you know of any I'm all ears.
For it to matter in this case even with proof beyond a reasonable doubt of who confronted who, its a big stretch to claim being followed "directly" led to Trayvon's death. Would a reasonable person expect the act of following to result in death?
I'm thinking some states have laws that prevent anyone from profiting from a crime, but no idea if Florida has such a law.
I'm curious, am I a racist if I correct mistakes I see in stories, like AP reporting Dale Gilbreath's testimony without O'Mara's redirect that changes his statement from wasn't to was consistent?
I consider myself neutral on the case, but I really hate media lying, that's lawyers work.
Let me guess where you've been. I knew it was just a matter of time before you guys started referencing Knox and Zimmerman in the same context. Predictable as ever!
I told you guys not to leave the doors open gah
and so it goes.
http://deniedjustice.org/chelsea-hoffman-not-afraid-to-call-out-stupid/
I had no idea anyone would ever quote me! :) How impressive.
I ought to write on your stuff more often. ;) It was priceless
Thanks for letting me know Chelsea. (I found it hysterical)
Now can I ask you Chelsea... where does she get the "you guys" from?
Do either of us look like men? Where did she get that impression? Do you think we ought to let her know we aren't guys? Nah, we better not tell her.. let her have her delusions... you never know what would happen, I guess if we let her know.
Media
Lawyers
Everybody else.
State of Florida must be losing millions in lost tourism daily, and the trial and investigation will take millions as well.
Two possible money suits; Martins vs HOA, Zimmerman vs State, with a chance some media outlets might face a suit like NBC. Civil suits aren't cheap to bring, and pointless unless the other side has assets, so that limits who might be suing who.
I don't see any book coming out of this case, most I think will very much want to let Trayvon rest in peace.
Martin family I believe is raising money for a foundation of some kind, but no reports on how it is doing.
If the truth is inflammatory to some people, then they shouldn't be reading about topics that inflame their senses so.
"The very fact of the matter is simple in this case. Forget about race and forget about the foaming-at-the-mouth political fanatics. This was a 17-year-old boy who was not armed. Whether there was an altercation or not, George Zimmerman used excessive force. He hunted the boy down after police told him on the phone that they did not need him to follow the kid, and then he shot him."
Basically speculation like that have killed more people than Zimmerman.
Consider two possible lessons people might take from this case;
1) Wearing a hoodie may cause self appointed wannbe cops to hunt you down and kill you.
2) Two decent human beings can easily let a minor confrontation quickly escalate to a life and death struggle when violent means are used.
You read into things however you want. You're still making it an issue aside from the fact that this was about one man, shooting a 17-year old, and claiming self defense even though there is evidence from the beginning, that contradicts that.
Like I said -- keep the race baiting on your own threads. This has nothing to do about race. People who are making this as much about race as it's become are doing more damage than has already been done. They're turning this into a circus sideshow over racial issues when it's pretty much boiled down to one human killing another and then claiming self defense when it doesn't look like it really was.
I think that is pretty cut and dry for anyone who isn't obsessed with trolling for social division.
Three situations seem possible;
There is a struggle for control of the gun that is not resolved before it goes off.
Trayvon has control of the gun, this makes no sense, so skipping it.
Zimmerman has control of the gun, this leads to two further possibilities;
The struggle continues and Zimmerman shoots.
The struggle ends, and Zimmerman shoots unnecessarily.
A complication would be if Trayvon never notices the gun, then you can argue the need for Zimmerman to make it known and give Trayvon a chance to withdraw.
If you are going with the provoked confrontation theory, I think the screams for help suggest one party was attempting to withdraw, which allows them to claim self defense regardless of the previous actions. Zimmerman need only create a reasonable doubt that he is the one screaming.
BTW I find the removal of comments a bit heavy handed, but haven't seen a remotely civil discussion elsewhere.
For instance -- when someone comes to a thread about subject a -- but leaves a comment along the lines of "you're an idiot and blahblah blah" -- they're getting deleted because they're unnecessary. They've already entered the topic with negative intentions, and they've already worn their welcome.
For the most part -- I don't delete comments. It's actually very rarely compared to how many articles I have posted here.
At Mikado, you bring up good points about the nose being broken.. that does change the voice.
