Trayvon Martin Shooter Released On $150,000 Bond

[Jingthing]

I totally disagree. It's very obvious that a lot of the right wing (many openly hostile to black civil rights), pro "gun freedom" supporters of Zimmerman would have been 100 percent satisfied with the police believing Zimmerman's story verbatim, letting him go that night, and that being the end of it. Yes of course it is completely disingenuous to deny that.

[koheesti]

I totally disagree. It's very obvious that a lot of the right wing (many openly hostile to black civil rights), pro "gun freedom" supporters of Zimmerman would have been 100 percent satisfied with the police believing Zimmerman's story verbatim, letting him go that night, and that being the end of it. Yes of course it is completely disingenuous to deny that.

I don't suppose you can provide a link to a website or to a TV post showing that the above isn't just part of your vivid imagination? Because I have NEVER heard that from anywhere. It is becoming clear that as the evidence slowly comes to light, everything you have been raving about since March is all very likely BS. You invested yourself so deep in those lies that you must start making things up to convince yourself that you weren't taken in by the lowlifes using this tragedy to further their own agenda.

[Scott]

This topic has lacked any fresh information for quite a long time. Other than a dwindling number of posters whose positions are well documented, there is little interest in this thread.

The discussion is simply going in a circle.

//Closed//

Re-opened per request of a poster.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Scott

[ttelise]

I think that it is possible that Zimmerman was attacked and do not want to see him convicted on the Internet without all the evidence in.

That's what the trial is about. He can't be convicted on the internet. I hope you recall this wouldn't even had been news if the police hadn't been so stupid as to take his word as pure truth on the night of the killing.

Yeah, they were stupid enough to believe their eyes when observing Zimmerman's broken nose, bleeding head, evidence if a bearing and his voice on a 911 tape begging for help while this stoned out kook was on top of him beating him down like a dog. Perhaps they were stupid to believe eyewitness reports noting that Zimmerman was on the ground with the stoned hoodlum on top of him beating him down even though it corroborated his statement to the police. Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out of the car, but the stoned thug dud not have a right to beat him down even if he got out of the car. I guess you just gotta live in the Southern portion if the United States to really understand. Funny how everyone from the North I went to law school with came down here and were initially offended by prejudice, but fully understood when the left 3 years later. A large portion of this population has no regard whatsoever for laws and places little or no value on human life. I have seen cases where people were killed over something as small as a chicken wing and hear stories of 15 year old kids besting teachers and school authorities down with chairs and objects until police arrive to restrain them. Little surprise why police believed the evidence.

[Jingthing]

The mainstream media reports are now CLEARLY saying the police did believe that Zimmerman DID provoke Martin. That was obvious from the start and now better confirmed. Also there was a policeman who stated a manslaughter investigation was warranted. Why did that opinion get buried? I still think we don't know enough to understand the 2nd degree murder charge, but certainly the manslaughter charge is WELL justified.

Calling the poor dead victim a "stoned hoodlum" is very obnoxious. OK, he was dressed in thug fashion, probably common with his peers, but the report of THC in his blood means very little. As I reckon you know, THC remains in your bloodstream for a very long time. He could have smoked a joint a month ago. Even if he had smoked that night, we don't know the level, and we also know THC intoxication isn't especially linked to violent behavior, unlike booze. We do know Zimmerman had a history of deviant vigilante activism, now don't we?

Edited May 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

What some policeman speculated proves nothing. Police are often wrong when they guess. However, there are now two eye witnesses that say that Trayvon was on top beating the heck out of Zimmerman which suggests that he was killed in self defence.

[Jingthing]

What some policeman speculated proves nothing. Police are often wrong when they guess. However, there are now two eye witnesses that say that Trayvon was on top beating the heck out of Zimmerman which suggests that he was killed in self defence.

