PDA

View Full Version : New Photo Shows Zimmerman's Bloody Head Injuries



Dolphins9954
04-20-2012, 03:06 PM
NMQo3YrEniU


http://www.finheaven.com/images/imported/2012/04/ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain-1.jpg

LANGER72
04-20-2012, 03:14 PM
The photo was taken 3 minutes after the shooting. It is date and time marked.

This photo is very helpful to the Zimmerman defense.

PhinzN703
04-20-2012, 03:18 PM
Interesting to say the least

Dolphins9954
04-20-2012, 03:28 PM
The photo was taken 3 minutes after the shooting. It is date and time marked.

This photo is very helpful to the Zimmerman defense.

This will definitely help the defense pick apart the murder 2 rap. It helps paint the picture that Zimmerman really did fear for his life or serious bodily injury. Unless the state has an ace in the hole proving murder 2 then this could very well go down like the Casey Anthony fiasco. Plus this also give even more credence to Zimmerman and the 2 eyewitnesses saying that Zimmerman was on the ground yelling for help.

NY8123
04-20-2012, 03:31 PM
Things that make you go hmmmmm...

phins_4_ever
04-20-2012, 03:47 PM
I am not sure why we have to have another thread on this with a bunch of speculations. The only facts we all have is the 911 tapes, Zimmerman with gun, a dead body and a couple of witnesses of which one already recanted that he/she couldnt tell for sure who was on top, another witness who was on the phone with Martin. In between that it is all speculation. None of us know what happened.

For the self-defense argument: It is speculated that Martin 'attacked' Zimmerman and he shot in self defense. It is also speculated that Martin approached Zimmerman, attacked him and pounded his head like a coconut on the asphalt. I got news. This is not Hollywood where two people beat each other up and don't have a scratch on them. Pounding someone's head like a coconut on the ground would lead most likely to a broken scull.

I can throw in another fact and speculate as well. The crime happened on a walk-way between townhouses. No car can drive there. So Zimmerman had to get there somehow. Which renders the speculation that he went back to his car and he was approached by Martin obsolete. He must have gotten out of his car at some point and get to where the shooting occurred.

Here comes my speculation: what of Zimmerman approached Martin, drew his gun and Martin in self defense jumped on Zimmerman and Zimmerman then shot him?

We all can speculate till the next Superbowl but it is a fact that nobody knows exactly what happened except two people and one is dead. For a State's attorney to file Murder 2 she must have some significant evidence which we are not privileged to. I highly doubt that the prosecution would run into such an Harakiri trial not having any evidence at all.

phinfan3411
04-20-2012, 04:41 PM
I am not sure why we have to have another thread on this with a bunch of speculations. The only facts we all have is the 911 tapes, Zimmerman with gun, a dead body and a couple of witnesses of which one already recanted that he/she couldnt tell for sure who was on top, another witness who was on the phone with Martin. In between that it is all speculation. None of us know what happened.

For the self-defense argument: It is speculated that Martin 'attacked' Zimmerman and he shot in self defense. It is also speculated that Martin approached Zimmerman, attacked him and pounded his head like a coconut on the asphalt. I got news. This is not Hollywood where two people beat each other up and don't have a scratch on them. Pounding someone's head like a coconut on the ground would lead most likely to a broken scull.

I can throw in another fact and speculate as well. The crime happened on a walk-way between townhouses. No car can drive there. So Zimmerman had to get there somehow. Which renders the speculation that he went back to his car and he was approached by Martin obsolete. He must have gotten out of his car at some point and get to where the shooting occurred.

Here comes my speculation: what of Zimmerman approached Martin, drew his gun and Martin in self defense jumped on Zimmerman and Zimmerman then shot him?

We all can speculate till the next Superbowl but it is a fact that nobody knows exactly what happened except two people and one is dead. For a State's attorney to file Murder 2 she must have some significant evidence which we are not privileged to. I highly doubt that the prosecution would run into such an Harakiri trial not having any evidence at all.

Well it is nice that you admit there is no evidence at all, or at least close to that.

I am going to disagree with you on the evidence thing, in this case i do think they went into this knowing they had nothing.

There are a few reasons, the prosecutor getting re-elected, to calm the storm that Sharpton, Jackson, and the national media had created, and basically, kicking the can down the road, because they knew what the grand jury had come up with.

phins_4_ever
04-20-2012, 07:16 PM
P
Well it is nice that you admit there is no evidence at all, or at least close to that.

I am going to disagree with you on the evidence thing, in this case i do think they went into this knowing they had nothing.

There are a few reasons, the prosecutor getting re-elected, to calm the storm that Sharpton, Jackson, and the national media had created, and basically, kicking the can down the road, because they knew what the grand jury had come up with.

You dont know if there is any evidence. There is no evidence one way or another about the exact timeline.
I highly doubt that the State Attorney does that for a re-election campaign. But I don't know that for sure as I am not her. I am assuming that as the the hearing is way before the election and it could hurt her if she trumped the charges up.

Further, the Grand Jury in Florida decides on murder 1 charges which was a thought of but since the evidence did not support that she went to the lesser charges of murder 2.

Have you heard of Mary Cutcher?

irish fin fan
04-20-2012, 07:25 PM
Amazing what they can do with photoshop these days ...

phinfan3411
04-20-2012, 08:41 PM
P

You dont know if there is any evidence. There is no evidence one way or another about the exact timeline.
I highly doubt that the State Attorney does that for a re-election campaign. But I don't know that for sure as I am not her. I am assuming that as the the hearing is way before the election and it could hurt her if she trumped the charges up.

Further, the Grand Jury in Florida decides on murder 1 charges which was a thought of but since the evidence did not support that she went to the lesser charges of murder 2.

Have you heard of Mary Cutcher?

I was stating what you said at the end of your post, as they would not do such a thing without evidence.

I take that to mean you have not heard any compelling evidence thus far to argue credibly against Zimmerman's story, and remove reasonable doubt, and I am with you on that.

I do not know much about the law, just basics from business law in college. I do know how to listen though, and from listening to Alan Dershowitz, they are supposed to put what they have in the affidavit, and he claimed to have read it thoroughly, and said it was the thinnest he had ever saw.

He also stated it was irresponsible, and said if the Judge had any balls, this would not even make it to court, much less being able to find him guilty.

Now Dershowitz, is very liberal, and if he cannot get behind this case, i see no chance for the prosecution, but that's just me, i refer to the experts on things like this, and he has probably forgotten more of the law than i will ever know.

No, i have not heard of Mary Cutcher.

phinfan3411
04-20-2012, 08:46 PM
Oh, and i also got the prosecutor going for reelection from him, again, he knows a little more than i, and this was on MSNBC by the way.

Are there any legal experts that seem to think they have a good chance of conviction?

That is what i am arguing in this instance, i did not go for the racism hook, and will never know the true story, whether Zimmerman really feared for his life, so i go with the evidence so far, and to me that evidence does not show much.

LANGER72
04-20-2012, 09:03 PM
Until I saw those pictures I had no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman. Now I am leaning toward his innocence.
This case seems pretty clear...open and shut.

phins_4_ever
04-21-2012, 12:06 AM
No, i have not heard of Mary Cutcher.

It is ironic that with all this search for evidence in this forum that Mary Clutcher fell through the cracks.

She is one of 6 witnesses on file with the Sanford Police Department. The police only took a couple of sentences from her. She came into the public light 10 days later after the police did not contact her since her story did not fall inline with the Zimmerman-picture which was painted in by the SPD. She was on a couple of new stations including Dateline.

Here is one of the videos of her

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Rf4G0JOOk&feature=related

Point is: at this point none of us has any clue. But what this shooting deserves is a proper investigation. That was not done at the beginning and only that's why this case actually gained national attention.

The evidence I am looking for when it comes to a trial is not so much 'eye witness' statements. Even that John dude is a flaky eye witness at best. I am looking for ballistics and stuff. I assume an autopsy was done as well. So there will be an entrance wound and possible an exit wound. Interesting will be how the bullet traveled. The clothing should also have some kind of residue since the shot was fired at such a close range. The other thing I am looking for is if Zimmerman was in a struggle for his life how did he get his gone out and lifted his arm all the way to the chest and fired. If I get my head "pounded like a coconut" I pull the trigger as soon as I have my gun. I could care less if I hit the stomach or leg. This is all evidence we do not have but which maybe the prosecutor has.
As much as the pro-Zimmerman crowd likes to say that the 'others' don't work with facts and speculate I have a message: so do you. Eye witnesses are never a guarantee for the truth. Heck, people went to jail for years because of either mistaken identity by eye witnesses or right out false statements. There is a reason that there are more and more cases overturned which relied some years ago on eye witness statements: science.

phinfan3411
04-21-2012, 01:48 AM
Ok, i know who she is, and as far as i know, isn't she the one the police said changed her story?

Now if she is, we have to figure out who is telling the truth, her or the police, correct?

I am the last person to come to the defense of the cops, where i grew up, the police are not held in the highest esteem, and the best i can describe them is they are no different than your average citizen, as that's who they are made up of.

You then have to convince me that the police had any interest in covering for Zimmerman, if he was a cop, or a relative...you have me convinced, because that is EXACTLY what they do, they cover for each other.

The reality is just the opposite though, Zimmerman led protests against them, and called for the discipline/ and or firing of actual cops investigating his case, so imo they would do NOTHING to help him.

This bitch gave in to public pressure, probably just like the other witness(es) will do.

I have listened to ALL the witnesses, including the news report that stated the lead detective played the 911 tape for Trayvon's dad, and he said it was not his son....nobody repeats that.

Breed
04-21-2012, 10:02 AM
I am not sure why we have to have another thread on this with a bunch of speculations. The only facts we all have is the 911 tapes, Zimmerman with gun, a dead body and a couple of witnesses of which one already recanted that he/she couldnt tell for sure who was on top, another witness who was on the phone with Martin. In between that it is all speculation. None of us know what happened.

It is ironic that with all this search for evidence in this forum that Mary Clutcher fell through the cracks.
She is one of 6 witnesses on file with the Sanford Police Department. The police only took a couple of sentences from her. She came into the public light 10 days later after the police did not contact her since her story did not fall inline with the Zimmerman-picture which was painted in by the SPD. She was on a couple of new stations including Dateline.
Here is one of the videos of her . . .
That one witness (Cutcher) you’re referring to is the same person that the Police accused of having a conflicting story. I’ve seen several news clips featuring her. If her interviews are any indication, she has nothing to offer. In one account she recollects that she heard “whines”, she speculates that it was the kid “whining.” In other reports, she claims she heard “a cry for help.” Which is it? Furthermore, she claims: “I know it was Trayvon crying for help, because after the gunshot, the cries stopped.” Why should any investigator care what she thinks? It’s their job to piece together what happened, not hers. They should care about what she heard and what she saw. What she heard doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. What she saw was what happened after the fact. Her recount of Zimmerman saying “call 911” doesn’t mean a whole lot either. Not if John’s (the key witness) testimony of the same described event means anything.

I got news. This is not Hollywood where two people beat each other up and don't have a scratch on them. Pounding someone's head like a coconut on the ground would lead most likely to a broken scull.
First off, Zimmerman’s head is likely a good deal heavier than a coconut. Secondly, a coconut can’t offer any resistance, a conscious human can. If Zimmerman had the cognitive ability to pull a gun, then he was aware enough to offer resistance (the force of Trayvon slamming Zimmerman’s head down met with Zimmerman’s resistance to it. . . Be it by stiffening his neck, and/or by pushing/sitting up with his stomach)to Trayvon grabbing his head and slamming it to the ground.

I can throw in another fact and speculate as well. The crime happened on a walk-way between townhouses. No car can drive there. So Zimmerman had to get there somehow. Which renders the speculation that he went back to his car and he was approached by Martin obsolete. He must have gotten out of his car at some point and get to where the shooting occurred.
Nobody is claiming Zimmerman never got out of his car. The fact that Zimmerman was following Trayvon at some point cannot be disputed. The part that is in dispute, however, is whether or not Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon against the request of the dispatcher. To this point, there is no hard evidence to suggest Zimmerman went against the dispatcher’s request.
Have you even seen the layout of the neighborhood? Have you seen where the mailboxes (where he parked) are located? Have you seen where the killing took place? Have you heard the 911 phone calls?