But would it change to where trained experts couldn't figure it out? Probably wouldn't be admissible in court.
George is capitalizing isn't he? He's making money off of it. Making capital is capitalizing by the very definition. Even his lawyer is upset that he didn't disclose it. Let his parents put up their house and 5,000 after they sat there and said they couldn't come up with all that money he had been racking them up.
I find it disgusting and I have every right to express that.
excessive force isn't a term strictly related to law enforcement. He brought a gun to a fist fight so-to-speak. That's excessive force. A gun should have never been utilized. He had already called the police and could have gone inside of a business for safety. He had time to do these things even BEFORE the child was shot. And that's assuming he was truly even attacked in something initiated by Trayvon. There's no proof that Trayvon started the altercation.
maybe he was already following the kid and he had enough, turned around and said "what man, why you following me?" maybe it then turned into a fight. Maybe maybe maybe maybe.
Yeah she calls it, but she had no problem point-whoring off Trayvon's name!!!
and yeah, I'm an SW, but it seems that the majority of people come here think I'm either getting "points" or gift cards... or pennies... :| I've given up on arguing the differences anymore lol.
She wasn't referring to me. She was referring to Bronx.
Try not to make a mess for others to clean up when you do that, though, okay?
Evincing a depraved mind with no regard for human life. Chelsea Hoffman you are guilty as charged.
depraved?(methinks attacks are for the desperate when they've run out of things to say)
yuh..so was what I said.
and you cried about it.
It's not my place to supply evidence. I already did with my article and the sources within it.
Counter it? Bring your sources.
Beyond that, I don't have the time to hover over merely one article to appease you ;)
You could start reading right here ... it has a link to the "doubled back" theory that I was looking for. But shows maps of the property. I've done measurements on Google Earth as to how long the sidewalk is because I think Trayvon could have been home easily early on. And it shows where Zimmerman supposedly walked at the north end. It looks like he remained at the north end which seems to match with his returning to his vehicle story.
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/the-missing-230-and-deedees-testimony
Even I capitalize off of it -- though I put it all back into my endeavors for the missing and victims of potential serial homicides.
but you're only using them in attempts to strengthen whatever argument you're representing -- and it's making your argument look weak.
JMHO.
an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.
I would think that in order for an action or an instance of negligence to occur ... there couldn't be a lingering "self defense" claim. If the self defense claim were to be validated as true ... then there wouldn't be a crime, would there be? Then what would it be? An unfortunate death for sure. I don't think anyone, even Zimmerman, wanted Trayvon to die.
If Zimmerman is acquitted ... then what do we have?
also "I would think" does not a legal definition make.
I believe the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty.
Since you are not citing case law either (precedents in other cases and such) I think you are doing the "I would think" thing too.
"You can call me flower if you want to..."
You can call this a crime if you want to. Anyway I'm just trying to give some moments of pause to this whole thing as some people just want to hang Zimmerman and have it over with. It's not that simple.
You don't have to be convicted for something to be a crime. If you'd ever been on either side of the system.. you'd probably know that. Or if you'd simplistically use Black's Law Dictionary like our criminal justice professionals use.
Just saying.
Who else besides On Air Personalities (albeit with a distinguished law career) thinks that Zimmerman self-incriminated himself? When you go on TV you have to put on a good "show". I'm just saying ... :-)
I finally found the video of her comments on the apology. And the host kind of explained that away ... The reason he gave 3 answers was because they were questions that the Martin family had asked.
The idea of a defendent taking the stand is Golden and the DA missed it, she said.
Who else besides On Air Personalities (albeit with a distinguished law career) thinks that Zimmerman self-incriminated himself? When you go on TV you have to put on a good "show". I'm just saying ... :-)
ad hominem ;)
Maybe an attorney strategy to try and get him to admit that he had commited a crime. But I don't think it worked.
From CBS News:
"George Zimmerman's father, Robert Zimmerman, delivers a letter to the Orlando Sentinel. The letter reads, in part: "At no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin. When the true details of the event become public, and I hope that will be soon, everyone should be outraged by the treatment of George Zimmerman in the media."