If Zimmerman hadn't provoked Martin and there is full consensus that he did indeed PROVOKE Marin, Martin would not be dead and Zimmerman would not be facing murder charges. Martin already received the death penalty. Now we are waiting for Zimmerman to face his judgment.

[ttelise]

The mainstream media reports are now CLEARLY saying the police did believe that Zimmerman DID provoke Martin. That was obvious from the start and now better confirmed. Also there was a policeman who stated a manslaughter investigation was warranted. Why did that opinion get buried? I still think we don't know enough to understand the 2nd degree murder charge, but certainly the manslaughter charge is WELL justified.

Calling the poor dead victim a "stoned hoodlum" is very obnoxious. OK, he was dressed in thug fashion, probably common with his peers, but the report of THC in his blood means very little. As I reckon you know, THC remains in your bloodstream for a very long time. He could have smoked a joint a month ago. Even if he had smoked that night, we don't know the level, and we also know THC intoxication isn't especially linked to violent behavior, unlike booze. We do know Zimmerman had a history of deviant vigilante activism, now don't we?

Mainstream news is reporting here in US that witnesses and documents are supporting Zimmerman's version. Problem is we are mainly getting one side of the story from typical groups playing typical race cards in typical fashion over something like this while defense attorneys and Zimmerman's side is remaining quiet which they are ethically bound to do when a criminal investigation is pending. Seriously, I lived in Florida for past 4 years and I can tell you without hesitation there is little reason for police in Florida would accept a hispanic's version over that of an African American based in racial animosity.

RE: Manslaughter investigation recommendation

Recommendation of a manslaughter investigation by a police officer means very little as that is what most any police officer would say in a self defense shooting situation where the other party did not have a deadly weapon. Uhm, the police investigated the matter, but charges were not pursued by DA's office based on unrefuted evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground getting grounded and pounded MMA style, begging for help like 11 times on a 911 call during the timeframe he was being beaten down, that he had a broken nose and bloody face and back of head and that Martin was stoned, been shot at very close range and gas wounds consistent with both Zimmerman's and multiple witness statements. 10 times out 10 no charges in a case like this except for fact that ACLU and politicians many states away with no clue of what happened grand staged this for political clout during a big election year where African American turn out at the pills will be deciding factor. Zimmerman is as much a victim as anyone as most in his position would not be facing a large legal bill, incarceration and constant death threats.

[Jingthing]

No way. There is a big difference here. Zimmerman followed and provoked Martin. That is known. Zimmerman shot Martin dead. That is known. All this race stuff is just NOISE. It is perfectly appropriate that Zimmerman must now defend himself against charges. I think manslaughter charges but eventually the reason for the 2nd degree murder charges will be revealed.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[ttelise]

What some policeman speculated proves nothing. Police are often wrong when they guess. However, there are now two eye witnesses that say that Trayvon was on top beating the heck out of Zimmerman which suggests that he was killed in self defence.

If Zimmerman hadn't provoked Martin and there is full consensus that he did indeed PROVOKE Marin, Martin would not be dead and Zimmerman would not be facing murder charges. Martin already received the death penalty. Now we are waiting for Zimmerman to face his judgment.

Full consesus. Not even Martin family civil attorney said that. He just states Zimmerman should not have gotten out of car. That is all he said yesterday morning on TV here. Zimmerman immediately told police he got out of car to get address off a building to tell police where to go. May be BS, but there is no evidence to the contrary as all witness accounts start after Martin is on top of Zimmerman beating him down MMA style. There is no other evidence during that critical time frame that state Zimmerman provoked Martin. On speculation by people like you or those that have racial agendas. Speculation ain't evidence so issue of provocation is not am issue that can be decided by a jury. The issue is whether Zimmerman used unreasonable force when being beat down.

[Jingthing]

You're wrong. The police there believe Zimmerman provoked Martin. There wouldn't even be a case if he hadn't. That's how it started. Its an insult to suggest that Martin was taking a walk that night looking to attack a strange man without provocation. Did Martin overreact? Most probably. But he's already paid over the top for that mistake. Lay off the race obsession already, OK?

