551 replies to this topic

[Saorsa]

George has to establish credibility. Today he hurt himself a bit with that strange apology. On the 911 tape he said "late teens", and today in the hearing that became "I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am."

The apology was exactly what one would expect his lawyer to write for him. Making prominant comments like "I didn't know he wasn't armed" etc.

Why would his lawyer ask him to say something that contradicts what he said on the 911 tape?

Why would his lawyer ask him to say ANYTHING? Any defense lawyer worth their salt will tell their client to STFU until they can control what is said along with the manner and tone in which it is said. I don't think his lawyer put him up to that.

I think it was a pretty smart move. Zimmerman came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person. Quite a contrary image to that of a mad stalker tracking down a poor black child to murder him.

[Bull Gator]

ted bundy came off pretty well to.

[Regatta Dog]

ted bundy came off pretty well to.

"to" what, did Bundy come off pretty well?

Go Gators. It says a lot about a school when they graduate an illiterate like BG.

[Bus Driver]

George has to establish credibility. Today he hurt himself a bit with that strange apology. On the 911 tape he said "late teens", and today in the hearing that became "I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am."

The apology was exactly what one would expect his lawyer to write for him. Making prominant comments like "I didn't know he wasn't armed" etc.

Why would his lawyer ask him to say something that contradicts what he said on the 911 tape?

Why would his lawyer ask him to say ANYTHING? Any defense lawyer worth their salt will tell their client to STFU until they can control what is said along with the manner and tone in which it is said. I don't think his lawyer put him up to that.

I think it was a pretty smart move. Zimmerman came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person. Quite a contrary image to that of a mad stalker tracking down a poor black child to murder him.

I don't disagree that Martin "came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person". I disagree that a defense attorney would ask him to say something like that. Having said that, I should mention I am neither an attorney nor have I recently stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

Anyone out there with a law degree who cares to comment on Martin's statement?

[GRUMPY]

The apology was exactly what one would expect his lawyer to write for him. Making prominant comments like "I didn't know he wasn't armed" etc.

Why would his lawyer ask him to say something that contradicts what he said on the 911 tape?

Why would his lawyer ask him to say ANYTHING? Any defense lawyer worth their salt will tell their client to STFU until they can control what is said along with the manner and tone in which it is said. I don't think his lawyer put him up to that.

I think it was a pretty smart move. Zimmerman came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person. Quite a contrary image to that of a mad stalker tracking down a poor black child to murder him.

I don't disagree that Martin "came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person". I disagree that a defense attorney would ask him to say something like that. Having said that, I should mention I am neither an attorney nor have I recently stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

Anyone out there with a law degree who cares to comment on Martin's statement?

Martin's dead BD.You paying attention?

I don't have a law degree.

[Bus Driver]

I don't disagree that Zimmerman "came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person". I disagree that a defense attorney would ask him to say something like that. Having said that, I should mention I am neither an attorney nor have I recently stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

Anyone out there with a law degree who cares to comment on Zimmerman's statement?

Martin's dead BD.You paying attention?

I don't have a law degree.

Whoops. I have amended my response above. Should not post before consuming coffee.

Thanks, Grumps.

[GRUMPY]

I was just funning with ya. I knew what you meant.

[Sol Rosenberg]

I don't disagree that Zimmerman "came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person". I disagree that a defense attorney would ask him to say something like that. Having said that, I should mention I am neither an attorney nor have I recently stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

Anyone out there with a law degree who cares to comment on Zimmerman's statement?

Martin's dead BD.You paying attention?

I don't have a law degree.

Whoops. I have amended my response above. Should not post before consuming coffee.

Thanks, Grumps.

I don't do criminal work, so I'll defer to the experts.

[Me too]

I'm no lawyer and its been a long time since I spent the night at a Holiday Inn. I don't see how this even goes to trial. Zimmerman's story is backed by at least one eye witness, a 911 call, medical report, photos at the scene, powder burns on victim and ear witnesses. All Zimmerman needs is reasonable doubt by one juror.