The actual call to police dispatch does not make it clear that George continued to follow Trayvon after the initial request for George to stop following him. Here is the 911 call.
But yes, I'm sure we'll all feel sorry for him and forget about Trayvon when those danged facts come out. Hope it's soon.
yeah, he probably didn't follow him... he spontaneously appeared with a gun to shoot him though after being told not to follow. So, a 17-year old who had just been in a scuffle and ran away, probably decided to come back for more.. that's more likely than the neighborhood hall monitor continuing to follow even after saying he was following on the phone, angry after being in a scuffle... with a gun... going after the kid running..
yeah...
0_o
I vote we wait and see what this evidence is. We'll certainly never hear Trayvon's side.
After listening to the recording again it's not clear if Mr. Zimmerman was still following Trayvon or returning to his vehicle after the 911 operator told him they didn't need him to be following Trayvon.
Not interested.
I don't think race should be the issue at this point. The point should be the very basics of what happened.
Trayvon's side will be represented by the prosecution, who will be free to examine all of the evidence and craft a story putting the best possible light on what his actions or motives might of been. That a child has died will be constantly in the minds of the jurors, as well that Zimmerman is his killer. His parents will testify to his virtues and hoped future, and any negative evidence or comments likely will be seen as mean spirited, speaking ill of the dead. His childhood picture, and autopsy photos will be circulated among the jurors.
Zimmerman will be alive and healthy in shackles, and subject to detailed cross examination on every statement he makes or has made.
This is more than balanced.
Now include the two months of media trial and conviction, and its far beyond balanced.
You knew damn well what I meant. Trayvon will never be able to take the stand and testify against the suspect. He's dead.
I side with the family of the victim.. I don't side with people who shoot children.
They are good to keep around though in case obsessed stalkers make it through the obstacles to get into the house haha
I appreciate you deleting the absurdly contentious, and insulting commentary above my comment to that person, at 4:44PM.
As my response is no longer is pertaining to the general discussion, I am deleting my response to that person.
I do appreciate your input on my missing persons stories though. But I am truly trying to keep this one a vitriol free zone as much as possible. Again, please don't take this personally.
Just posters not respecting that this isn't a venue for race baiting.
I think it's awful. Do I think this guy said a racial slur during the process? Yeah, I do. But I'm not going to sit here and say this is a huge hate crime thing, because it simply just needs to be taken in account that the kid was an unarmed kid and nothing more. That in and of itself is pretty damn bad and deserving of life behind bars IMHO. the other stuff is just rhetoric.
The lawyer did not know about the money.
RTFA please.
As well as what? His lawyer didn't even know about the money until recently. So it wasn't for him. His parents told the court they had no money and put their mortgage up to get him out of jail..
As far as it's reported, he's using that money for his own wants/needs and not for the case.
If he's using the money just for himself instead of for a good legal defense then he'll be spending a lot of time in prison, and he'll be sued by both by Martin's family along with ppl that are donating to him.
Just a thought (and yes, the judge is angry about it)
AT any rate, I just hope justice is served.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981299807
I guess if I ever get shot, it will be my fault. Because I have tattoos, listen to wacky music and post quotes that are less than puritanical and sometimes not very "nice"....
victim blaming is a problem in this society. I get blamed for it a lot in the cases I work on.. you bring up anything about a victim and you're called a "victim blamer."
However, I don't see how trayvon having tattoos or talking like any other person from his age and peer group has anything to do with his death being justified in any way. In fact, it truly does look racist. Just like when Robert Pickton killed and gutted all those prostitutes in Canada -- "they're just hookers, eh" is all the mounties said. I guess victims are only victims if they're fitting to a social standard of "clean".
but again, this is not a racism discussion. Or any other "ism" for that matter.
If this was down between me and Trayvon Martin. I would be the suspect without a doubt because I look like a straight up featherwood. So it kind of does apply.
But I do get what you're saying.
No, it's not~where'd you get that Law School 01?!! Trayvon is not the defendant in this case, and his history is irrelevant because GZ knew nothing about it~duh!
It's not Trayvon who needs to prove his innocence but we all know that Zimmerman's defense will do all they can to make this look like a case of "thug got what he deserved."
It's the same thing. It's victimology. And trayvon isn't the one who's the defendant. He's the victim.