Edited May 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[ttelise]

You're wrong. The police there believe Zimmerman provoked Martin. There wouldn't even be a case if he hadn't. That's how it started. Its an insult to suggest that Martin was taking a walk that night looking to attack a strange man without provocation. Did Martin overreact? Most probably. But he's already paid over the top for that mistake. Lay off the race obsession already, OK?

You obviously don't understand what lead up to special prosecutor appointment and the grandstanding that lead to the indictment. The original prosecutor was a good prosecutor and followed the law.

You don't even adress the evidence I point out. You make cursory and conclusory assertions without any factual basis. You also don't know Florida law as codified on this issue in 2005.

Where does it say police have evidence if provocation. One statement in a report that there should be an investigation has nothing to do with beliefs about guilt or innocence. Also, not really matter what police believe as the indictment is an issue for a DA or a grand jury. DA refused to indict so a special prosecutor who would indict for political purposes was appointed. That is not impartial. If there was evidence to support charges based on unambiguous law, I would be first to admit it.

Edited May 19, 2012 by ttelise

[Jingthing]

Common sense. It's insulting to suggest Martin was looking for a fight that night. It makes no sense. Zimmerman inserted himself. Don't be naive. The police aren't.

Its silly now to assert Zimmerman doesn't deserve to be under charges. He OBVIOUSLY does.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[ttelise]

Common sense. It's insulting to suggest Martin was looking for a fight that night. It makes no sense. Zimmerman inserted himself. Don't be naive. The police aren't.

Its silly now to assert Zimmerman doesn't deserve to be under charges. He OBVIOUSLY does.

Again you ignore all evidence and clear law based on your feelings driven by only partial knowledge or bias. It is not for anyone to suggest, needs to be based on facts and not speculation. Nevertheless, you obviously do not understand the law in Florida.

In Florida, even if Zimmerman provoked the fight initially, and there is no admissible evidence he did, he us still innocent under Florida's 2005 hold your ground/duty to retreat law.

If you don't agree with the law, you need to take that up with the Florida legislature. The original DA discharged there duty correctly based on evidence and LAW not emotion.

Edited May 19, 2012 by ttelise

[Jingthing]

I know you're wrong about what you just said because I've been reading up! IF the prosecution deems that Zimmerman WAS the initial aggressor, he is toast. By provocation I did not intend to definitely mean aggression. I meant inappropriately going after him, following him, getting out of the car when told not to by police. You don't actually have to throw a punch to provoke an innocent person walking around. Don't be naive, Zimmerman had a long pattern of deviant vigilante acting out.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[ttelise]

I know you're wrong about what you just said because I've been reading up! IF the prosecution deems that Zimmerman WAS the initial aggressor, he is toast. By provocation I did not intend to definitely mean aggression. I meant inappropriately going after him, following him, getting out of the car when told not to by police. You don't actually have to throw a punch to provoke an innocent person walking around. Don't be naive, Zimmerman had a long pattern of deviant vigilante acting out.

I am a lawyer. I know the law. Unfortunately, allot if people do not understand Florida law on this issue as the varies in every state in duty to retreat and self defense.

Here, even Dan Abrahms admits he was wrong, as much as any lawyer ever would, when a Florida lawyer points out what Florida law us on this issue.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16379386

Again, though, you completely ignore that there us no admissible evidence on the provocation issue except what Zimmerman says: he got out to look for house number and Martin assaulted him. Martin did not have any evidence of injuries consistent with being hit or punched, yet evidence is unrefuted that Zimmerman was beat down and sustained broken nose and lacerations.

[Jingthing]

I don't care if you're on the supreme court. This is going to trial and Zimmerman must defend himself against murder charges, even though I still think manslaughter was the correct charge for this case. The controversy wasn't that Zimmerman was definitely guilty of murder, but rather that he walked without being charged with ANYTHING. The goal was a TRIAL. That's happening.