I see a long cooling off period followed by a hearing where all charges are dropped. A trial would be embarrassing to the prosecution.

[Saorsa]

The apology was exactly what one would expect his lawyer to write for him. Making prominant comments like "I didn't know he wasn't armed" etc.

Why would his lawyer ask him to say something that contradicts what he said on the 911 tape?

Why would his lawyer ask him to say ANYTHING? Any defense lawyer worth their salt will tell their client to STFU until they can control what is said along with the manner and tone in which it is said. I don't think his lawyer put him up to that.

I think it was a pretty smart move. Zimmerman came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person. Quite a contrary image to that of a mad stalker tracking down a poor black child to murder him.

I don't disagree that Martin "came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person". I disagree that a defense attorney would ask him to say something like that. Having said that, I should mention I am neither an attorney nor have I recently stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

Anyone out there with a law degree who cares to comment on Martin's statement?

Since our putative lawyer bailed on you, I'll give you my thoughts.

The relative age difference doesn't mean anything in the bail hearing. It would have been had the prosecutor raised some charge of violence toward a child but, they didn't.

You might consider the actions of a 17 year old as those of a goofy kid if you knew their age. You just view it differently when it's somebody who is about 4 inches taller and in your face and just knocked you down.

[elle]

Why would his lawyer ask him to say something that contradicts what he said on the 911 tape?

Why would his lawyer ask him to say ANYTHING? Any defense lawyer worth their salt will tell their client to STFU until they can control what is said along with the manner and tone in which it is said. I don't think his lawyer put him up to that.

I think it was a pretty smart move. Zimmerman came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person. Quite a contrary image to that of a mad stalker tracking down a poor black child to murder him.

I don't disagree that Martin "came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person". I disagree that a defense attorney would ask him to say something like that. Having said that, I should mention I am neither an attorney nor have I recently stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

Anyone out there with a law degree who cares to comment on Martin's statement?

Since our putative lawyer bailed on you, I'll give you my thoughts.

The relative age difference doesn't mean anything in the bail hearing. It would have been had the prosecutor raised some charge of violence toward a child but, they didn't.

You might consider the actions of a 17 year old as those of a goofy kid if you knew their age. You just view it differently when it's somebody who is about 4 inches taller and in your face and just knocked you down.

a 911 call recording proves that zimmerman recognised martin to be in his late teens, called him an asshole who always gets away and followed him. you do not have proof that martin was "in" zimmerman's face or that martin knocked zimmerman down....any more than you have proof that zimmerman did not do that very thing (get in martin's face and knock him down) to martin himself.

[Saorsa]

I think it was a pretty smart move. Zimmerman came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person. Quite a contrary image to that of a mad stalker tracking down a poor black child to murder him.

I don't disagree that Martin "came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person". I disagree that a defense attorney would ask him to say something like that. Having said that, I should mention I am neither an attorney nor have I recently stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

Anyone out there with a law degree who cares to comment on Martin's statement?

Since our putative lawyer bailed on you, I'll give you my thoughts.

The relative age difference doesn't mean anything in the bail hearing. It would have been had the prosecutor raised some charge of violence toward a child but, they didn't.

You might consider the actions of a 17 year old as those of a goofy kid if you knew their age. You just view it differently when it's somebody who is about 4 inches taller and in your face and just knocked you down.

a 911 call recording proves that zimmerman recognised martin to be in his late teens, called him an asshole who always gets away and followed him. you do not have proof that martin was "in" zimmerman's face or that martin knocked zimmerman down....any more than you have proof that zimmerman did not do that very thing (get in martin's face and knock him down) to martin himself.

Other than the witness statments, the recording of Martin initiating the verbal confrontation and the blood on the back of Zimmerman's head?

[elle]

I think it was a pretty smart move. Zimmerman came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person. Quite a contrary image to that of a mad stalker tracking down a poor black child to murder him.