Please, I must remind everyone to keep a little respect in order. This isn't a troll post, so trolling isn't welcomed. Any posts going off topic, flinging insults, or displaying total meltdowns and derailing the thread over things not pertaining to the topic will be removed.
Sorry, but this is supposed to be at least partially civil. We can disagree, we can be snarky -- that's all okay and good. But keep it on topic and show a little human civility.
This is an adult discussion, not a daycare.
Thanks.
I'd like to explore why we have such different opinions on "unarmed teenager".
I have a neighbor that could inflict any level of harm including death or a state of long and lingering helpless pain while unarmed in a heart beat. Being unarmed seems to have not hampered Trayvon in the physical conflict, nor did his age, so why consider it a major factor?
I haven't seen anywhere in the law that says a person has to be injured to a certain extent to invoke self defense. In other words as someone I believe has already said on here you can defend yourself before your "lights" go out. A head banged on concrete or anything hard could get a concussion or brain damage. ("Well if he as vegetable, had blood photographed coming out in pints not trickles, had his clothes ripped and tied around his neck and he was strangled ... we might let him go on Self Defense. We just MIGHT.")
Hmmmm...
And why do you think someone has to have certain life-or-death injuries to claim self-defense? Again, I'm just asking.
My comment was in regards to all the deleted comments (the ones I didn't delete)
That comment was nonsensical.
> That comment was nonsensical.
But you and others online are making "medical assessments" on someone that you haven't even been near in person ... don't know what the paramedics treated him for ... don't know what other doctors treated him for in the days after the event. All based upon CCTV video online and the lack of much of anything else.
The photo evidence that has been shown all over creation shows non life threatening injuries. Injuries no different than those inflicted in any normal fistfight.
Furthermore, the injuries really prove nothing. Maybe he was following Trayvon..since he was the self appointed neighborhood watch rent-a-cop who walked around strapped and "ready to kill" at any moment's notice. Maybe he was the one following him and maybe Trayvon attacked him out of self defense or fear. Who knows? I know judging by the character of Zimmerman and his little pandery website, he's certainly the type that would have probably been harassing the kid for walking on his turf. Maybe he goaded this poor kid just so he could shoot him.
There's a thought.
Oh but no... we can't dare look at any other ideas.
Where did you get that from as the only thing that was done? If that were true and he could have ran away ... crawled away ... etc. No, using a gun not lawful. But ... if the attacker broke his nose, knocked him to the ground, further assaulted (and "owned" him - you know online and gamish terms I'm sure you know what Pwned means) and in the further assaults tryed to beat his head into the ground / concrete repeatedly ... causing the cries out for help ... Then yes the use of the gun is lawful.
Deleted comments were not in this section ... so umm that's confusing. But ok, call your next witness that saw only his nose being broken followed by him shooting in response to that. I don't think anyone is getting that from what's available already. Did we get more information today by the way? I've been busy with work and house keeping and taking care of my bed ridden mother.
prove that happened
my initial comment about gun nuts was intended for the "join the conversation" tab --- i wasn't paying attention.
Well there was supposedly that witness John ... did they kill him? Or he withdrew his statement?
There is a photo of a bloody back of a head ... doesn't look like a nose to me.
Now that could be inadmissable for some reason I don't know. It seems to match the story from Zimmerman ... and the story he told police ... and the condition under which the police supposedly found Zimmerman. He didn't just have wet kness from falling over with a nose bleed. He was wet on his back and with grass remnants or such.
Honestly I think the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that beating did NOT happen. They are prosecuting a guy against a Self-Defense claim - they need to prove that he didn't need to defend himself in that manner. I don't think that's going to be easy.
> my initial comment about gun nuts was intended for the "join the conversation" tab --- i wasn't paying attention.
All is forgiven. I was just confused that's all.
I'm going to go see if anything new was release today ... unless you heard anything?
People also do fall backwards when hit in the face, btw. It's not exactly unheard of 0_o
Lucky for everyone else you're not the delegate of the U.S. justice system. Trayvon isn't the defendant. Zimmerman is. He has to prove it. Sorry.