[ttelise]

I don't care if you're on the supreme court. This is going to trial and Zimmerman must defend himself against murder charges, even though I still think manslaughter was the correct charge for this case. The controversy wasn't that Zimmerman was definitely guilty of murder, but rather that he walked without being charged with ANYTHING. The goal was a TRIAL. That's happening.

Haha, that's exactly the point. The DA made a sound design based on the evidence not to charge. If Martin was white, Asian or any other race, there would have never been a special prosecutor appointed for the sole purpose of issuing an indictment regardless of the evidence. This special prosecutor was not appointed to evaluate the evidence and do what was right or dictated by the law. They were appointed to indict because it because is became racially and politically motivated.

Zimmerman was down on ground begging for help during a 911 call while being beat. Said help like 10 to 14 times just during the 911 call. Had his head beat against ground and nose broken. Based on witnesses, he couldn't escape because he was pinned down and being beat MMA style. Under Florida law, use of force was reasonable even if he somehow provoked.

Again, no evidence of provocation and evidence unrefuted he could not escape while being pinned amd beaten so DA made an appropriate decision not to indict. This was a good DA who had no reason not to do the right thing.

The media and TV warped this case and the facts solely because the racial card made for good head lines. Justice is not appointing a special prosecutor who has no interest in following the law, but only pandering to political presuures to indict to shut the media up.

Edited May 19, 2012 by ttelise

[Jingthing]

You claim to be an objective lawyer but that's hard to believe. It is actually an item of controversy who was crying out for HELP with considerable evidence it was the murdered young man who was crying out for help. Yet you mysteriously know the truth of it. How is that you know the truth of it when the rest of the world does not yet know? Incredible really. Maybe you're a lawyer but you have prejudged this case so you're a lawyer who has taken one side of the case. You present a case for the defense. A one sided case. Sir, there are two sides that we will hear in this trial. The eyewitness accounts as its hard to believe you don't know are CONFLICTING. I find it really funny that you showboat that you're a lawyer with all this special knowledge (suggesting you have special access to the TRUTH) and then simply parrot the defense side of the case.

Yes indeed, this case has been massively politicized. But that still doesn't mean that Zimmerman shouldn't face a trial.

If Zimmerman is found innocent, I would say, OK, there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

If Zimmerman is found guilty, I can just hear the whines now that he was railroaded.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[Colin Yai]

Hey JT ,any idea what will happen if Zimmernan "walks" , do you honestly believe that the African American fraternity will just "whine" when egged on by the likes of Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan Mohammed ,the "race card" will be played like a violin ,,Sharpton describes the whole scenario as "America on trial" ..

Edited May 19, 2012 by Colin Yai

[Jingthing]

Hey JT ,any idea what will happen if Zimmernan "walks" , do you honestly believe that the African American fraternity will just "whine" when egged on by the likes of Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan ,the "race card" will be played like a violin ,,Sharpton describes the whole scenario as "America on trial" ..

I honestly believe now that he has possibly been overcharged that if it goes to trial and the trial is well publicized (which it will be) and it appears "fair" enough, that if he walks the world will know the facts of why he is walking, there will be NO riots. I find it inflammatory that you think there would be. Now that the facts are coming out, the world is learning that BOTH sides have cases to make. It is also clear there SHOULD be a trial regardless of what our obviously pro Zimmerman lawyer here opines. I feel you are really insulting the intelligence of African Americans that they will riot over this case now that there is more light on the case, and I do not appreciate it. That doesn't mean liberals like me will support overreaching stand your ground laws as in Florida, but those are the rules that stand there now. Edited May 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[ttelise]

You claim to be an objective lawyer but that's hard to believe. It is actually an item of controversy who was crying out for HELP with considerable evidence it was the murdered young man who was crying out for help. Yet you mysteriously know the truth of it. How is that you know the truth of it when the rest of the world does not yet know? Incredible really. Maybe you're a lawyer but you have prejudged this case so you're a lawyer who has taken one side of the case. You present a case for the defense. A one sided case. Sir, there are two sides that we will hear in this trial. The eyewitness accounts as its hard to believe you don't know are CONFLICTING. I find it really funny that you showboat that you're a lawyer with all this special knowledge (suggesting you have special access to the TRUTH) and then simply parrot the defense side of the case.