I don't disagree that Martin "came across as a rational, reasonably bright, well spoken person". I disagree that a defense attorney would ask him to say something like that. Having said that, I should mention I am neither an attorney nor have I recently stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

Anyone out there with a law degree who cares to comment on Martin's statement?

Since our putative lawyer bailed on you, I'll give you my thoughts.

The relative age difference doesn't mean anything in the bail hearing. It would have been had the prosecutor raised some charge of violence toward a child but, they didn't.

You might consider the actions of a 17 year old as those of a goofy kid if you knew their age. You just view it differently when it's somebody who is about 4 inches taller and in your face and just knocked you down.

a 911 call recording proves that zimmerman recognised martin to be in his late teens, called him an asshole who always gets away and followed him. you do not have proof that martin was "in" zimmerman's face or that martin knocked zimmerman down....any more than you have proof that zimmerman did not do that very thing (get in martin's face and knock him down) to martin himself.

Other than the witness statments, the recording of Martin initiating the verbal confrontation and the blood on the back of Zimmerman's head?

the witness statement does not speak to the distance between zimmerman and martin when martin asked zimmerman why he was following him, it does not speak to who threw the first blow tthough martin would be protected by stand your ground if he felt zimmerman was threatening enough to fear for his life...which apparently he was). the blood on the back of zimmerman's head is minimal and not life threatening and there are a number of ways they could have occured, if inflicted by martin, he is still protected by stand your ground to use force necessary (including deadly force) if his life was threatened (which it obviously was, seeing how zimmerman ended it).

[Me too]

I have been a jury foreman on a murder trial. The defense does not have to prove anything. Just raising the possibility of self defense will get a not guilty verdict. The defense does not have to prove he is innocent. Just a "reasonable doubt" of guilt with one of twelve jurors and Zimmerman walks. You think the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with all 12 jurors? So far the defense attorney looks a bit more skilled than the defense.

[Sol Rosenberg]

So far the defense attorney looks a bit more skilled than the defense.

agreed.

[kmccabe]

I have been a jury foreman on a murder trial. The defense does not have to prove anything. Just raising the possibility of self defense will get a not guilty verdict. The defense does not have to prove he is innocent. Just a "reasonable doubt" of guilt with one of twelve jurors and Zimmerman walks. You think the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with all 12 jurors? So far the defense attorney looks a bit more skilled than the defense.

Ya think this is going to go to a jury?

[Me too]

No. Unless they come up with a video of the shooting showing something completely different from the Zman story.

[Saorsa]

I have been a jury foreman on a murder trial. The defense does not have to prove anything. Just raising the possibility of self defense will get a not guilty verdict. The defense does not have to prove he is innocent. Just a "reasonable doubt" of guilt with one of twelve jurors and Zimmerman walks. You think the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with all 12 jurors? So far the defense attorney looks a bit more skilled than the defense.

Ya think this is going to go to a jury?

It's hard to tell. In some ways, it has to to satisfy the mob. It will be interesting to see who asks for a change of venue. After all, we had to bring the prosecutor and investigators in from out of town to get this far.

I think the SYG law would mean that Zimmerman would be immune from civil suits for unlawful killing if acquitted so, it might be to his advantage to go to court. Not so much so for the Martin family lawyer.

[kmccabe]

It's hard to tell. In some ways, it has to to satisfy the mob. It will be interesting to see who asks for a change of venue. After all, we had to bring the prosecutor and investigators in from out of town to get this far.

I think the SYG law would mean that Zimmerman would be immune from civil suits for unlawful killing if acquitted so, it might be to his advantage to go to court. Not so much so for the Martin family lawyer.

So you mean a murderous, killer is going to walk? What will happen? I think we need to rally and DO SOMETHING.