Um, last I checked the burden is on the prosecution ... the defense could just sit in their chairs (no one would do that of course) other than standing up to respond when "the court" requires them to. They don't have to put up a defense ... many people can't afford lawyers and can barely put up a defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_a_reasonable_doubt
"Generally the prosecution bears the burden of proof and is required to prove their version of events to this standard. This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty."
I think even people that just watch TV know this. But *of course* for their own good ... they "has to" put up a defense ... keep the prosecution in check ... and state their own case (which has been plead as Not Guilty.)
They've charged him with 2nd degree murder. He's the one who claims it's self defense. They've already got proof that he shot Trayvon Martin, a 17-year old unarmed child.
The burden is on him to prove it was self defense. Keep in mind that he had several weeks prior to his arrest. They had time to figure out just what made it a 2nd degree murder.
I can site you some law books, but I don't know if you're willing to pay for them online to research the topic ;) Unless you happen to have criminal law books laying around. I doubt it since you're using Wiki on a topic that doesn't suit this case ;)
I don't doubt the fact at all that Zimmermans attorney(s) have to go to court and work very hard to prove otherwise "against" the attempt of the prosecution to satisfy their burdon to Prove their Charge Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
The way you are stating this sounds like based on the event that occurred (you said they've already got proof) that Zimmerman is already Presumed to Be Guilty and must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is not guilty.
I'm sorry but this Bassed Ackwards.
P.S. I do read things other than Wikipedia ... and many books are available free through something called ... well you probably know some of them yourself.
I don't have to read thick law books to know that he is presumed innocent.
They have to prove him guilty. His attorney will work for that to not happen ... if you like ... to prove that he his not guilty.
* Maybe you are not in Florida, and I was almost about to retract my stance on this ... but I found the above.
Zimmerman's Low Burden of Proof on the Issue of Self Defense
by Professor Will Huhn on April 13, 2012
in Criminal Law,Wilson Huhn
In her news conference announcing that George Zimmerman was being charged with second degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, Florida Special Prosecutor Angela Corey mentioned several times that self-defense is an "affirmative defense" under Florida law. She also said that "Stand Your Ground" is "a tough affirmative defense to overcome." It will be "tough" for the prosecution because although Zimmerman has to introduce some evidence that he acted in self-defense, that doesn't mean that he has to convince the jury that he acted in self-defense. All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense. A proposed amendment to the Florida Jury Instructions makes that perfectly clear.
(more at the link.)
Aspen Criminal Law Fifth Edition
More Guns; Less Crime Third Edition (Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws)
Essentials of Criminal Justice 7th edition
Sad when random chatters online claim to know more about criminal law practices than the prosecutors who charged the guy..... relying on a wiki-education to back up their claims.
I don't have to read thick law books to know..(etc etc)
Then your opinion (which is based off essentially no credible knowledge of criminal justice) means less than nothing IMHO.
ad hominem ;)
> Maybe I'm not the person you should be discussing this with, actually. It's not fair for you.
ad hominem ;)
* What is your degree in?
*facepalm*
I'm pretty sure it's obvious.
No it's not. I have read that you are going to Criminal Justice somewhere. But what makes you a professor? Not that I am myself. But I'm not presenting myself as such. I'm asking what your credentials are ... because you are writing as if you are so far over my head that I would need a baloon to get to your feet.
I dunno Professor Wiki, what do you think?
I just shared about $800 worth of education with you. You can either use it or remain willfully ignorant on a topic you seem to be so vocal about ;)
Good luck though in your BA in CJ
http://www.chelseahoffman.com/2011/10/why-i-chose-online-degree-program.html
I already work in this industry. I've obviously studied actual law books. You're opinion on this case is based off flawed logic and misunderstanding of the justice system. You might not want to admit it to yourself, but it's more than apparent.
I don't need to defend my degree. It's a tad more legit than a quick browse of wiki to fail at proving a point (like you did) Nor do I need to defend my experience in several (and I do mean several) cases of similar and worse caliber.
I'm confidant that it's far more than what you could say for yourself. So again, you can either make use of the sources I provided (actual, credible legal sources) or you can remain willfully ignorant and insulting of an education which obviously surpasses your own -- jealousy, it's an ugly device, especially when it's due to your own failure.