Yes indeed, this case has been massively politicized. But that still doesn't mean that Zimmerman shouldn't face a trial.

If Zimmerman is found innocent, I would say, OK, there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

If Zimmerman is found guilty, I can just hear the whines now that he was railroaded.

Uh, the family lawyer admitted it in TV yesterday morning.

You miss my point. The point is DA made a valid decision and that should be the end of it. I don't judge quilt or innocence, only whether evidence supported DA's decision and whether appoint of independent professor undermined our judicial process.

Here is where you are naive. The real world is not like the OJ trial. 9 times out of 10 prosecution can get a conviction regardless if the evidence.

Zimmerman could never get a fair trial. The media circus has seen to that. No juror pool in Florida will be untainted and the kind if people who say they will be impartial regardless of what they heard are the kinds that will have an agenda and seek attention.

Everytime we get a case that gets absorbed in a media frenzy, we get crazy verdicts. After Casey Anthony and all of the death threats to jurors and defendant after not guilty verdict, it will be interesting to see what a jury's mentality will be in same area in a more publically charged trial.

This is no longer about the case or the parties. Heaven help us if not guilty. That could lead to more riots ala LA riots.

Edited May 19, 2012 by ttelise

[ttelise]

Hey JT ,any idea what will happen if Zimmernan "walks" , do you honestly believe that the African American fraternity will just "whine" when egged on by the likes of Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan ,the "race card" will be played like a violin ,,Sharpton describes the whole scenario as "America on trial" ..

I honestly believe now that he has possibly been overcharged that if it goes to trial and the trial is well publicized (which it will be) and it appears "fair" enough, that if he walks the world will know the facts of why he is walking, there will be NO riots. I find it inflammatory that you think there would be. Now that the facts are coming out, the world is learning that BOTH sides have cases to make. It is also clear there SHOULD be a trial regardless of what our obviously pro Zimmerman lawyer here opines. I feel you are really insulting the intelligence of African Americans that they will riot over this case now that there is more light on the case, and I do not appreciate it. That doesn't mean liberals like me will support overreaching stand your ground laws as in Florida, but those are the rules that stand there now.

Okay, we had real police just beat Rodney Kung down who was arguably resisting arrest and they did how much damage during LA riots? Here we have self appointed racist renta cop killing a 16 year old black child and you think level heads will prevail???

Truth is I am a civil lawyer, huge Democrat, despise guns and hate deprivation of civil liberties. I, however, in more offended when political pressure stoops to compromise the safeguards in our judicial system, no matter how imperfect they are, that have been in place to protect civil liberties for more than 200 years.

Trumping the DA decision in this case due to media circus frenzy, mock congressional hearings by Martin family, and appointment if a special prosecutor to indict as oppose to review facts and make an objective decision undermines and mocks the integrity of out legal system.

If the DA was wrong and no evidence supported DA's decision, then a special prosecutor should have been appointed to review what evidence original DA relied upon and render an impartial decision or bind over to a grand jury. I abhor abuse of power regardless of which side perpetuates it.

[Jingthing]

This is all too much inside baseball.

Abhor the abuse of power? You could say that about Zimmerman's gun which he should not have been carrying. Not as naive as you think after my experience hanging a jury.

Really, I don't think there will be riots on an acquittal. The details of the case have changed the picture. It's not a black and white story but a shades of gray story now.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

No way. There is a big difference here. Zimmerman followed and provoked Martin. That is known.