Here comes my speculation: what of Zimmerman approached Martin, drew his gun and Martin in self defense jumped on Zimmerman and Zimmerman then shot him?
That is downright laughable. There is absolutely no basis for such wild speculation. Why would Zimmerman simply pull his gun on Trayvon when he simply wanted to know what he was doing in the neighborhood? If it did happen the way you’re speculating, why wouldn’t Trayvon simply answer Zimmerman’s question in hopes of diffusing the situation? If Trayvon had any sense whatsoever, he’d know his chances at survival were much higher if he simply answered Zimmerman’s question. Furthermore, how do you account for the minute or so where somebody is crying for help?

We all can speculate till the next Superbowl but it is a fact that nobody knows exactly what happened except two people and one is dead.
Congratulations. You finally managed to post a fact . . . oh wait. You follow by posting this:

For a State's attorney to file Murder 2 she must have some significant evidence which we are not privileged to. I highly doubt that the prosecution would run into such an Harakiri trial not having any evidence at all.
Have you read the affidavit? Did you watch the Bail Hearing?

Point is: at this point none of us has any clue. But what this shooting deserves is a proper investigation. That was not done at the beginning and only that's why this case actually gained national attention.
The evidence I am looking for when it comes to a trial is not so much 'eye witness' statements. Even that John dude is a flaky eye witness at best.
What do you base this on? If there is one witness that has any credibility, it is “John.” His story hasn’t changed. He lives right across from where the shooting took place and he witnessed the fight first-hand.

I am looking for ballistics and stuff. I assume an autopsy was done as well. So there will be an entrance wound and possible an exit wound. Interesting will be how the bullet traveled. The clothing should also have some kind of residue since the shot was fired at such a close range.
I would also like to see the results of the physical evidence. One would think, if the physical evidence wasn’t strong in Zimmerman’s favor to begin with, this would’ve never been a story.

The other thing I am looking for is if Zimmerman was in a struggle for his life how did he get his gone out and lifted his arm all the way to the chest and fired.
Forget the kickback (of the gun), why would he take the extra effort to extend or lift his arm in the first place? If the gun was in his holster, all he would have to do is pullout his gun and tilt his wrist upwards . . . then fire.

If I get my head "pounded like a coconut" I pull the trigger as soon as I have my gun. I could care less if I hit the stomach or leg. This is all evidence we do not have but which maybe the prosecutor has.
And it's evidence the Sanford Police Department likely had . . .

For the self-defense argument: It is speculated that Martin 'attacked' Zimmerman and he shot in self defense. It is also speculated that Martin approached Zimmerman, attacked him and pounded his head like a coconut on the asphalt.

As much as the pro-Zimmerman crowd likes to say that the 'others' don't work with facts and speculate I have a message: so do you. . .
That isn’t “speculation”, that is Zimmerman’s account of what happened. And to date, there is nothing made available to the general public that contradicts his account of what happened. The “pro-Zimmerman” side is simply saying that Zimmerman may actually be telling the truth. It’s the other side that’s throwing the wild speculation out there.

Locke
04-21-2012, 12:41 PM
All this confirms is that there was a struggle at some point, it doesn't say anything about his innocence or guilt...

Breed
04-21-2012, 01:26 PM
All this confirms is that there was a struggle at some point, it doesn't say anything about his innocence or guilt...

It gives more credibility to Zimmerman's story. Mainly, that there was a point in the fight when Trayvon was slamming his head against the ground. I look forward to the medical reports being released. Hopefully it confirms he had welts on his head.

LANGER72
04-21-2012, 01:31 PM
All this confirms is that there was a struggle at some point, it doesn't say anything about his innocence or guilt...


True, only the jury will decide.
Still, it does reinforce his version of the story and witness testimony...that Trayvon was the aggressively pounding his head onto the concrete side walk before he was shot. Frankly, the wounds on the back of his head are worse than I expected. In addition to those wounds was the busted lip and the broken nose. Martin was kicking his azz. It all fit in the sequence of events in the moments leading up to the shooting. Any reasonable person, armed with a CCP / pistol, getting their head pounded with fists and slammed into the ground would have done the same...it is self defense.

Locke
04-21-2012, 02:38 PM
It reinforces his story, yes, but it doesn't confirm it. Any competent liar is going to have an explanation for every detail in a scenario. Why some of you are taking Zimmerman's story as gospel is beyond me. The guy was always going to tell a story that shines the best possible light on himself...

Breed
04-21-2012, 02:56 PM
It reinforces his story, yes, but it doesn't confirm it. Any competent liar is going to have an explanation for every detail in a scenario. Why some of you are taking Zimmerman's story as gospel is beyond me. The guy was always going to tell a story that shines the best possible light on himself...

Who's taking his story as gospel? I'm simply stating that his story "may" be true. There are some, and they know who they are, that claim Zimmerman's story is absolute bull****.

NamathDrunkLove
04-21-2012, 03:07 PM
All this confirms is that there was a struggle at some point, it doesn't say anything about his innocence or guilt...

All the physical evidence that has been presented (and that the public has) supports Zimmerman's story (at least in regards to the fight).

As for the people people who claim that the State must have some pretty compelling evidence, they may not have watched the bail hearing yesterday. The prosecution team has already been caught in a contradiction they may never recover from. At the bail hearing yesterday, the lead investigator (the one who wrote and signed off on the affidavit) was questioned by Zimmeran's attorney. I don't have the exact quotes but it went something like this: 1.) Do you know who started the fight? Investigator's answer: "No" 2.) Do you have any evidence that disputes Zimmerman's claim that he was heading back to his vehicle? Investigator's answer: "No." Yet in the affidavit written and signed by this same lead investigator he claims that Zimmerman continued to follow after he was told not too by the dispatcher. He also states that Zimmerman confronted Trayvon. The prosecution has dug themselves into a bit of a hole here.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2012/04/george-zimmerman-affidavit-of-probable-cause.php?page=1
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/20/debate-could-investigators-testimony-for-prosecution-actually-help-george-zimmermans-defense/

Edit: And if you watch the vid in the first link it shows the footage from the bail hearing yesterday.

Breed
04-21-2012, 03:15 PM
"Stand your ground" is only wrong if it doesn't fit one's agenda.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-04-21/story/naacp-weighs-what-they-say-stand-your-ground-case-against-jacksonville-0

Breed
04-21-2012, 03:27 PM
'I'm upset about Trayvon's death . . . so I think I'll just go out and commit a hate crime.'

Is it just me, or is this **** becoming more and more common?

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime/alton-hayes-trayvon-martin-white-man-attacked-black-racist-racism-maywood-chicago-suburb-20120420

phinfan3411
04-21-2012, 03:32 PM
It reinforces his story, yes, but it doesn't confirm it. Any competent liar is going to have an explanation for every detail in a scenario. Why some of you are taking Zimmerman's story as gospel is beyond me. The guy was always going to tell a story that shines the best possible light on himself...

Locke, in my case i have said that i would throw whatever Zimmerman said out the window, as he will say anything to save his behind. The thing is, this picture kind of had to come out because of what everyone, including Trayvon's father, said after the release of the police dept tape.

People were saying, maybe even you, he was lying, he didn't get beat up bad at all...

Of course all of this is the opposite of what was put in the police report which has been available for weeks now. It says that the officers found him to be bleeding from the nose, the back of the head, and his back was all wet like he was on his back, in the grass.

Maybe i am looking at it the wrong way, but all of this together seems to follow, at least somewhat, what his story was.

The only piece of evidence going the other way, that i feel may be substantial is the voice recognition thing you had brought up before. If they can present a great case on that and convince jurors it was Trayvon screaming, instead of Zimmerman, they may have a chance.

I do not know how much stock i will put in that study though, as they mentioned Trayvon's mother saying it was him screaming in the affidavit, but as far as i know, they did not mention the voice recognition (correct me if i'm wrong) in there, so i would assume it is not real strong evidence.

On a last note, the only reason (honestly) i even cared about this case is because of many so called leaders trying to bring so much attention to it because of it being a "travesty of justice", or a racism issue, both of which i feel are BS.

If you haven't noticed by now, throwing around the race card where it is undeserved really pisses me off, and usually bring s out some spirited posts by me.

I am not one of those that believes we are yet over racism, it is obvious it still is around, and very unfortunate.

If this happened over the Tulsa killings, you certainly would not have me pulling for those two people, and i would be able to understand it, that imo should be treated as a hate crime. They ended the lives of many innocent people that had nothing to do with that man's problems, just because they were black.

In this case, i feel Zimmerman, on some level has been railroaded, not to make light of Martin, but it is obvious both of them did things that did not have to be done, and resulted in a young man dying, Zimmerman did his first, but i am pretty convinced Trayvon at least matched his opening bid, with stupidity of his own, why no one seems to want to mention this is beyond me.

I feel it seems to have gotten to the point that most rational people believe this had nothing to do with racism, or a police cover up, to help out a adversary of that same department, so, beyond that, it loses interest to me.

Breed
04-21-2012, 03:44 PM
The only piece of evidence going the other way, that i feel may be substantial is the voice recognition thing you had brought up before. If they can present a great case on that and convince jurors it was Trayvon screaming, instead of Zimmerman, they may have a chance.

I do not know how much stock i will put in that study though, as they mentioned Trayvon's mother saying it was him screaming in the affidavit, but as far as i know, they did not mention the voice recognition (correct me if i'm wrong) in there, so i would assume it is not real strong evidence.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/04/audio-expert-in-martin-case-demanded-at-least-six-similar-voice-exemplars-in-prior-case/
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2012/04/this-is-the-expert-witness-the-orlando-sentinel-is-touting.html
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/about-those-audio-forsenic-experts#comments
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/3/03733/45115
http://www.biometriccoe.gov/_doc/Use-Case_Committee_Report_FBI-VBS_Final_for_internet12202011.pdf

LANGER72
04-21-2012, 04:01 PM
[QUOTE=Breed;1064287082]Who's taking his story as gospel? I'm simply stating that his story "may" be true. There are some, and they know who they are, that claim Zimmerman's story is absolute bull****.[/QUOTE

Like the story itself, the opinions are divided mostly along racial lines, with each side claiming objectivity. The jury will decide. Nothing about this case is "normal" because of all the protests and threats, slanted information condemning Zimmerman eagerly delivered by the media, and the politics (paychecks and career goals) involved by the players in the legal system. Unfortunately for Zimmerman, this is the bed he made for himself.

LANGER72
04-21-2012, 04:08 PM
'I'm upset about Trayvon's death . . . so I think I'll just go out and commit a hate crime.'

Is it just me, or is this **** becoming more and more common?

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime/alton-hayes-trayvon-martin-white-man-attacked-black-racist-racism-maywood-chicago-suburb-20120420


With Eric Holder running the justice department,...they have a green light. Just another reason to eject the current administration.
The phrase "perception is reality" really fits.

LANGER72
04-21-2012, 04:15 PM
"The only piece of evidence going the other way, that i feel may be substantial is the voice recognition thing you had brought up before. If they can present a great case on that and convince jurors it was Trayvon screaming, instead of Zimmerman, they may have a chance.

I do not know how much stock i will put in that study though, as they mentioned Trayvon's mother saying it was him screaming in the affidavit, but as far as i know, they did not mention the voice recognition (correct me if i'm wrong) in there, so i would assume it is not real strong evidence."



The voice recognition evidence is a wonderful tool, especially when coupled with additional pieces of evidence. But, like other forms of forensics, it is not 100% trustworthy. It is not substantial enough to out weigh physical evidence, injuries, ballistics, and witness testimony on it's own.
Just because the equipment and Trayvon's mother says it is his voice, that doesn't mean that it is. Obviously, the mother wants Zimmerman convicted and she will probably lie and commit perjury herself if necessary to get a pound of Zimmerman on a platter.