Troll tactic #1 -- if you're being whooped in a discussion, attack.
Sad.
Now that all the mud slinging is done, some by both sides ... Zimmerman's attorneys do have to establish a Florida Affirmative Defense. But they don't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt like the prosecution does. So they have pretty uphill battle in this thing.
Have a good night. And I really did mean Good Luck in your CJ studies.
That is all
As for reasonable doubt -- anyone can create reasonable doubt. That's not what this case is riding on, as you've apparently been missing out on a lot of details and a lot of standards in the goings-on of this particular type of case/trial.
I never called you an "imbecile" -- if that is the word you choose to use regarding your obvious lack of respect for the actual facts of criminal law procedure then that is your choice. But you also can't put words in my mouth since everything i've typed is clearly right here. ;)
I said your opinion didn't mean much since it was based off failed logic and misunderstanding of procedure, which it is. You've shown that throughout the discussion. I shared with you several sources that are THE sources that the very people who practice these procedures use -- and you are the one quoted "I don't need to read thick law books to know..." after throwing out a half-ridden wikipedia source to back up your claims, which again, are based off a blatant misunderstanding of the protocols of a case of this particular.
And also, I never stated that you can't have an opinion. If the way you've read my comments is any indicator of the way youve been reading wikipedia, then it's no wonder that you're failing to understand the basic point that the state has charged him with 2nd degree murder, he has confessed to shooting an unarmed 17-year old. He himself messed up his own defense by apologizing and again admitting that he didn't know whether 17-year old Trayvon was armed or not. Again, the window of opportunity to use this against him is not closed. He now has the burden to proof without a doubt that he shot in self defense and that his life was in danger. Guess what, there will be plenty of experts there to show just how superficial his little "wounds" were -- and they were superficial. Anyone with even a 1/4 trained eye on that kind of thing could see that. It's been pointed out time after time again.
You are the one who decided that a barely credible wiki source was more suiting to your opinions than actual educational resources on the very topic you're trying to argue about. It was you, and you alone who made yourself look less than equipped to hand this type of discussion.
Also -- I never called you a "dumb hick" or "uneducated."
I said your opinion was uneducated because you yourself, AGAIN, admitted that you were more satisfied with using a janky source than actually, uh I don't know, learning something new? That makes an uneducated opinion, especially since you've argued time and again the procedure that would make Trayvon the defendant when he is not.
Again, if you want to discuss things and act as though you know what you're talking about. You should either know what you're talking about or at least be willing to learn. Instead of learning something by looking at "bar approved" literature you decided to insult my degree.
So nobody made you look bad here but yourself, I'm afraid. Sorry.
Twisting my words and making up things I didn't say was a nice touch though. Too bad it doesn't work when the entire discussion is in text and my true words are seen as clear as black & white.
You've argued and shown but what.. maybe three links? One of them being a link to my blog with your ad hominem attack against my degree program -- when it was you who couldn't even bother looking up something aside from wikipedia blurb?
lol good gravy
Bottom line - you think Zimmerman is guilty and nothing will change your mind and you will stop at nothing to push that opinion. You have proven nothing other than you are good at arguing.
I'd almost bet you are a Leo. Not a cop LEO, the Sun Sign Leo. I know I am. And that's why I think there is all this back-and-forth. Neither side is going to let go.
Anyway this is a good read:
http://www.husseinandwebber.com/stand_your_ground.html
Keep in mind this is FLORIDA law not Nevada law or any other law. This whole thing MIGHT be thrown out at an evidentiary (did I spell that right?) hearing.
That's not self defense. That's murder. It's second degree because it was in a fight. It could have very well been first degree had this been an actual hate crime or any substance put to the race issue ;)
I do know the difference between state laws.
I own those books.
I'm a fire sign, but astrology isn't real ;)
I do have a few things to say about it
But it's nearly 330 am right now, and I'm about ready to pass out. So I probably won't be back till around 9+ hours from now (worn out so going to try to get an actual 8 hours instead of my usual 5.)
(just had to try to send this twice..wtf gather?)
No. I know Zimmerman shot an unarmed 17-year old.
* I think that's pretty much been established by everyone.