This is complete nonsense. Not one witness has said that they saw what led up to the fight. No one knows if Zimmerman provoked Trayvon or if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman for his own reasons.

[Jingthing]

No way. There is a big difference here. Zimmerman followed and provoked Martin. That is known.

This is complete nonsense. Not one witness has said that they saw what led up to the fight. No one knows if Zimmerman provoked Trayvon or if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman for his own reasons.

You are being too literal. The police even say Martin was provoked by Zimmerman getting out of the car and following him when he should not have been. You're not thinking too clearly. A strange man following you at night will be seen as a threat by many people. Justifiably so. Provocation does not need to include a blatant act of aggression. If the prosecution can prove Zimmerman was the first aggressor, they will definitely get a conviction. If not, it will be much harder.

Also, please stay in the realm of the limits of credibility. NOBODY is asserting that Martin was out that night following Zimmerman and/or seeking out a random man to beat up for no reason. Zimmerman was following Martin; that is without question.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Jingthing

[Scott]

The thread was re-opened because a poster had new information. The poster never posted it and I see it continues with the same problem as before. I will close it and you can wait for another news article to appear.

//Closed, Again//

[Jingthing]

OK, now we've got some rather major news on the the case of Zimmerman for killing Martin.

Zimmerman's credibility with courts in Florida has take a nosedive.

Previously his bail was 150K which he could make, but now it has been raised to one million dollars and he may spend a year in prison awaiting trial if he can't raise it (he probably can't) or he can't get a bondsman to help (maybe he can).

The thing is, the inconvenient truth, is that Zimmerman is now showing a strong pattern of deceiving the courts. About his assets. About passports. He has even been accused of planning to flee the country!

This is bigger than his bail. As Martin isn't around to tell his side of the story when the Zimmerman tries to get released simply based on the notoriously misguided stand your ground law, he is much less likely to be believed. You know how it is, a witness with a record of lying to the court is a crummy witness.

Zimmerman's lawyer is now trying to raise money for his client. In it, I think he is saying some offensive things. Such as if you think you would have acted as Zimmerman did, send money. What Zimmerman did was NOT something a good person would say they would copy. It is on the record now clearly, he IGNORED the direction to not chase Martin, he never announced to Martin that he was there in his role as a neighborhood watch guy (even though by chasing Martin and carrying a gun he had well overstepped his role in that). This killing didn't have to happen. That is known. The guilt/innocence thing is still TBD but I'd say things are looking a lot less hopeful for Zimmerman.

I realize tea party/gun loving types have tried to make Zimmerman a cause celebre. I suggest they think again about the morality of this particular gun toting poster boy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fla-judge-calls-zimmerman-deceptive-but-sets-1m-bail-in-trayvon-martin-killing/2012/07/05/gJQA2O7gQW_story.html

ORLANDO, Fla. — Using words like “false testimony” and “misled,” a Florida judge granted $1 million bail Thursday for former neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, but questioned his honesty and suggested he had plotted to leave the country when he was out of jail the first time.

[flying]

I realize tea party/gun loving types have tried to make Zimmerman a cause celebre. I suggest they think again about the morality of this particular gun toting poster boy.

You know a good post that is informative & includes factual news is a good thing.

But when you make sensationalized cracks like this you demean your post & yourself.

Fact is that the vast majority of legal gun owners in America believe anyone using a gun to commit a felony should be locked up & the key thrown away.

But folks like yourself always like to jump right up on your shaky soapbox & paint it as otherwise.

Too Bad

Edited July 6, 2012 by flying

[Jingthing]

But you're wrong. Zimmerman was active in tea party events, tea party people know that and he has gotten a lot of support from tea party people and NRA supporters who as you know are quite often the same people. Who do you think is giving Zimmerman so much money that he lied about it? Liberals? Don't be naive. This case has become highly politicized and that's the way it is.