Breed
04-21-2012, 04:21 PM
With Eric Holder running the justice department,...they have a green light. Just another reason to eject the current administration.
The phrase "perception is reality" really fits.

Yeah. I don't see how any rational human being can support Holder running the DOJ.

NamathDrunkLove
04-21-2012, 04:32 PM
"The only piece of evidence going the other way, that i feel may be substantial is the voice recognition thing you had brought up before. If they can present a great case on that and convince jurors it was Trayvon screaming, instead of Zimmerman, they may have a chance.

I do not know how much stock i will put in that study though, as they mentioned Trayvon's mother saying it was him screaming in the affidavit, but as far as i know, they did not mention the voice recognition (correct me if i'm wrong) in there, so i would assume it is not real strong evidence."



The voice recognition evidence is a wonderful tool, especially when coupled with additional pieces of evidence because like other forms of forensics, it is not 100% trustworthy. It is not substantial enough to out weigh physical evidence, injuries, ballistics, and witness testimony on it's own.
Just because the equipment and Trayvon's mother says it is his voice, that doesn't mean that it is. Obviously, the mother wants Zimmerman convicted and she will probably lie and commit perjury herself if necessary to get a pound of Zimmerman on a platter.

Agreed. Zimmerman from the very beginning (the night of the incident) has said he was the one was crying for help. Plus HIS family and friends also claim that it is him in the 911 tapes crying for help. So what you are left with is the audio forensics. This was first brought up by two experts in the chicago tribune. The methodology has been argued by not just a few on these message boards but by the experts elsewhere (Refer back to some of breed's links in this thread and in the other case thread). It doesn't take an expert to see some of the potential flaws in the method's that these experts used. It is common sense. I've said for awhile now that this case is going to come down to the physical evidence because things like the audio forensics will be disputed on both sides. Plus, there is no way of telling who is being truthful and who isn't in regards to the witness statements (although I believe the most accurate witness statements will be the ones taken the night of the incident; all of which the police said backed up Zimmerman's story of self-defense). So all that is left is the physical evidence. In which case it points to Zimmerman being truthful (again, at least in regards to the fight). The lead investigator (the one who wrote and signed the affidavit) has already denied that he knows who started the fight, and whether or not Zimmerman was heading back to his vehicle after he got off the phone with the dispatcher. We all know that the biggest thing the prosecution will put across is that Zimmerman instigated this. Yet yesterday they seemed clueless.

TTBChevy
04-21-2012, 04:49 PM
That dude is bad news

LANGER72
04-21-2012, 04:53 PM
Agreed. Zimmerman from the very beginning (the night of the incident) has said he was the one was crying for help. Plus HIS family and friends also claim that it is him in the 911 tapes crying for help. So what you are left with is the audio forensics. This was first brought up by two experts in the chicago tribune. The methodology has been argued by not just a few on these message boards but by the experts elsewhere (Refer back to some of breed's links in this thread and in the other case thread). It doesn't take an expert to see some of the potential flaws in the method's that these experts used. It is common sense. I've said for awhile now that this case is going to come down to the physical evidence because things like the audio forensics will be disputed on both sides. Plus, there is no way of telling who is being truthful and who isn't in regards to the witness statements (although I believe the most accurate witness statements will be the ones taken the night of the incident; all of which the police said backed up Zimmerman's story of self-defense). So all that is left is the physical evidence. In which case it points to Zimmerman being truthful (again, at least in regards to the fight). The lead investigator (the one who wrote and signed the affidavit) has already denied that he knows who started the fight, and whether or not Zimmerman was heading back to his vehicle after he got off the phone with the dispatcher. We all know that the biggest thing the prosecution will put across is that Zimmerman instigated this. Yet yesterday they seemed clueless.

Zimmerman might have "instigated" this by trying to find out why Martin was acting strangely(standing in the rain peering into houses). Zimmerman was volunteering his time to patrol the neighborhood because of recent crimes(car and house break in's) in the area. Why did Martin run? Was he involved in the break in's? Why didn't he just explain to Zimmerman in a nice way that he was returning from the store? It could have ended there. Martin ran off (creating additional suspicion) and Zimmerman followed until he stopped chasing him when told to. Martin could have kept going and disappeared. It could have ended there. He obviously didn't, and decided to face off with Zimmerman. Just a theory, but it seems reasonable to me.

phins_4_ever
04-21-2012, 05:04 PM
Ok, i know who she is, and as far as i know, isn't she the one the police said changed her story?

Now if she is, we have to figure out who is telling the truth, her or the police, correct?

I am the last person to come to the defense of the cops, where i grew up, the police are not held in the highest esteem, and the best i can describe them is they are no different than your average citizen, as that's who they are made up of.

You then have to convince me that the police had any interest in covering for Zimmerman, if he was a cop, or a relative...you have me convinced, because that is EXACTLY what they do, they cover for each other.

The reality is just the opposite though, Zimmerman led protests against them, and called for the discipline/ and or firing of actual cops investigating his case, so imo they would do NOTHING to help him.

This bitch gave in to public pressure, probably just like the other witness(es) will do.

I have listened to ALL the witnesses, including the news report that stated the lead detective played the 911 tape for Trayvon's dad, and he said it was not his son....nobody repeats that.

She is a bitch now? Why? Because she paints a different picture of Zimerman in the post shooting moments? The police has discredited every witness not conforming with that miracle witness "John" who was the only one seeing a red shirt when two people struggled while every other witness said it was to dark to see.

This witness confirmed basically what the "bitch" said and how Zimmerman acted afterwards. Interesting he was also talking about a guy with a flashlight. Maybe "John"?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYf2xTvJpzU&feature=related

The only ones who say that it was not Martin's voice was the Sanford Police Department who allege that Martin's father said that it was not his son's voice.

I really didn't say that there was a connection to the police department thus them covering Zimmerman. But since you brought the subject up we may just continue this path.
What is awkward though is that the State Attorney Norman Wolfinger showed up in person that night and recommended that there was not even enough charges for manslaughter. Now we can be evil and point out that George Zimmerman's dad was a magistrate judge for the Supreme Court in Orange County. Mother Glady's was a former court clerk.
So, we really don't want to go down this road.

Breed
04-21-2012, 06:41 PM
She is a bitch now? Why? Because she paints a different picture of Zimerman in the post shooting moments? The police has discredited every witness not conforming with that miracle witness "John" who was the only one seeing a red shirt when two people struggled while every other witness said it was to dark to see.

This witness confirmed basically what the "bitch" said and how Zimmerman acted afterwards. Interesting he was also talking about a guy with a flashlight. Maybe "John"?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYf2xTvJpzU&feature=related

Mary Cutcher imitated what she saw by putting a hand over her head and even looked somewhat shocked, she then went on to say how Zimmerman was very nonchalant when he said to call 911. What in her description of how Zimmerman acted appears "nonchalant"? For starters, if he was nonchalant about the whole thing, he wouldn't have his hand to his head like he did. But again, this is coming from the same person that used the reasoning, 'the cries for help stopped when the gun went off, that's how I know it was Trayvon crying for help.'


The only ones who say that it was not Martin's voice was the Sanford Police Department who allege that Martin's father said that it was not his son's voice.

How is that video you posted support the theory that it was Trayvon crying for help? The guy sounds like he isn't sure what he saw or heard. You can have a hundred witnesses claim they 'think' it was Trayvon screaming, but if it's all speculation on their part, how can it be trusted? It comes down tho this: you're discrediting everything in the police reports because of an asinine assumption that the whole thing was a coverup.


I really didn't say that there was a connection to the police department thus them covering Zimmerman. But since you brought the subject up we may just continue this path.

What is awkward though is that the State Attorney Norman Wolfinger showed up in person that night and recommended that there was not even enough charges for manslaughter. Now we can be evil and point out that George Zimmerman's dad was a magistrate judge for the Supreme Court in Orange County. Mother Glady's was a former court clerk.
So, we really don't want to go down this road.

For this to work, everyone doing the initial investigation would have had to of known exactly who George Zimmerman was. Could it have been a coverup? Sure. But it's highly unlikely. If there was a coverup, you can be damn sure Angela Corey would've brought it up in the Affidavit. You know damn well that everyone involved with the 2nd investigation was looking at every possible angle. They had to have known a coverup was possible. And a coverup would've left something behind to expose it as such.

phins_4_ever
04-21-2012, 07:45 PM
Mary Cutcher imitated what she saw by putting a hand over her head and even looked somewhat shocked, she then went on to say how Zimmerman was very nonchalant when he said to call 911. What in her description of how Zimmerman acted appears "nonchalant"? For starters, if he was nonchalant about the whole thing, he wouldn't have his hand to his head like he did. But again, this is coming from the same person that used the reasoning, 'the cries for help stopped when the gun went off, that's how I know it was Trayvon crying for help.'



How is that video you posted support the theory that it was Trayvon crying for help? The guy sounds like he isn't sure what he saw or heard. You can have a hundred witnesses claim they 'think' it was Trayvon screaming, but if it's all speculation on their part, how can it be trusted? It comes down tho this: you're discrediting everything in the police reports because of an asinine claim that the whole thing was a coverup.



For this to work, everyone doing the initial investigation would have had to of known exactly who George Zimmerman was. We would also have to discount everything in the police reports. Could it have been a coverup? Sure. But it's highly unlikely. If there was a coverup, you can be damn sure Angela Corey would've brought it up in the Affidavit. You know damn well that everyone involved with the 2nd investigation was looking at every possible angle. They had to have known a coverup was possible. And a coverup would've left something behind to expose it as such.

Let me give you a good advice. There is a reason that I usually dont respond to your posts. You don't read what you are responding to. You are making stuff up and imply intentions of a post which are wrong.
If you think the way you are responding (in sniplets) I do understand the way you post but it is a deterrent to have a conversation. When I write a paragraph usually everything in this paragraph belongs together. Taking sniplets out and quoting portions of a paragraph means that you are misnterpreting my intentions (on purpose or not).

I know this subject means a lot to you and you can certainly post whatever you want to and respond to whoever but just an FYI: if I don't respond to you that does not mean you pulled a Sara Pahlin 'gotch'ya' moment on me but is simply a message that I dont have the time or lust to thrift through your barage of misquotes.

Breed
04-21-2012, 07:50 PM
Let me give you a good advice. There is a reason that I usually dont respond to your posts. You don't read what you are responding to. You are making stuff up and imply intentions of a post which are wrong.
If you think the way you are responding (in sniplets) I do understand the way you post but it is a deterrent to have a conversation. When I write a paragraph usually everything in this paragraph belongs together. Taking sniplets out and quoting portions of a paragraph means that you are misnterpreting my intentions (on purpose or not).

I know this subject means a lot to you and you can certainly post whatever you want to and respond to whoever but just an FYI: if I don't respond to you that does not mean you pulled a Sara Pahlin 'gotch'ya' moment on me but is simply a message that I dont have the time or lust to thrift through your barage of misquotes.

Where have I misquoted you? Can you provide a single example of me even taking something you said out of context? If so, I'd love to see it.

Edit: Don't complain about taking the time to sift through a "barage of misquotes". That's a cop out. If my posts truly are a "barage of misquotes", it should be pretty easy to find either one misquote, or an example of me taking something you said out of context.

Dolphins9954
04-21-2012, 08:02 PM
The pictures only help the defense. I don't see how this helps the state at all. The main thing is the murder 2 charge. The defense will have plenty of solid evidence to show that Zimmerman feared for his life or serious bodily injury. That's what hurts the state big time. Now the state could have the evidence that trumps everything but we sure didn't see it in the affidavit at all. Which is very surprising to say the least especially after watching what Alan Dershowitz said about the affidavit. All the defense has to do is present a case where Zimmerman had real fear for his life or serious injury with physical/photo evidence backing it along with witness testimony. (Which they have plenty of). And Zimmerman could beat a murder 2 charge. I may be wrong but my take on murder 2 was that the person has to have ill intentions from the start. Not premeditated because that would be murder 1. But bad intentions to cause harm. Here's what I found as an example of murder 2.........


Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.


There's also this too......



A killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life


Now this is probably what the state will use but the problem here is what I think Breed pointed out. At the bond hearing the state said they had ZERO evidence to prove Zimmerman started the fight. That's huge!!! And the second question "Do you have any evidence that disputes Zimmerman's claim that he was heading back to his vehicle?" The state said NO again. So how do they plan to prove that Zimmerman "acted dangerously and with obvious lack of concern for human life" when they admit that they have no evidence to prove Zimmerman started the fight or disproving Zimmerman's account that he was heading back to his car?

Now you can say that Zimmerman having a gun could meet that threshold. But he was legally allowed to carry a weapon so I don't see how this will apply. That's my take. I admit I don't know much about murder 2 charges but that's what I came across.

Breed
04-21-2012, 08:24 PM
Let me give you a good advice. There is a reason that I usually dont respond to your posts. You don't read what you are responding to. You are making stuff up and imply intentions of a post which are wrong.
If you think the way you are responding (in sniplets) I do understand the way you post but it is a deterrent to have a conversation. When I write a paragraph usually everything in this paragraph belongs together. Taking sniplets out and quoting portions of a paragraph means that you are misnterpreting my intentions (on purpose or not).

I know this subject means a lot to you and you can certainly post whatever you want to and respond to whoever but just an FYI: if I don't respond to you that does not mean you pulled a Sara Pahlin 'gotch'ya' moment on me but is simply a message that I dont have the time or lust to thrift through your barage of misquotes.

Perhaps you're talking about my last post (with quotes) where I said: It comes down tho this: you're discrediting everything in the police reports because of an asinine assumption [I originally used the word claim, but I knew that was the wrong word. So I quickly changed it] that the whole thing was a coverup.

I followed that up by posting an excerpt from the same post where you said: "I really didn't say that there was a connection to the police department thus them covering Zimmerman. But since you brought the subject up we may just continue this path."

I could have easily omitted that part. But I didn't. So you were playing devil's advocate. I get that. I still think it's ridiculous you would even bring up the possibility of a coverup. It's just too far fetched.

NamathDrunkLove
04-21-2012, 08:55 PM
Let me give you a good advice. There is a reason that I usually dont respond to your posts. You don't read what you are responding to. You are making stuff up and imply intentions of a post which are wrong.
If you think the way you are responding (in sniplets) I do understand the way you post but it is a deterrent to have a conversation. When I write a paragraph usually everything in this paragraph belongs together. Taking sniplets out and quoting portions of a paragraph means that you are misnterpreting my intentions (on purpose or not).

I know this subject means a lot to you and you can certainly post whatever you want to and respond to whoever but just an FYI: if I don't respond to you that does not mean you pulled a Sara Pahlin 'gotch'ya' moment on me but is simply a message that I dont have the time or lust to thrift through your barage of misquotes.

No. It does mean you had a 'gotch'ya' moment pulled on you. If you were smart enough you would counter with something.

Edit: And if someone takes your comments out of context then let it be known. Not responding to someone who is clearly calling you out only implies that you are stumped.

Breed
04-21-2012, 09:00 PM
If there are conflicting reports as to what the witnesses heard or saw, why are we still talking about them? Unless we can catch a witness in a contradiction, or a statement in which he or she isn't quite sure what he or she saw and is basing his/her statements on feelings and/or speculation (see Mary Cutcher), who are we to determine what witnesses are credible? Unlike the investigators who were initially on the scene, we didn't have a chance to question each witness to check the validity of their statements. So let's base our opinions on the only publicly known evidence (and in the case of 3 & 4, lack of evidence) of the case.

1. Zimmerman's 911 phone call
2. The partial police reports (contains physical evidence that backs up Zimmerman's story)
3. The Affidavit (which conveniently leaves out probable cause)
4. The bail hearing (the investigator who signed off on the Affidavit admits to having no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow or that he started the fight)

Breed
04-21-2012, 09:11 PM
No. It does mean you had a 'gotch'ya' moment pulled on you. If you were smart enough you would counter with something.

Edit: And if someone takes your comments out of context then let it be known. Not responding to someone who is clearly calling you out only implies that you are stumped.

I'll continue to call out anyone who uses pretzel logic.

Locke
04-21-2012, 09:56 PM
No. It does mean you had a 'gotch'ya' moment pulled on you. If you were smart enough you would counter with something.

Edit: And if someone takes your comments out of context then let it be known. Not responding to someone who is clearly calling you out only implies that you are stumped.

When I don't respond to Breed, it has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with not having the patience to read a wall of text that rivals a novel in length. I've known phins long enough to confidently say he would absolutely respond if it wasn't a chore to even read the post. Breed, my friend, you need to shorten your posts. Parsimony man, it's important...

Breed
04-21-2012, 10:20 PM
When I don't respond to Breed, it has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with not having the patience to read a wall of text that rivals a novel in length. I've known phins long enough to confidently say he would absolutely respond if it wasn't a chore to even read the post. Breed, my friend, you need to shorten your posts. Parsimony man, it's important...

Most novels worth reading take more than a few hours to read. I'm currently on the 4th book of the Wheel of Time. Which, btw, is a great series.

NamathDrunkLove
04-21-2012, 10:26 PM
When I don't respond to Breed, it has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with not having the patience to read a wall of text that rivals a novel in length. I've known phins long enough to confidently say he would absolutely respond if it wasn't a chore to even read the post. Breed, my friend, you need to shorten your posts. Parsimony man, it's important...

He may go overboard in some posts but he is only trying to drive home a point.

Breed
04-21-2012, 10:26 PM
When I don't respond to Breed, it has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with not having the patience to read a wall of text that rivals a novel in length. I've known phins long enough to confidently say he would absolutely respond if it wasn't a chore to even read the post. Breed, my friend, you need to shorten your posts. Parsimony man, it's important...

. . . then again, I have a cousin (a semi-famous author, and a 2010 Hugo Award Winner) that writes mostly short novels.

Edit: BTW, my favorite book of all time is The Stand by Stephen King, and that's like 1,200 pages. So that may explain why I lack brevity. :shrugs: [and now I'm guilty of using the same pretzel logic I accuse others of having]

Locke
04-21-2012, 10:41 PM
. . . then again, I have a cousin (a semi-famous author, and a 2010 Hugo Award Winner) that writes mostly short novels.

Edit: BTW, my favorite book of all time is The Stand by Stephen King, and that's like 1,200 pages. So that may explain why I lack brevity. :shrugs:

I'm a PhD candidate, so I do a lot of writing, and especially reading of papers. It's a little bit different in my field, if a paper is too wordy then no one will read it, so you have to say as much as you can in as few sentences as possible. A definite difference in philosophy, but I do find that's it tough to get through long posts. In that respect, it's good to be short and succinct whenever possible...

Dolphins9954
04-21-2012, 11:01 PM
i4fr5QwG63M


Here's the Dershowitz video, he makes some good points. What adds to this was the bond hearing where the State admitted to not having evidence to key parts of their case. Someone correct me but my understanding with 2nd degree is that they have to prove that Zimmerman came after and attacked Trayvon first. With intentions of harming or killing him. I may be wrong but wouldn't the State admitting to having no evidence that Zimmerman "started the fight". Or anything to dispute Zimmerman's claim that he went back to his car be a big hole in a 2nd degree murder charge? Especially the affidavit.

Breed
04-22-2012, 07:37 AM
I'm a PhD candidate, so I do a lot of writing, and especially reading of papers. It's a little bit different in my field, if a paper is too wordy then no one will read it, so you have to say as much as you can in as few sentences as possible. A definite difference in philosophy, but I do find that's it tough to get through long posts. In that respect, it's good to be short and succinct whenever possible...

My posts are sometimes long because, if I see something I disagree with, I separate it from the rest of the post. My response to each snippet usually varies from a sentence to a paragraph.

Take my response to phins_4_ever on page 2 as an example:
(His opinions, most of which are paraphrased)
1. What's the point of having another Zimmerman thread? We have a dead kid, a man with a gun, and some witnesses, everything else is speculation. But isn't it amazing that with all this search for evidence, Mary Cutcher somehow always gets left out?!?! She's like the most incredible witness ever, and the police just disregarded her statements because it didn't fit with their version of what happened.
2. "This is not Hollywood where two people beat each other up and don't have a scratch on them. Pounding someone's head like a coconut on the ground would lead most likely to a broken scull."
3. "I can throw in another fact and speculate as well. The crime happened on a walk-way between townhouses. No car can drive there. So Zimmerman had to get there somehow. Which renders the speculation that he went back to his car and he was approached by Martin obsolete. He must have gotten out of his car at some point and get to where the shooting occurred."
4. This is just my speculation, but I think Zimmerman just pulled a gun out on Trayvon, and instead of just answering Zimmerman's question of what he was doing in the neighborhood, Trayvon decided he wasn't going to have any of it. So he decided to attack Zimmerman in self-defense. Because his chances of survival are obviously much higher if he simply attacks Zimmerman.
5. We can all speculate, none of us knows exactly what happened.
6. For the state to go with a Murder 2 charge, they must have some pretty compelling evidence. I mean, why would they just make it up!?! It's not like they'd ever give into public pressure.
7. None of us have a clue as to what happened. This shooting deserved a thorough investigation, which, unfortunately, the SPD did not provide. I don't care so much about eye-witness testimony, because they aren't always reliable. Even God's greatest gift to man (extreme sarcasm), otherwise known as "John", is a "flaky eye-witness at best." That "John" guy thinks he knows what he saw and heard, but give me a witness that lacks certainty as to what he or she saw any day of the week. What they lack in certainty, they make up for in feelings. Mary Cutcher KNOWS it was Trayvon crying for help, because the cries for help stopped when the gun went off.
8. I want to know the ballistics and stuff. The SPD have obviously never done any murder investigations. I want to see reliable reports on Trayvon's entrance/exit wound. And, did Trayvon have gunpowder residue on his body? If so, how much?
9. "The other thing I am looking for is if Zimmerman was in a struggle for his life how did he get his gone out and lifted his arm all the way to the chest and fired."
10. "If I get my head 'pounded like a coconut' I pull the trigger as soon as I have my gun. I could care less if I hit the stomach or leg. This is all evidence we do not have but which maybe the prosecutor has."
11. The "anti-Zimmerman" side may speculate, but so does the other side. Just look at Zimmerman's defense team and their arguments, which I properly classify as speculation.

For the record, I agreed with number 5, and to a certain extent, 8 & 10.

NamathDrunkLove
04-22-2012, 08:04 AM
i4fr5QwG63M


Here's the Dershowitz video, he makes some good points. What adds to this was the bond hearing where the State admitted to not having evidence to key parts of their case. Someone correct me but my understanding with 2nd degree is that they have to prove that Zimmerman came after and attacked Trayvon first. With intentions of harming or killing him. I may be wrong but wouldn't the State admitting to having no evidence that Zimmerman "started the fight". Or anything to dispute Zimmerman's claim that he went back to his car be a big hole in a 2nd degree murder charge? Especially the affidavit.

I believe the next hearing is in October and its subject is the affidavit. I believe this is where they decide to go forward or not. My guess is the Judge either tosses the case or tells them that they can't go to trial with the current affidavit. Especially seeing as how the state has already admitted to not having key evidence (who the aggressor was) in the affidavit or at their disposal. I've said from the very beginning that there is no probable cause in their "probable cause affidavit." My speculation as to why Corey didn't go to a grand jury with this is because she was afraid it would be tossed (which is sad considering how easy it is to get a indictment). Part of the reason why you go to a grand jury is for checks and balances. I believe this is a political move all the way. Either she is doing it for her own personal gain, she gave into public pressure, or she was pressured into it by higher ups. In any case it's wrong.