That's not self defense. That's murder. It's second degree because it was in a fight. It could have very well been first degree had this been an actual hate crime or any substance put to the race issue ;)
* You don't "know" that though ... That it's not self defense. And the requirements for 2nd Degree murder are different than what you are stating which is "because it was in a fight."
I do know the difference between state laws.
* That's debateable. Knowing how to look them up is quite different from knowing them.
I own those books.
* You own a right to keep a copy ... the copyright holder(s) owns the content. And I've already said that owning books doesn't mean that you've read them.
I'm a fire sign, but astrology isn't real ;)
The four fixed signs, Taurus, Leo, Scorpio and Aquarius, are inclined to sustain or stabilise what has already been created, or to resist or practise endurance in the face of another's initiative.
My comment about educating yourself still stands. Try not to hurt yourself in the process. Obviously I've read my school books, but since reading is so hard for you, you can check to see if there are audio versions. I doubt it though...since they're reference books.
I'm not discussing astrology or other hocus-pocusery. It's nonsense ;)
Yah, you too ... still desperately trying. Not doing very good though. Nothing at all to prove a 2nd degree murder ... not anywhere in the article forum anyway.
> My comment about educating yourself still stands. Try not to hurt yourself in the process.
I don't need to obtain any specific education to state my point, my opinion here. I would not hurt myself though in reading anything. Reading is not hard for me ... you have not shown that by any means.
Just because you claim to be educated does not make it so. And a defense attorney, such as in this case here, would rip you to shreds and spit you out if tried to try a case based on the contents of this article web page and comments section.
If you want, go to work on the Alan Dershowitz's opinion.... thing. I'm sure you are more educated, knowledgeable, and experienced than he is. I can hardly wait for that one.
Like I said -- I shared with you all the law books you need to form an educated opinion. Disregarding them while you bark your point only makes you look worse.
Would a defense attorney rip me to shreds? You won't even read a source unless it has "wiki" in the site title, so how would you know anything? When are you going to start on those law books I shared?
"Reading is not hard for me." -- then why are you so adamant against reading educational sources instead of layman's wikipedia? ;) Again, your opinions are invalid as far as I am concerned.
I'll discuss this with you further after you enhance your reading pool. ;)
@Renee you do realize this guy is flip flopping on his opinions even in his own interview.
He is also completely against the 2nd amendment in general. I don't take anyone's opinions seriously when they are radical.
Yes, they would.
> Like I said -- I shared with you all the law books you need ... bark bark bark.
I don't have to study law, to read the books you listed, to have an informed opinion on this case. You get stuck on little things ... little things like Wikipedia. It's a pretty good online reference site ... I'm not calling it Law School ... I never did that. But the procedures to be followed in this case can be found online a whole lot quicker than in your Law Books. I don't just read Wikipedia all day like like you assume I do ... and are trying to paint this picture that I do.
> then why are you so adamant against reading educational sources instead of layman's wikipedia? ;)
Who said that?
You say that Zimmerman is guilty of Murder and that there is No Self Defence. So pray tell the audience where did you read that at? Was it in one of those law books?
The procedure in the case is going to involve an evidentiary hearing where Zimmermans attorney may file a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal. If that fails the trial will continue, where the application of self-defense principles under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law will be decided by a jury.
The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the charge in the case. The defense will likely present the Self-Defense as a defense against that. All they have to do is introduce a "reasonable doubt" that 2nd Degree Murder was committed. There's going to be a lot of attorney play action with who saw who first, who followed who, who confronted who, what they said ... who got hurt. But it may come down to who ended up on the bottom getting beaten and also had to struggle to maintain control of a gun ... as Trayvon may have tried to get it.
0_o
My point exactly.
If you don't need no learnin' then maybe we should talk about a topic in which you do actually have credible knowledge?
You say that Zimmerman is guilty of Murder
No I didn't. I said shooting an unarmed teenager isn't self defense. Only a jury can decide if he's guilty.
See what I mean about not understanding the topic you're talking about? You can't even quote me properly, much less keep up with the discussion without resorting to flying by your opinions and speculations of how the case "should go," based on a fantasy of how the JS works. I think you've watched far too much Law & Order.
"That's not self defense. That's murder."