[elle]

I have been a jury foreman on a murder trial. The defense does not have to prove anything. Just raising the possibility of self defense will get a not guilty verdict. The defense does not have to prove he is innocent. Just a "reasonable doubt" of guilt with one of twelve jurors and Zimmerman walks. You think the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with all 12 jurors? So far the defense attorney looks a bit more skilled than the defense.

ok...can we agree zimmerman committed homicide, first off.
it is pretty easy to prove, right?
self defense is an affrimative defense, right? you understand that part too, do you not?...which means he has already admitted to the homicide, now he does have to prove that his claim of self defense is valid...in other words..."yes, i killed an unarmed 17 yr old boy and this is why...".
the judge has already found probable cause, so yeah, your man zimmerman will indeed have to prove he acted in self defense.
the jury will decide if they feel he has met the requirement.
i am arguing that martin had a right to stand his ground if he perceived a threat and reasonable fear of bodily harm from zimmerman...it looks as if he had reason to believe his life was threatened...because he is now dead.

[Saorsa]

I have been a jury foreman on a murder trial. The defense does not have to prove anything. Just raising the possibility of self defense will get a not guilty verdict. The defense does not have to prove he is innocent. Just a "reasonable doubt" of guilt with one of twelve jurors and Zimmerman walks. You think the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with all 12 jurors? So far the defense attorney looks a bit more skilled than the defense.

ok...can we agree zimmerman committed homicide, first off.
it is pretty easy to prove, right?
self defense is an affrimative defense, right? you understand that part too, do you not?...which means he has already admitted to the homicide, now he does have to prove that his claim of self defense is valid...in other words..."yes, i killed an unarmed 17 yr old boy and this is why...".
the judge has already found probable cause, so yeah, your man zimmerman will indeed have to prove he acted in self defense.
the jury will decide if they feel he has met the requirement.
i am arguing that martin had a right to stand his ground if he perceived a threat and reasonable fear of bodily harm from zimmerman...it looks as if he had reason to believe his life was threatened...because he is now dead.

I know the prosecutor found probable cause. Please let us know when the judge does.

[elle]

april 12, 2012, you fucking dolt.
http://www.shrevepor...ce-Fla-shooting

[Bus Driver]

I have been a jury foreman on a murder trial. The defense does not have to prove anything. Just raising the possibility of self defense will get a not guilty verdict. The defense does not have to prove he is innocent. Just a "reasonable doubt" of guilt with one of twelve jurors and Zimmerman walks. You think the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with all 12 jurors? So far the defense attorney looks a bit more skilled than the defense.

ok...can we agree zimmerman committed homicide, first off.
it is pretty easy to prove, right?
self defense is an affrimative defense, right? you understand that part too, do you not?...which means he has already admitted to the homicide, now he does have to prove that his claim of self defense is valid...in other words..."yes, i killed an unarmed 17 yr old boy and this is why...".
the judge has already found probable cause, so yeah, your man zimmerman will indeed have to prove he acted in self defense.
the jury will decide if they feel he has met the requirement.
i am arguing that martin had a right to stand his ground if he perceived a threat and reasonable fear of bodily harm from zimmerman...it looks as if he had reason to believe his life was threatened...because he is now dead.

I don't believe Zimmerman has to prove anything. Reasonable doubt in the mind of just one juror is what they seek.

It is up to the state to prove a crime was committed.

[Me too]

I have been a jury foreman on a murder trial. The defense does not have to prove anything. Just raising the possibility of self defense will get a not guilty verdict. The defense does not have to prove he is innocent. Just a "reasonable doubt" of guilt with one of twelve jurors and Zimmerman walks. You think the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with all 12 jurors? So far the defense attorney looks a bit more skilled than the defense.

ok...can we agree zimmerman committed homicide, first off.
it is pretty easy to prove, right?
self defense is an affrimative defense, right? you understand that part too, do you not?...which means he has already admitted to the homicide, now he does have to prove that his claim of self defense is valid...in other words..."yes, i killed an unarmed 17 yr old boy and this is why...".
the judge has already found probable cause, so yeah, your man zimmerman will indeed have to prove he acted in self defense.
the jury will decide if they feel he has met the requirement.
i am arguing that martin had a right to stand his ground if he perceived a threat and reasonable fear of bodily harm from zimmerman...it looks as if he had reason to believe his life was threatened...because he is now dead.