MadDog 88
04-22-2012, 12:01 PM
The photo lends credence to Zimmerman's story but keep in mind, these guys are fighting for their lives so I would expect there to be injuries. As for the state's case being in trouble, I knew proving 2nd degree murder would be tough but if that is the sole charge and the states case is that weak, any defense attorney worth a damn would have moved to have the charges dismissed.

EDIT: This was only a bail hearing and the lack of evidence the prosecution showed does not mean they have nothing else. Even Zimmermans attorney is on record as saying he expects the prosecution to turn over their evidence at a later date.

MadDog 88
04-22-2012, 12:04 PM
I believe the next hearing is in October and its subject is the affidavit. I believe this is where they decide to go forward or not. My guess is the Judge either tosses the case or tells them that they can't go to trial with the current affidavit. Especially seeing as how the state has already admitted to not having key evidence (who the aggressor was) in the affidavit or at their disposal. I've said from the very beginning that there is no probable cause in their "probable cause affidavit." My speculation as to why Corey didn't go to a grand jury with this is because she was afraid it would be tossed (which is sad considering how easy it is to get a indictment). Part of the reason why you go to a grand jury is for checks and balances. I believe this is a political move all the way. Either she is doing it for her own personal gain, she gave into public pressure, or she was pressured into it by higher ups. In any case it's wrong.
Or maybe they opted to stay away from a Grand Jury because they don't want the circus that is already of control, to get worse. It is going to be tough enough as it is to seat an unbiased jury.

PhinzN703
04-22-2012, 12:47 PM
'I'm upset about Trayvon's death . . . so I think I'll just go out and commit a hate crime.'

Is it just me, or is this **** becoming more and more common?

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime/alton-hayes-trayvon-martin-white-man-attacked-black-racist-racism-maywood-chicago-suburb-20120420

I don't know about it being common but what it is doing is revealing how many moronic racists there are out in this country.

Good luck getting future employment with this new blemish on your record fella.

ohall
04-22-2012, 02:01 PM
I don't know about it being common but what it is doing is revealing how many moronic racists there are out in this country.

Good luck getting future employment with this new blemish on your record fella.

Lol what?

MarshallFin1
04-22-2012, 10:11 PM
The photo was taken 3 minutes after the shooting. It is date and time marked.

This photo is very helpful to the Zimmerman defense.

no its not, all this picture proves is that there was a nasty scuffle before the shooting, thats all it proves. It doesnt help the case of who confronted who and initiated the fight.

MarshallFin1
04-22-2012, 10:32 PM
After reading this thread i got a few things from it.
1. Zimmerman supporters will twist any fact that supports trayvons side in support of zimmerman.
2. They have a counter for every hard evidense or theory that supports that this was not self defense.

Its sickening that people are picking sides in this story. There should be no picking sides here cause no one really knows what happened. The right thing to do is let it go to trial and let the jurors and judges decide based on true real evidense on the outcome. That should be everyones stance. The fight is over , one human being already lost his life, no need to keep rooting zimmerman on, he already won the fight.

irish fin fan
04-22-2012, 11:26 PM
After reading this thread i got a few things from it.
1. Zimmerman supporters will twist any fact that supports trayvons side in support of zimmerman.
2. They have a counter for every hard evidense or theory that supports that this was not self defense.

Its sickening that people are picking sides in this story. There should be no picking sides here cause no one really knows what happened. The right thing to do is let it go to trial and let the jurors and judges decide based on true real evidense on the outcome. That should be everyones stance. The fight is over , one human being already lost his life, no need to keep rooting zimmerman on, he already won the fight.

Agreed.

ohall
04-22-2012, 11:59 PM
After reading this thread i got a few things from it.
1. Zimmerman supporters will twist any fact that supports trayvons side in support of zimmerman.
2. They have a counter for every hard evidense or theory that supports that this was not self defense.

Its sickening that people are picking sides in this story. There should be no picking sides here cause no one really knows what happened. The right thing to do is let it go to trial and let the jurors and judges decide based on true real evidense on the outcome. That should be everyones stance. The fight is over , one human being already lost his life, no need to keep rooting zimmerman on, he already won the fight.

Sometimes things aren't as the media makes them out to be. IMO that may be why you see some ppl rooting for Zimmerman. I know for me, I know if NBC didn't edit their 911 call odds this wouldn't have blown up and Zimmerman wouldn't have been over charged. For me, this kind of stuff scares the crap out of me. The media and the left are so blind and motivated they will stop at nothing to get what they want. If Trayvon wasn't black and he was a white kid this never would have blown up like it has.

phins_4_ever
04-23-2012, 12:02 AM
i4fr5QwG63M


Here's the Dershowitz video, he makes some good points. What adds to this was the bond hearing where the State admitted to not having evidence to key parts of their case. Someone correct me but my understanding with 2nd degree is that they have to prove that Zimmerman came after and attacked Trayvon first. With intentions of harming or killing him. I may be wrong but wouldn't the State admitting to having no evidence that Zimmerman "started the fight". Or anything to dispute Zimmerman's claim that he went back to his car be a big hole in a 2nd degree murder charge? Especially the affidavit.

Not really. 2nd Degree murder charge is defined as non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility and as the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery.

Zimmerman could be guilty of 2nd degree murder if the prosecution can simply prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense and used his weapon in an aggressive manner while having other options available. This 'who was running after who' is actually secondary and would only be important if 1st degree murder chargers would have been filed.

That's why I always said that forensics will be important and will supersede all witness statements. Entry of the bullet, the angle the bullet traveled and of course clothing (was there any gun residue on Martin's cloths?) will be much more important. Then there is evidence from the crime scene which has not been publicly released and of course the DNA. Since Martin's body was brought in for an autopsy I assume there will be an extensive forensic report. We don't have that info but the State Attorney's office has.

Breed
04-23-2012, 07:23 AM
After reading this thread i got a few things from it.
1. Zimmerman supporters will twist any fact that supports trayvons side in support of zimmerman.
2. They have a counter for every hard evidense or theory that supports that this was not self defense.

Its sickening that people are picking sides in this story. There should be no picking sides here cause no one really knows what happened. The right thing to do is let it go to trial and let the jurors and judges decide based on true real evidense on the outcome. That should be everyones stance. The fight is over , one human being already lost his life, no need to keep rooting zimmerman on, he already won the fight.

How is the "pro-Zimmerman" side twisting the facts/evidence? Secondly, I am one the bigger "pro-Zimmerman" posters here, and even I don't "assume" his innocence. There's a distinction in saying that his story "may" be true, and his story "is" or "is not true." I've always taken the stance that his version of what happened "may" be true. From the very beginning, you, along with several others, have assumed his guilt.

When every witness known to the media supports Zimmerman's story that Trayvon was the one on top, another witness becomes known through the media and: "See, this just proves Zimmerman is lying about Trayvon being on top."

The low-res surveillance video is released and: "OMFG!!!!!!!! This is proof Zimmerman didn't sustain any injury . . . his entire story is bull****!!!!!!

A news article comes out with two audio forensics experts that say the voice crying for help is not Zimmerman's: "HAHAHA . . . you Zimmerman supporters are such idiots. This proves, unequivocally, that Trayvon was the one crying for help. Thus: Zimmerman did not act in self-defense"

Breed
04-23-2012, 07:40 AM
Not really. 2nd Degree murder charge is defined as non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility and as the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery.

Zimmerman could be guilty of 2nd degree murder if the prosecution can simply prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense and used his weapon in an aggressive manner while having other options available. This 'who was running after who' is actually secondary and would only be important if 1st degree murder chargers would have been filed.

That's why I always said that forensics will be important and will supersede all witness statements. Entry of the bullet, the angle the bullet traveled and of course clothing (was there any gun residue on Martin's cloths?) will be much more important. Then there is evidence from the crime scene which has not been publicly released and of course the DNA. Since Martin's body was brought in for an autopsy I assume there will be an extensive forensic report. We don't have that info but the State Attorney's office has.

No. That would be manslaughter. In order to prove 2nd degree murder, they'd also have to prove Zimmerman had a depraved mind.

Dolphins9954
04-23-2012, 08:26 AM
Not really. 2nd Degree murder charge is defined as non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility and as the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery.

Zimmerman could be guilty of 2nd degree murder if the prosecution can simply prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense and used his weapon in an aggressive manner while having other options available. This 'who was running after who' is actually secondary and would only be important if 1st degree murder chargers would have been filed.

That's why I always said that forensics will be important and will supersede all witness statements. Entry of the bullet, the angle the bullet traveled and of course clothing (was there any gun residue on Martin's cloths?) will be much more important. Then there is evidence from the crime scene which has not been publicly released and of course the DNA. Since Martin's body was brought in for an autopsy I assume there will be an extensive forensic report. We don't have that info but the State Attorney's office has.


Depravity of Mind Definition:

A degree of moral turpitude and psychical debasement associated with a crime such as repeated and excessive acts of physical abuse or unreasonably brutality or outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman.


Here's a case in Florida that the State says is the best example of depraved mind.....

Prosecution: 'The definition of a depraved mind'

http://www.newsherald.com/articles/prosecution-76754-hess-attorney.html


From what I understand this is what has to be proven to get a 2nd degree murder conviction. Basically the State has to prove that Zimmerman was the total aggressor here that acted with no regard for human life or morality. That there was no reason at all for Zimmerman to shoot Trayvon. It's really as if there was zero evidence of self-defense. That Zimmerman just shoot Trayvon in cold blood. The evidence on the ground along with witness testimony doesn't back that.

I agree that forensics along with more photo and physical evidence will be the defining factors of this case. But as of now I really do feel the State has a big mountain to climb to prove 2nd degree.

PhinzN703
04-23-2012, 10:09 AM
Lol what?

The dude is going to go to jail for what he did. Do you consider this smart? To randomly commit a crime b/c of the Martin case that had nothing to do with you?

ohall
04-23-2012, 10:57 AM
The dude is going to go to jail for what he did. Do you consider this smart? To randomly commit a crime b/c of the Martin case that had nothing to do with you?

Your comment about how many moronic racist are out there is what I was commenting on. I think that is a silly comment.

I doubt Zimmerman is going to be found guilty. The state of Florida over charged him, the same way Casey Anthony was over charged. It's not about what you think they are guilty of, it's about what you can prove. The detective admitted the other day on the stand they don't know who started the physical confrontation. To me that's game over for the prosecution.

PhinzN703
04-23-2012, 11:24 AM
Your comment about how many moronic racist are out there is what I was commenting on. I think that is a silly comment.

I doubt Zimmerman is going to be found guilty. The state of Florida over charged him, the same way Casey Anthony was over charged. It's not about what you think they are guilty of, it's about what you can prove. The detective admitted the other day on the stand they don't know who started the physical confrontation. To me that's game over for the prosecution.

Why is that silly? Racism in itself is an unnecessary and ridiculous fact of life.

Breed
04-23-2012, 02:41 PM
no its not, all this picture proves is that there was a nasty scuffle before the shooting, thats all it proves. It doesnt help the case of who confronted who and initiated the fight.

Nonsense. It only proves there was a "nasty scuffle" if Trayvon suffered from the same sort of injuries. Based on what we know, that isn't the case. If the mortician that worked on Trayvon is to be believed, then Trayvon didn't show any visible signs of a fight. If a fight is so one sided that only one person suffers from any visible injuries, it isn't a "nasty scuffle", it's a beatdown.

That pic may not prove who initiated the fight, but it sure as hell gives Zimmerman's story some credibility.

ohall
04-23-2012, 02:53 PM
Why is that silly? Racism in itself is an unnecessary and ridiculous fact of life.

I don't see racism here, at least the way you may mean it. If there is any racism here it was applied onto Zimmerman by NBC, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and the new Black Panthers. Now if you are reffering to that I'm with you.

Don't forget Zimmerman lives in a neighborhood where minorities are the majority.

Breed
04-23-2012, 02:55 PM
Amazing what they can do with photoshop these days ... .