* It sure looks like statements to the effect that he's guilty of murder to me.
Blah blah blah ... "I think you've watched far too much Law & Order."
Actually I don't watch much TV ... but I have seen that show. I actually like the CSI tv shows and the "Lier Lier" kind of TV shows, there are several. I like those.
But I don't have a have a DVR for recording shows ... and I don't even know what time or day they are on. I also like "House" and I'm a big Star Trek fan. You're probably going to have field day with that data.
> Only a jury can decide if he's guilty.
Right. So everything else here is a MOOT POINT. Including the law book and education "thumping" you have been doing.
You haven't even got your CJ degree yet ... but you are on here harping like you are the highly educated Judge Advocate General.
Desperation is desperately trying to paint the picture that someone else is desperate perhaps to hide ones own desperation.
Or were we talking about colognes and after shaves?
I like quotes and such things as well ... movie quotes ... famous figures. And sometimes try to track down where a particular saying comes from.
I also like science ... the Space Shuttle (wanna see me cry :-( sad to she the Shuttle go!) General and Special Relativity ... Black Holes ... Worm Holes. Time Travel both real and fiction.
movie quotes are fun, what?
You see we could try to paint someone as bad or "un" ... but they could be a really nice person actually. Zimmerman, despite the way he may get painted in the media just might have been a real great guy ... a really great guy the got himself into unfortunate circumstances. We all do that from time to time. I don't think his intention was malice or harm ... he might have been a bit over zealous in his actions (some might call that Passionate - and that's a movie quote from one of the National Treasure movies as well ... one step short of crazy what do you get? Passionate. I don't think he set out to kill Trayvon Martin. Nor do I think at any point during the night he had a Depraved Mind and decided he wanted to kill Trayvon Martin. I think it happened in heat of battle and he was losing badly.
Oh I also like History.
is that not also a decision for the jury to decide?
it would all depend on the physical prowess of the teenager and the shooter, who attacked who, and to what degree the attack was.
I always control-c the comments before I hit send in case it does go down, hten I control-v and submit again. (sometimes end up douible postnig)
mind the typos... multitasking like crazy right now.
Hi. I'd like a Clabmin (sic - Klabnian?) fire tea, uhm 3 Budweiser Classics,
2 Cardassian sunrises and a...
- Try the Slusho, it's good.
- A Slusho mix, thank you.
That's a lot of drinks for one woman.
- And a shot of Jack, straight up.
- Make that two. Her shot's on me.
upcoming? World History 2 and freaking Art History...
I want some more science ........
I'm really getting burned out on this Zimmerman case. There are far more tragic cases going unheard
even though I don't drink :|
So, you're a cadet, your studying.
What's your focus?
Xenolinguistics, you have no idea what that means.
The study of alien languages.
Morphology, phonology, syntax.
Means you've got a talented tongue.
I'm impressed.
For a moment there, I thought you were just a dumb hick who only have sex with farm animals.
Well, not only.
(because it reminds me of our discussions on here. I think you are Uhura and I am young James Kik. But that's just my fantasy anyway.)
lol i can't wait for the sequel...
Yah, it probably would bore me as well. But in a casual setting as a sort of hobby it's kind of fun. Discovery or History channel was blowing away history in some shows they did ... some of what we supposedly know or have been taught about history might actually be total bull shit.
discovery does it better (or straight up search.edu research)
Prosecution argues that following Trayvon was the initial aggressive act, and that precludes Zimmerman from claiming self defense regardless of what happened later.
Prosecution argues that Zimmerman by being armed created a situation likely to result in death by allowing or initiating a struggle.
BTW Zimmerman's nightly watch patrol is walking his Rottweiler.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135271/Trayvon-Martin-shooting-George-Zimmermans-role-support-protection-community-ravaged-burglaries-vandalism-just-shooting.html
with a lot more information about Zimmerman - some of which I've seen before.
Unless they prove Zimmerman intended to engage in a physical conflict, seems like it doesn't make it to man 1, even if it breaks the no aggression to claim self defense, its negligence.
Still it could all be prep for the fed violation of civil rights trial.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/ trayvon_and_zimmerman_the_structure_and_elements
of_a_disinformation_campaign.html