[Me too]

Looks to me like Martin was the aggressor. I believe he threw the first punch. Does not make any sense a neighborhood watch dude calls 911, then starts a fight knowing the cops are on the way.

Martin was on top of Zman beating the crap out Zman for like 45 seconds before a gun was fired.

[elle]

Looks to me like Martin was the aggressor. I believe he threw the first punch.

well what you or i "think" doesn't really matter. and what you "believe" is nothing but speculation, a hypothetical...

[Mark K]

Looks to me like Martin was the aggressor. I believe he threw the first punch. Does not make any sense a neighborhood watch dude calls 911, then starts a fight knowing the cops are on the way.

Martin was on top of Zman beating the crap out Zman for like 45 seconds before a gun was fired.

The aggressor just might be determined to be the pursuer, who is on record as describing the assholes behavior as running away.

[elle]

I have been a jury foreman on a murder trial. The defense does not have to prove anything. Just raising the possibility of self defense will get a not guilty verdict. The defense does not have to prove he is innocent. Just a "reasonable doubt" of guilt with one of twelve jurors and Zimmerman walks. You think the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with all 12 jurors? So far the defense attorney looks a bit more skilled than the defense.

ok...can we agree zimmerman committed homicide, first off.
it is pretty easy to prove, right?
self defense is an affrimative defense, right? you understand that part too, do you not?...which means he has already admitted to the homicide, now he does have to prove that his claim of self defense is valid...in other words..."yes, i killed an unarmed 17 yr old boy and this is why...".
the judge has already found probable cause, so yeah, your man zimmerman will indeed have to prove he acted in self defense.
the jury will decide if they feel he has met the requirement.
i am arguing that martin had a right to stand his ground if he perceived a threat and reasonable fear of bodily harm from zimmerman...it looks as if he had reason to believe his life was threatened...because he is now dead.

I don't believe Zimmerman has to prove anything. Reasonable doubt in the mind of just one juror is what they seek.

It is up to the state to prove a crime was committed.

a homicide was committed. for that not to be a crime, it must be proved to have been self defense. you cannot go about shooting unarmed teenagers and claiming self defense and expect not be required to show that you actually were acting in self defense if you are charged.
here is how it goes...mr zimmerman committed homicide against an unarmed teenager.
he is being charged for that killing.
he must then defend himself by offering a defense of self defense....it is an affirmative defense and therefore the person who claims self defense (affirmative defense) bears the burden of proof.
in other words...the plaintif claims the defendant committed homicide (in this case been charged with murder 2) the defendent has not denyed he committed homicide, he is claiming self defense...since he is not denying the killing he is asking to be excused by claiming he acted in self defense.. the burden of proof falls to him to show he acted in self defense....
sure reasonable doubt by even 1 juror can let him off the hook....no one argued otherwise.

[Saorsa]

april 12, 2012, you fucking dolt.
http://www.shrevepor...ce-Fla-shooting

Judge Mark E. Herr said he found probable cause to move ahead with the case and that an arraignment would be held on May 29 before another judge.

Ahh, the judge at the arraignment.(Judge Mark E. Herr). All he agreed to was that the case could go forward to trial. He is out of the picture now.

I thought you meant the judge (Judge Kenneth Lester Jr.)who was assigned for the trial.

[Bus Driver]

I have been a jury foreman on a murder trial. The defense does not have to prove anything. Just raising the possibility of self defense will get a not guilty verdict. The defense does not have to prove he is innocent. Just a "reasonable doubt" of guilt with one of twelve jurors and Zimmerman walks. You think the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with all 12 jurors? So far the defense attorney looks a bit more skilled than the defense.

ok...can we agree zimmerman committed homicide, first off.
it is pretty easy to prove, right?
self defense is an affrimative defense, right? you understand that part too, do you not?...which means he has already admitted to the homicide, now he does have to prove that his claim of self defense is valid...in other words..."yes, i killed an unarmed 17 yr old boy and this is why...".
the judge has already found probable cause, so yeah, your man zimmerman will indeed have to prove he acted in self defense.
the jury will decide if they feel he has met the requirement.
i am arguing that martin had a right to stand his ground if he perceived a threat and reasonable fear of bodily harm from zimmerman...it looks as if he had reason to believe his life was threatened...because he is now dead.