Jessica Alba could sit on your face, and you wouldn't just doubt whether or not it was Jessica Alba, but whether or not she even sat on your face.

ohall
04-23-2012, 02:59 PM
Nonsense. It only proves there was a "nasty scuffle" if Trayvon suffered from the same sort of injuries. Based on what we know, that isn't the case. If the mortician that worked on Trayvon is to be believed, then Trayvon didn't show any visible signs of a fight. If a fight is so one sided that only one person suffers from any visible injuries, it isn't a "nasty scuffle", it's a beatdown.

That pic may not prove who initiated the fight, but it sure as hell gives Zimmerman's story some credibility.

The lead detective admitted on the stand last week they had no evidence that proved Zimmerman left his car or who initiated the physical confrontation. Odds are Florida once again over charged, like with Casey Anthony and because of that Zimmerman is prob not going to be found guilty.

It's beyond important to prove 1st Zimmerman left his vehicle and 2nd he started the fight with Trayvon. If not it appears Zimmerman has reasonable doubt and Florida law on his side.

Breed
04-23-2012, 03:03 PM
The lead detective admitted on the stand last week they had no evidence that proved Zimmerman left his car or who initiated the physical confrontation. Odds are Florida once again over charged, like with Casey Anthony and because of that Zimmerman is not going to be found guilty.

It's beyond important to prove 1st Zimmerman left his vehicle and 2nd he started the fight with Trayvon. If not it appears Zimmerman has reasonable doubt and Florida law on his side.

In the end, it doesn't matter. Some nutjob is going to kill him, regardless of whether or not he's found guilty.

NamathDrunkLove
04-23-2012, 03:06 PM
no its not, all this picture proves is that there was a nasty scuffle before the shooting, thats all it proves. It doesnt help the case of who confronted who and initiated the fight.

And the lead investigator has already admitted he doesn't have any evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was not heading back to his vehicle and does not have evidence of who started the fight. If there is physical evidence to show that Trayvon did not receive much if any injury, would you still believe that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon in cold blood? If so, then you are beyond having a rational debate with.


After reading this thread i got a few things from it.
1. Zimmerman supporters will twist any fact that supports trayvons side in support of zimmerman.
2. They have a counter for every hard evidense or theory that supports that this was not self defense.

Its sickening that people are picking sides in this story. There should be no picking sides here cause no one really knows what happened. The right thing to do is let it go to trial and let the jurors and judges decide based on true real evidense on the outcome. That should be everyones stance. The fight is over , one human being already lost his life, no need to keep rooting zimmerman on, he already won the fight.

I challenge you to find one example. If you don't reply with an example I'll take it that you are full of **** and/or stumped.

ohall
04-23-2012, 03:26 PM
In the end, it doesn't matter. Some nutjob is going to kill him, regardless of whether or not he's found guilty.

If he is really innocent, that would be a real shame. The thing I'm worried about is if he gets off ppl like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and the new Black Panthers are going to stir things up so much we may end up having riots here in Orlando.

Breed
04-23-2012, 03:26 PM
And the lead investigator has already admitted he doesn't have any evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was not heading back to his vehicle and does not have evidence of who started the fight. If there is physical evidence to show that Trayvon did not receive much if any injury, would you still believe that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon in cold blood? If so, then you are beyond having a rational debate with.

I challenge you to find one example. If you don't reply with an example I'll take it that you are full of **** and/or stumped.

He's the same guy that said, "all i see in this thread is zimmerman supporters twisting the evidense because the facts puts zimmer in a guilty side of things."

I'd love to see all the "evidence and facts" that implicates Zimmerman's guilt.

Breed
04-23-2012, 03:32 PM
If he is really innocent, that would be a real shame. The thing I'm worried about is if he gets off ppl like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and the new Black Panthers are going to stir things up so much we may end up having riots here in Orlando.

Thanks to mob rule, there's little chance Zimmerman beats this thing, regardless of the lack of evidence. Look for stuff like this (http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/crime/alton-hayes-trayvon-martin-white-man-attacked-black-racist-racism-maywood-chicago-suburb-20120420) to happen more often.

Breed
04-23-2012, 03:46 PM
http://twitchy.com/2012/04/23/twitter-lynch-mob-now-that-george-zimmerman-is-out-on-bail-lets-kill-him/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/someone-kill-judge_640598.html

The "Zimmerman is unequivocally guilty" camp lacks logic and rationality, but these random fools are insane.

phins_4_ever
04-23-2012, 04:25 PM
No. That would be manslaughter. In order to prove 2nd degree murder, they'd also have to prove Zimmerman had a depraved mind.

Talking about Pretzel logic.
Manslaughter requires no intend whatsoever. I described 2nd Degree murder which has intention included.

phins_4_ever
04-23-2012, 04:35 PM
How is the "pro-Zimmerman" side twisting the facts/evidence? Secondly, I am one the bigger "pro-Zimmerman" posters here, and even I don't "assume" his innocence. There's a distinction in saying that his story "may" be true, and his story "is" or "is not true." I've always taken the stance that his version of what happened "may" be true. From the very beginning, you, along with several others, have assumed his guilt.

When every witness known to the media supports Zimmerman's story that Trayvon was the one on top, another witness becomes known through the media and: "See, this just proves Zimmerman is lying about Trayvon being on top."

The low-res surveillance video is released and: "OMFG!!!!!!!! This is proof Zimmerman didn't sustain any injury . . . his entire story is bull****!!!!!!

A news article comes out with two audio forensics experts that say the voice crying for help is not Zimmerman's: "HAHAHA . . . you Zimmerman supporters are such idiots. This proves, unequivocally, that Trayvon was the one crying for help. Thus: Zimmerman did not act in self-defense"

How is the pro-Zimmerman side twisting the facts? I would actually say you are making 'facts' up.
The pro-Zimmerman side at some point or another declares that Martin chased and attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence of any of that unless you subscribe to Zimmerman and his dad.

The only 'evidence' we have is that Zimmerman followed at one point or another, that Zimmerman and Martin ended up in an area inaccessible to cars and that there was a struggle. Everything in between is murky.

Everything stated by the pro-Zimmerman side on how Martin chased or followed Zimmerman and then attacked him is unproven and lacks credibility.

phins_4_ever
04-23-2012, 04:51 PM
From what I understand this is what has to be proven to get a 2nd degree murder conviction. Basically the State has to prove that Zimmerman was the total aggressor here that acted with no regard for human life or morality. That there was no reason at all for Zimmerman to shoot Trayvon. It's really as if there was zero evidence of self-defense. That Zimmerman just shoot Trayvon in cold blood. The evidence on the ground along with witness testimony doesn't back that.

I agree that forensics along with more photo and physical evidence will be the defining factors of this case. But as of now I really do feel the State has a big mountain to climb to prove 2nd degree.

You made exactly my points.
Now to your evidence: We have yet to see evidence from the ground. We have not seen DNA, evidence collected etc. The only thing we have are 911 tapes and a few witness statements which were from different times and differentiate here and there.
We have 'John' who remembers everything down to the color of the shirt on a rainy, dark night in a barely lit walkway. He is next to Zimmerman the only one saying that Martin pounded Zimmerman's head on the concrete. We have witnesses who saw Zimmerman get up from Martin, not the other way around, while being on the grass. We have also one witness who saw another man with a flash light walking over to Zimmerman right after the shooting (maybe John???).
Based on witness testimony this case could never be solved.

It will be all forensics.

LANGER72
04-23-2012, 05:14 PM
Zimmerman made some bad decisions that night. He should have never been concerned about the crime in his community. He should have stayed home and hid under his bed.

ohall
04-23-2012, 06:01 PM
Zimmerman made some bad decisions that night. He should have never been concerned about the crime in his community. He should have stayed home and hid under his bed.

I listen to ppl on TV and they act like carrying a gun is some kind of crime or admission of guilt. Some ppl act like we don't have right to carry fire arms.

It just seems like more often than not ppl come from that angle rather understanding as Americans we have certain rights.

Breed
04-23-2012, 06:46 PM
Zimmerman could be guilty of 2nd degree murder if the prosecution can simply prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense and used his weapon in an aggressive manner while having other options available. This 'who was running after who' is actually secondary and would only be important if 1st degree murder chargers would have been filed.


No. That would be manslaughter. In order to prove 2nd degree murder, they'd also have to prove Zimmerman had a depraved mind.


Talking about Pretzel logic.
Manslaughter requires no intend whatsoever. I described 2nd Degree murder which has intention included.

Intent doesn't necessarily carry the connotation of murder.

Voluntary Manslaughter
It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction: (1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person; (2) the defendant must have actually been provoked; (3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and (4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period.

Provocation is justifiable if a reasonable person under similar circumstances would be induced to act in the same manner as the defendant. It must be found that the degree of provocation was such that a reasonable person would lose self-control. In actual practice, there is no precise formula for determining reasonableness. It is a matter that is determined by the trier of fact, either the jury or the judge in a nonjury trial, after a full consideration of the evidence.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

Second Degree Murder
Impulsive Killings with Malice Aforethought

These sorts of killings occur in the heat of the moment, and dont involve any premeditation on the part of the killer. At the moment the murder occurs, the killer definitely intends to kill the victim, but up to that moment, the killer had no intent or plan to commit murder.

For example, Adam and Bill are neighbors, and lately they've been having disagreements over the fence between their properties. Adam pays Bill a visit to discuss the matter, but gets angry in the process, pulls out a gun and shoots and kills Bill.

Adam didnt didnt have any plan to kill Bill when he went to Bill's house that day, so there was no premeditation. At the time of the murder, however, Adam fully intended to kill Bill because of his anger over the fence, so there was malice aforethought. Most states that distinguish between degrees of murder would consider that a second degree murder.

Killings after an Act Intended to Cause Serious Bodily Harm

A second category of acts that constitute second degree murder are acts where the perpetrator intends to cause serious bodily harm with the full knowledge that death is a possible result of the act. The killer might not necessarily intend to kill the victim, but knows that death is a likely outcome.

For example, in the situation above, instead of shooting Bill, Adam grabs a shovel and hits Bill on the head with all his strength. Adam didnt explicitly intend to kill Bill when he hit him, but he did intend to hit him with the tire iron, and he knew that such a blow to the head carried with it a distinct possibility of death. Adams killing of Bill in this instance also constitutes second degree murder.

Killings Resulting from a Depraved Indifference to Human Life

The third main type of second degree murder occurs when a victim dies as a result of the perpetrators depraved indifference to human life. Depraved indifference to human life can mean different things in different jurisdictions, but in general it signifies that the perpetrator had an utter disregard for the potential damage to human life that their actions could cause.

Going back to Adam and Bill, imagine that, instead of hitting Bill over the head with the tire iron, Adam grabbed his gun and fired in anger into a crowd of onlookers. Adam didnt necessarily mean to kill anyone, but also didnt give any thought to the harm that his actions could cause in the crowd. This demonstrates Adams depraved indifference to human life. If one of Adams bullets struck and killed anyone in the crowd, then Adam has probably committed second degree murder.

Breed
04-23-2012, 07:00 PM
How is the pro-Zimmerman side twisting the facts? I would actually say you are making 'facts' up.

You should try backing up that absurd claim.


The pro-Zimmerman side at some point or another declares that Martin chased and attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence of any of that unless you subscribe to Zimmerman and his dad.

The only 'evidence' we have is that Zimmerman followed at one point or another, that Zimmerman and Martin ended up in an area inaccessible to cars and that there was a struggle. Everything in between is murky.

Everything stated by the pro-Zimmerman side on how Martin chased or followed Zimmerman and then attacked him is unproven and lacks credibility.

:crazy: It's the prosecution's job to disprove Zimmerman's story, not the other way around. And so far, there is no evidence to support the claim that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Breed
04-23-2012, 07:03 PM
You made exactly my points.
Now to your evidence: We have yet to see evidence from the ground. We have not seen DNA, evidence collected etc. The only thing we have are 911 tapes and a few witness statements which were from different times and differentiate here and there.
We have 'John' who remembers everything down to the color of the shirt on a rainy, dark night in a barely lit walkway. He is next to Zimmerman the only one saying that Martin pounded Zimmerman's head on the concrete. We have witnesses who saw Zimmerman get up from Martin, not the other way around, while being on the grass. We have also one witness who saw another man with a flash light walking over to Zimmerman right after the shooting (maybe John???).
Based on witness testimony this case could never be solved.

It will be all forensics.

Link please.

EDIT: Even if the witnesses saw what you claim they saw, that doesn't prove anything. If Zimmerman is on the bottom, he could just as easily lift up on Trayvon's body, slide out from Trayvon's body, then use Trayvon's body as leverage to get up off the ground. But like you said, the forensic evidence will tell us what happened for sure.

phins_4_ever
04-23-2012, 07:52 PM
Intent doesn't necessarily carry the connotation of murder.

Voluntary Manslaughter
It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction: (1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person; (2) the defendant must have actually been provoked; (3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and (4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period.

Provocation is justifiable if a reasonable person under similar circumstances would be induced to act in the same manner as the defendant. It must be found that the degree of provocation was such that a reasonable person would lose self-control. In actual practice, there is no precise formula for determining reasonableness. It is a matter that is determined by the trier of fact, either the jury or the judge in a nonjury trial, after a full consideration of the evidence.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

Second Degree Murder
Impulsive Killings with Malice Aforethought

These sorts of killings occur in the heat of the moment, and dont involve any premeditation on the part of the killer. At the moment the murder occurs, the killer definitely intends to kill the victim, but up to that moment, the killer had no intent or plan to commit murder.

For example, Adam and Bill are neighbors, and lately they've been having disagreements over the fence between their properties. Adam pays Bill a visit to discuss the matter, but gets angry in the process, pulls out a gun and shoots and kills Bill.

Adam didnt didnt have any plan to kill Bill when he went to Bill's house that day, so there was no premeditation. At the time of the murder, however, Adam fully intended to kill Bill because of his anger over the fence, so there was malice aforethought. Most states that distinguish between degrees of murder would consider that a second degree murder.

Killings after an Act Intended to Cause Serious Bodily Harm

A second category of acts that constitute second degree murder are acts where the perpetrator intends to cause serious bodily harm with the full knowledge that death is a possible result of the act. The killer might not necessarily intend to kill the victim, but knows that death is a likely outcome.

For example, in the situation above, instead of shooting Bill, Adam grabs a shovel and hits Bill on the head with all his strength. Adam didnt explicitly intend to kill Bill when he hit him, but he did intend to hit him with the tire iron, and he knew that such a blow to the head carried with it a distinct possibility of death. Adams killing of Bill in this instance also constitutes second degree murder.

Killings Resulting from a Depraved Indifference to Human Life

The third main type of second degree murder occurs when a victim dies as a result of the perpetrators depraved indifference to human life. Depraved indifference to human life can mean different things in different jurisdictions, but in general it signifies that the perpetrator had an utter disregard for the potential damage to human life that their actions could cause.

Going back to Adam and Bill, imagine that, instead of hitting Bill over the head with the tire iron, Adam grabbed his gun and fired in anger into a crowd of onlookers. Adam didnt necessarily mean to kill anyone, but also didnt give any thought to the harm that his actions could cause in the crowd. This demonstrates Adams depraved indifference to human life. If one of Adams bullets struck and killed anyone in the crowd, then Adam has probably committed second degree murder.

I think you really like to 'read yourself' like others like to hear themselves.

I think I made my point clear why I think the prosecution went for 2nd degree murder rather than manslaughter and why they didn't go for 1st degree murder charges. I really could care less what you think and how you think (though you made my argument with this post) because I didn't choose 2nd degree murder charges nor was that my first choice. I didn't even state my opinion.
And that is exactly where you go wrong with my posts. My only opinion I ever had was that Zimmerman should have been arrested right away and a normal thorough investigation should have been done. And all that crap (media etc) would have never happened. That case was over 10 days old before it it national media.
All my posts were interpretation of the charges and in regards to the actual happenings it was "you say tomato, I say tomato"-type posts because when the pro-Zimmerman side invents facts I just threw out a similar scenario which probably was just as unlikely. But you would have understood that if you would be reading my posts.

Breed
04-23-2012, 08:04 PM
All my posts were interpretation of the charges and in regards to the actual happenings it was "you say tomato, I say tomato"-type posts

It doesn't change the fact that what you described was voluntary manslaughter, not second degree murder.


because when the pro-Zimmerman side invents facts I just threw out a similar scenario which probably was just as unlikely. But you would have understood that if you would be reading my posts.

What facts have we invented?

phins_4_ever
04-23-2012, 08:12 PM
You should try backing up that absurd claim.



:crazy: It's the prosecution's job to disprove Zimmerman's story, not the other way around. And so far, there is no evidence to support the claim that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Geez. That is why I didn't want to respond to your posts. They are all Pretzel arguments/posts (to say it with your words).

I doubt I have to back up that claim. You have two giga-threads where the pro-Zimmerman side always came up with stories like:

- He went back to the car and stayed there
- Martin chased and attacked him
- Head pounded like a coconut on asphalt
etc etc etc

This is invention and events based on hear-say up to this point and not backed up by facts. PERIOD! End of story.
We don't even know if the wound on Zimmerman's head came from a pounding on asphalt. You have Zimmerman's word (one side of the story). If listening to one side of the story is for you enough evidence to either convict someone or call someone innocent then I can only hope you are not working in any capacity of law or law enforcement.

And I sure don't know where that second part comes from. If you read my posts I doubt that you have ever read anything like 'Zimmerman has to prove' from me.
Of course the prosecution has to prove Zimmerman's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Did I ever state anything different?
And sure we don't know if Zimmerman followed Martin after that initial call. But I am also sure the prosecution will ask Zimmerman how he got to that little walkway in the first place. At one point or another Zimmerman must have left his car again. Why? Only he knows and he has to answer that question.

phins_4_ever
04-23-2012, 08:23 PM
It doesn't change the fact that what you described was voluntary manslaughter, not second degree murder.


If you continue not reading my posts please stop responding to them.

This is what I wrote about 2nd degree murder:

2nd Degree murder charge is defined as non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility and as the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery.

and


Manslaughter requires no intend whatsoever. I described 2nd Degree murder which has intention included.

And this is from your very own post about 2nd degree murder:

These sorts of killings occur in the heat of the moment, and dont involve any premeditation on the part of the killer. At the moment the murder occurs, the killer definitely intends to kill the victim, but up to that moment, the killer had no intent or plan to commit murder.

For example, Adam and Bill are neighbors, and lately they've been having disagreements over the fence between their properties. Adam pays Bill a visit to discuss the matter, but gets angry in the process, pulls out a gun and shoots and kills Bill.

Adam didnt didnt have any plan to kill Bill when he went to Bill's house that day, so there was no premeditation. At the time of the murder, however, Adam fully intended to kill Bill because of his anger over the fence, so there was malice aforethought. Most states that distinguish between degrees of murder would consider that a second degree murder.

NamathDrunkLove
04-23-2012, 08:50 PM
If you continue not reading my posts please stop responding to them.

This is what I wrote about 2nd degree murder:


and



And this is from your very own post about 2nd degree murder:

You continue to look silly. Again, it us up to the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman's account is not correct. Please, state for me ONE piece of evidence that would even suggest that he is being untruthful. The fact of the matter is at this point there is more evidence to suggest that Zimmerman is being truthful as opposed to him not being truthful. The physical evidence supports Zimmerman's claim. You keep on bringing up "invented" facts. Give an example. You have been called out many times on this matter but have yet to produce anything.

Edit: There are different classifications of manslaughter (like breed mentioned) just as there are different classifications of murder. Not all manslaughter is the same just as not all murder is the same.

Breed
04-23-2012, 09:08 PM
Geez. That is why I didn't want to respond to your posts. They are all Pretzel arguments/posts (to say it with your words).

I doubt I have to back up that claim. You have two giga-threads where the pro-Zimmerman side always came up with stories like:

- He went back to the car and stayed there
- Martin chased and attacked him

You should really learn how to read. I have never stated Zimmerman unequivocally did those things. I've sated numerous times that Zimmerman's story "may" be true. You may not be intelligent enough to know the distinction, but be rest assured, there is one. Meanwhile, you have always maintained that Zimmerman is lying. Where's the evidence to support he's lying?

Again, it's not Zimmerman's side that has to be proved. It's the prosecution that has to prove that 1. Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon, and 2. Zimmerman had a depraved mind. Argue if you will, but those are the facts.


- Head pounded like a coconut on asphalt
etc etc etc

This is invention and events based on hear-say up to this point and not backed up by facts. PERIOD! End of story. We don't even know if the wound on Zimmerman's head came from the pounding on asphalt.

That's funny, because the lead investigator (the person who filed the Affidavit) was asked by Zimmerman's attorney: 'wouldn't the evidence support Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon smashed his head against the sidewalk?' Gilbreath answered by saying something like: 'his head injuries were consistent with hitting something harder than his head. . .' Zimmerman's attorney then replied, 'like a sidewalk', and Gilbreath responded, 'that's possible.' What else could it have been?


You have Zimmerman's word (one side of the story). If listening to one side of the story is for you enough evidence to either convict someone or call someone innocent then I can only hope you not working in any capacity of law or law enforcement.

And I sure don't know where that second part comes from. If you read my posts I doubt that you have ever read anything like 'Zimmerman has to prove' from me. Of course the prosecution has to prove Zimmerman's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Did I ever state anything different.
And sure we don't know if Zimmerman followed Martin after that initial call. But I am sure the prosecution will then ask Zimmerman how got to that little walkway in the first place. At one point or another Zimmerman must have left his car again. Why? Only he knows and he has to answer that question.

I have never stated that Zimmerman "was" innocent. Zimmerman "may" have acted in self-defense, or he "may not have." My whole argument has always been the absurdity of assuming Zimmerman's guilt. Something many on this board are guilty of.

phins_4_ever
04-23-2012, 09:10 PM
You continue to look silly. Again, it us up to the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman's account is not correct. Please, state for me ONE piece of evidence that would even suggest that he is being untruthful. The fact of the matter is at this point there is more evidence to suggest that Zimmerman is being truthful as opposed to him not being truthful. The physical evidence supports Zimmerman's claim. You keep on bringing up "invented" facts. Give an example. You have been called out many times on this matter but have yet to produce anything.

Edit: There are different classifications of manslaughter (like breed mentioned) just as there are different classifications of murder. Not all manslaughter is the same just as not all murder is the same.

OK Breed ...uhum...Namath. You are repeating the same crap like your 'better half'. At no time have I said that Zimmerman has to prove his innocence. So your attempt of creating an argument out of thin air is a waste of time.

You have a picture and Zimmerman's word and one mystery witness ('John'). 2/3 is 'say', 1/3 is a picture. That's not evidence to let someone go free after shooting another person. You also have a couple of witnesses who differ in the aftermath from Zimmerman and 'John'. But that too is 'say'.
Evidence is clothing, bullet wound, DNA samples, crime scene evidence. Too many people were falsely accused and found guilty based on 'witness testimony' just to be released decades later because DNA forensics advanced and their innocence was proven.

If the evidence clears Zimmerman of wrong doing, fine. But until then everything is speculation.

a) I have been 'called out' once
b) I said a couple posts in a response to you....uhm...Breed that there are two threads. The heck I will start linking individual posts. I gave three headlines, that is suffice.
c) 'called out' is such a childish term. What are you? A teenage internet warrior who is on a mission to call others out?

PS I really don't care that I look silly to you. It is not my fault that you can't read posts.

PPS Your EDIT: of course there are. Did I ever state anything different? And I did not file charges. I just reasoned why they did. In the end, one of Breed's quotes about 2nd degree murder were almost identical to mine. So where is the problem?

Breed
04-23-2012, 09:43 PM
This is what I wrote about 2nd degree murder:
2nd Degree murder charge is defined as non-premeditated killing, resulting from an assault in which death of the victim was a distinct possibility and as the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
Second degree murder is different from First Degree Murder which is a premeditated, intentional killing, or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery.
and
Manslaughter requires no intend whatsoever. I described 2nd Degree murder which has intention included.