I don't believe Zimmerman has to prove anything. Reasonable doubt in the mind of just one juror is what they seek.

It is up to the state to prove a crime was committed.

a homicide was committed. for that not to be a crime, it must be proved to have been self defense. you cannot go about shooting unarmed teenagers and claiming self defense and expect not be required to show that you actually were acting in self defense if you are charged.
here is how it goes...mr zimmerman committed homicide against an unarmed teenager.
he is being charged for that killing.
he must then defend himself by offering a defense of self defense....it is an affirmative defense and therefore the person who claims self defense (affirmative defense) bears the burden of proof.
in other words...the plaintif claims the defendant committed homicide (in this case been charged with murder 2) the defendent has not denyed he committed homicide, he is claiming self defense...since he is not denying the killing he is asking to be excused by claiming he acted in self defense.. the burden of proof falls to him to show he acted in self defense....
sure reasonable doubt by even 1 juror can let him off the hook....no one argued otherwise.

I'm pretty sure the burden is on the prosecutor (hence the title) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of the charge. That charge being 2nd degree murder. Even the link you posted above states how difficult the case is for the state to prove and the threshold for Zimmerman to assert self-defense is far lower. Here -

"The prosecutor and her team will have to prove that the 28-year-old Zimmerman intentionally went after Martin instead of shooting him in self-defense, to refute arguments that a Florida law empowered him to use deadly force."

and

"The prosecutors must prove Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was rooted in hatred or ill will and counter his claims that he shot Martin to protect himself while patrolling his gated community in the Orlando suburb of Sanford. Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence — a relatively low legal standard — that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial."

[elle]

I have been a jury foreman on a murder trial. The defense does not have to prove anything. Just raising the possibility of self defense will get a not guilty verdict. The defense does not have to prove he is innocent. Just a "reasonable doubt" of guilt with one of twelve jurors and Zimmerman walks. You think the prosecution can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with all 12 jurors? So far the defense attorney looks a bit more skilled than the defense.

ok...can we agree zimmerman committed homicide, first off.
it is pretty easy to prove, right?
self defense is an affrimative defense, right? you understand that part too, do you not?...which means he has already admitted to the homicide, now he does have to prove that his claim of self defense is valid...in other words..."yes, i killed an unarmed 17 yr old boy and this is why...".
the judge has already found probable cause, so yeah, your man zimmerman will indeed have to prove he acted in self defense.
the jury will decide if they feel he has met the requirement.
i am arguing that martin had a right to stand his ground if he perceived a threat and reasonable fear of bodily harm from zimmerman...it looks as if he had reason to believe his life was threatened...because he is now dead.

I don't believe Zimmerman has to prove anything. Reasonable doubt in the mind of just one juror is what they seek.

It is up to the state to prove a crime was committed.

a homicide was committed. for that not to be a crime, it must be proved to have been self defense. you cannot go about shooting unarmed teenagers and claiming self defense and expect not be required to show that you actually were acting in self defense if you are charged.
here is how it goes...mr zimmerman committed homicide against an unarmed teenager.
he is being charged for that killing.
he must then defend himself by offering a defense of self defense....it is an affirmative defense and therefore the person who claims self defense (affirmative defense) bears the burden of proof.
in other words...the plaintif claims the defendant committed homicide (in this case been charged with murder 2) the defendent has not denyed he committed homicide, he is claiming self defense...since he is not denying the killing he is asking to be excused by claiming he acted in self defense.. the burden of proof falls to him to show he acted in self defense....
sure reasonable doubt by even 1 juror can let him off the hook....no one argued otherwise.