Fantastic. You know the difference between first and second degree murder.


And this is from your very own post about 2nd degree murder:
These sorts of killings occur in the heat of the moment, and dont involve any premeditation on the part of the killer. At the moment the murder occurs, the killer definitely intends to kill the victim, but up to that moment, the killer had no intent or plan to commit murder.

For example, Adam and Bill are neighbors, and lately they've been having disagreements over the fence between their properties. Adam pays Bill a visit to discuss the matter, but gets angry in the process, pulls out a gun and shoots and kills Bill.

Adam didnt didnt have any plan to kill Bill when he went to Bill's house that day, so there was no premeditation. At the time of the murder, however, Adam fully intended to kill Bill because of his anger over the fence, so there was malice aforethought. Most states that distinguish between degrees of murder would consider that a second degree murder.


Hmm. Do you notice what's missing? Ah yes, provocation.

Voluntary Manslaughter
It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice. . . Provocation is justifiable if a reasonable person under similar circumstances would be induced to act in the same manner as the defendant. It must be found that the degree of provocation was such that a reasonable person would lose self-control.

Given that Zimmerman had visible wounds and Trayvon did not, it makes a lot more sense that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked and decided to shoot. That sounds like possible provocation to me.

Again, this: Zimmerman could be guilty of 2nd degree murder if the prosecution can simply prove that Zimmerman did not act in self defense and used his weapon in an aggressive manner while having other options available. This 'who was running after who' is actually secondary and would only be important if 1st degree murder chargers would have been filed.
. . . is not 2nd degree murder. That is manslaughter.

irish fin fan
04-23-2012, 09:44 PM
Jessica Alba could sit on your face, and you wouldn't just doubt whether or not it was Jessica Alba, but whether or not she even sat on your face.

Took you long enough to respond. Did you come up with that all by yourself? Go back to writing your war and peace size posts.

phins_4_ever
04-23-2012, 09:47 PM
You should really learn how to read. I have never stated Zimmerman unequivocally did those things. I've sated numerous times that Zimmerman's story "may" be true. You may not be intelligent enough to know the distinction, but be rest assured, there is one. Meanwhile, you have always maintained that Zimmerman is lying. Where's the evidence to support he's lying?

Again, it's not Zimmerman's side that has to be proved. It's the prosecution that has to prove that 1. Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon, and 2. Zimmerman had a depraved mind. Argue if you will, but those are the facts.




That's funny, because the lead investigator (the person who filed the Affidavit) said Zimmerman's head injuries were consistent with having been smashed against the sidewalk.



I have never stated that Zimmerman "was" innocent. Zimmerman "may" have acted in self-defense, or he "may not have." My whole argument has always been the absurdity of assuming Zimmerman's guilt. Something many on this board are guilty of.

And you are so guilty of not comprehending.

I really make that short and painless. Because I have no time to go into a stupid chit chat. That is why I didn't respond to your crap in the first place. I observed that you are misreading a lot of posts or just not comprehending some things - not just with my posts but you twisted many posts.

Paragraph 1: You said "I have never stated Zimmerman unequivocally did those things" in response to pro-Zimmerman side.

I generalized my friend. I never said YOU did write these things. I took a couple of headlines from the pro-Zimmerman side. So if you didn't write these things: good for you.
I never said he did lie. I just argued that listening to just one side is not right. Since the other side can not defend himself because of the circumstance that he is dead, the evidence has to make the case for the other side of the story. Maybe Zimmerman says the truth, maybe not. I don't know. I wasn't there.
And once again I never said that Zimmerman has to proof anything. Geez.

Paragraph 2:
Honestly, I don't want to start arguing about the definition of pounding and smashing. The definition of pounding is striking hard/heavily or repeatedly. I define pounding as the latter while smashing I define equal to the former. If I would have used the original phrase 'pounding like a coconut' (paraphrased) most would agree the latter is meant.
Like I said: I am not arguing about the definition.

Paragraph 3:
I didn't say that you stated that Zimmerman was innocent. My exact quote was:

If listening to one side of the story is for you enough evidence to either convict someone or call someone innocent then I can only hope you not working in any capacity of law or law enforcement.

I used "If" in a conditional sentence with a hypothetical situation and the consequence "that I can only hope". I may have confused you a little bit by using 'then' which can also be used in factual situations.

Just to clarify: I was talking hypothetical.

I can't call Zimmerman guilty or innocent. I just don't know and I do not let myself be carried away. My problem was always that it has taken that long for a thorough investigation. That the State Attorney's office filed 2nd degree murder charges is a surprise to me too but at this point I could not say if it is valid or not. I have not seen any evidence one way or another.

phins_4_ever
04-23-2012, 09:55 PM
Fantastic. You know the difference between first and second degree murder.



Hmm. Do you notice what's missing? Ah yes, provocation.

Voluntary Manslaughter
It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice. . . Provocation is justifiable if a reasonable person under similar circumstances would be induced to act in the same manner as the defendant. It must be found that the degree of provocation was such that a reasonable person would lose self-control.

Given that Zimmerman had visible wounds and Trayvon did not, it makes a lot more sense that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked and decided to shoot. That sounds like possible provocation to me.

And exactly that we do not know. But hard evidence will prove it either way.

PhinzN703
04-23-2012, 10:14 PM
I don't see racism here, at least the way you may mean it. If there is any racism here it was applied onto Zimmerman by NBC, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and the new Black Panthers. Now if you are reffering to that I'm with you.

Don't forget Zimmerman lives in a neighborhood where minorities are the majority.

I was talking about the article that Breed posted, the one where the african american committed a crime against a white person in honor of Trayvon Martin. That guy I'm referring to is who I was calling the moronic racist.

Dolphins9954
04-23-2012, 10:24 PM
What we do know is that the State didn't show any evidence of murder 2 on their affidavit. We also know that the State admitted to not having the evidence for who started the fight or disputing Zimmerman's claim that he went back to his car. Now given the charge of murder 2 the State is going to have to come up with some more evidence or another more detailed affidavit to move this case forward. If not it's possible that this whole thing could get thrown out.

kansasfan
04-23-2012, 10:35 PM
who knows

phins_4_ever
04-23-2012, 10:40 PM
What we do know is that the State didn't show any evidence of murder 2 on their affidavit. We also know that the State admitted to not having the evidence for who started the fight or disputing Zimmerman's claim that he went back to his car. Now given the charge of murder 2 the State is going to have to come up with some more evidence or another more detailed affidavit to move this case forward. If not it's possible that this whole thing could get thrown out.

It was a bail hearing not a preliminary hearing or the trial. Any evidence the prosecution may have will produced then.

Dolphins9954
04-23-2012, 10:47 PM
It was a bail hearing not a preliminary hearing or the trial. Any evidence the prosecution may have will produced then.


What we do know is that the State admitted to not having the evidence to key parts of there own affidavit.....


Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home... Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued. Witnesses heard people arguing and what sounded like a struggle. During this time period witnesses heard numerous calls for help and some of these were recorded in 911 calls to police. Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's voice...

ohall
04-24-2012, 05:17 AM
It was a bail hearing not a preliminary hearing or the trial. Any evidence the prosecution may have will produced then.

So was the lead detective lying on the stand when he stated they had no evidence regarding if Zimmerman walked back or even left his car or who started the fight?

louie
04-24-2012, 08:01 AM
The whole thing is so sad.

Breed
04-24-2012, 08:57 AM
And you are so guilty of not comprehending.

I really make that short and painless. Because I have no time to go into a stupid chit chat. That is why I didn't respond to your crap in the first place. I observed that you are misreading a lot of posts or just not comprehending some things - not just with my posts but you twisted many posts.

How have I twisted anything?


Paragraph 1: You said "I have never stated Zimmerman unequivocally did those things" in response to pro-Zimmerman side.
. . . I generalized my friend. I never said YOU did write these things. I took a couple of headlines from the pro-Zimmerman side. So if you didn't write these things: good for you.
And once again I never said that Zimmerman has to proof anything. Geez.

The "pro-Zimmerman" side has made the assertion, that based among other things, Zimmerman's story, that it was Zimmerman crying for help. This will probably never be proven one way or the other. But it's logical to assume, that if Zimmerman was overheard at the scene of the incident saying, 'I cried for help but nobody came' (What brought on that statement? Was he asked, or did he voluntarily give it? If he voluntarily gave the information, how could he possibly have the foresight to see this would become such a key piece of evidence?), that it really was him. From what we know, Zimmerman sustained visible injuries, Trayvon did not. This only further supports Zimmerman's claim.

Meanwhile, the "anti-Zimmerman" side wants to believe everything that contradicts Zimmerman's story, be it witness testimony that relies more on feelings than facts, a low-res video that confirms Zimmerman had little to no injury, etc. Your side has made the assertion that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon, even though there is absolutely nothing to back it up.

The common "pro-Zimmerman" assertion (that it was Zimmerman crying out for help) does not morally get him off the hook, as he could still be guilty of manslaughter (but thanks to the prosecution overcharging, even if guilty of manslaughter, he could legally get off the hook). Whereas, the "anti-Zimmerman" camp asserts that Zimmerman continued to follow, so even if it is proven that Zimmerman was the one crying for help, he is at least guilty of manslaughter.

This discussion has gone on for quite some time. I know for a fact that I never assumed Zimmerman's innocence, and since the common assertion of the "pro-Zimmerman side" still leaves room for manslaughter, they haven't either.


. . .I never said he did lie. I just argued that listening to just one side is not right. Since the other side can not defend himself because of the circumstance that he is dead, the evidence has to make the case for the other side of the story. Maybe Zimmerman says the truth, maybe not. I don't know. I wasn't there. . .

Paragraph 3:
I didn't say that you stated that Zimmerman was innocent. My exact quote was:

I used "If" in a conditional sentence with a hypothetical situation and the consequence "that I can only hope". I may have confused you a little bit by using 'then' which can also be used in factual situations.

Just to clarify: I was talking hypothetical.

It may not be right or fair, but there is no "other" side. Trayvon's family and friends can't give his side of the story, all they can do is defend his character. Zimmerman, however, is alive, so he can give his side of the story. It's one sided, nobody is claiming otherwise, but until there's something that can put some "reasonable doubt" into Zimmerman's story, how can it be reasonably argued that Zimmerman has been untruthful?

LANGER72
04-24-2012, 10:02 AM
Well done Breed.
Hopefully Zimmerman get's a fair trial with an impartial jury.
Both sides deserve it.

Breed
04-24-2012, 03:31 PM
I don't know about it being common but what it is doing is revealing how many moronic racists there are out in this country.

Good luck getting future employment with this new blemish on your record fella.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/04/4213-justice-for-trayvon/

Breed
04-24-2012, 03:36 PM
Well done Breed.
Hopefully Zimmerman get's a fair trial with an impartial jury.
Both sides deserve it.

Hopefully the trial happens this year, who knows how many racially motivated "justice for Trayvon" beatings take place between now and then.

NY8123
04-25-2012, 10:08 AM
I haven't got time for this **** anymore, I have a better murder case right here in my back yard that involves a dude I knew, his girlfriend her ex-husband the ex-husbands step brother and possibly two others. One murdered guy, one dead murderer and two arrested so far and it is all local. Piss on the Zimmerman case.

and for those who don't see the sarcasm in my post, you miss my point. This case will be the hot topic until ADD America has some other bigger better and more shocking cause to take up and that my friends is the bigger problem with the world we live in today.

(I wasn't lying about the local murder case, that **** is true and insane).

LANGER72
04-25-2012, 04:07 PM
Hopefully the trial happens this year, who knows how many racially motivated "justice for Trayvon" beatings take place between now and then.


I would like to see some KKK and black panthers do a full contact cage match with mid-evil weapons. Let the idiots go at each other.
:lol:

Seriously, with all the publicity back and forth, anyone that commits a crime in the name of Trayvon or Zimmerman would be committing a premeditated hate crime..IMHO.