I'm pretty sure the burden is on the prosecutor (hence the title) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of the charge. That charge being 2nd degree murder. Even the link you posted above states how difficult the case is for the state to prove and the threshold for Zimmerman to assert self-defense is far lower. Here -

"The prosecutor and her team will have to prove that the 28-year-old Zimmerman intentionally went after Martin instead of shooting him in self-defense, to refute arguments that a Florida law empowered him to use deadly force."

and

"The prosecutors must prove Zimmerman's shooting of Martin was rooted in hatred or ill will and counter his claims that he shot Martin to protect himself while patrolling his gated community in the Orlando suburb of Sanford. Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence — a relatively low legal standard — that he acted in self-defense at a pretrial hearing to prevent the case from going to trial."

that's why they would have been better off going with negligent homicide as recommended by the police, but isn't there something about the use of a gun and the age of the victim that bumped that up?
zimmerman still has a burden...even if the burden is less than reasonable doubt...to assert some facts that support he acted in self defense...
no one said it was gonna be easy for the prosecution...but they do, after all, have a dead body...and zimmerman on 911 call saying he thought the boy to be in his late teens, an asshole who always gets away and that he was following the kid.

[elle]

april 12, 2012, you fucking dolt.
http://www.shrevepor...ce-Fla-shooting

Judge Mark E. Herr said he found probable cause to move ahead with the case and that an arraignment would be held on May 29 before another judge.

Ahh, the judge at the arraignment.(Judge Mark E. Herr). All he agreed to was that the case could go forward to trial. He is out of the picture now.

I thought you meant the judge (Judge Kenneth Lester Jr.)who was assigned for the trial.

correct, the judge found that there was probable cause to charge zimmerman, out of the picture or not is beside the point. he found there was probable cause.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Here's what the prosecution has to show, from 782.04(2), Florida Statutes.

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual

I see three elements. Unlawful killing, imminently dangerous act, depraved mind.

If the state can prove those elements during its case in chief, then the case will survive the motion for judgment of acquittal at the end of the state's case, which the judge will decide. If so, the defense can present its case, including evidence to support its affirmative defense.

776.012(1), Florida Statutes:

He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

I see one main element for the defense to prove up, from three:
1. Reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to prevent
a. imminent death to himself or another person
b. great bodily harm to himself or another person.
c. imminent commission of a forcible felony.

Or the defense could eschew presenting evidence to support an affirmative defense, and just attack the state's case. They could very well rest at the end of the state's case, without presenting a defense, if they do a sufficient job of shredding the state's witnesses.

[Battlecheese]

that's why they would have been better off going with negligent homicide as recommended by the police, but isn't there something about the use of a gun and the age of the victim that bumped that up?
zimmerman still has a burden...even if the burden is less than reasonable doubt...to assert some facts that support he acted in self defense...
no one said it was gonna be easy for the prosecution...but they do, after all, have a dead body...and zimmerman on 911 call saying he thought the boy to be in his late teens, an asshole who always gets away and that he was following the kid.

The charge is bumped up, but this is just for the sentencing. They will not need to meet the regular 2nd degree murder burdan of proof.

[Me too]

Even if this case makes it to trial (big if) how do you get all 12 jurors to agree to Murder 2 or Manslaughter? You are hopelessly split even on Sailing Anarchy! I am just going to wait for the book. You know its coming. I would do one of those movies with the two different versions.

[Battlecheese]

Even if this case makes it to trial (big if) how do you get all 12 jurors to agree to Murder 2 or Manslaughter? You are hopelessly split even on Sailing Anarchy! I am just going to wait for the book. You know its coming. I would do one of those movies with the two different versions.

It's a bit of a problem for the defence that Martin was still on the phone when the incident began.
Possibly the chick will give evidence that Martin was talking to her while doubleing back to stalk Zimmerman, but this seems a tad unlikely.

[Sol Rosenberg]

The most likely reason for this case not getting to trial is plea bargaining. You've already had a judge say that there is probable cause for christsakes.

[Me too]

The most likely reason for this case not getting to trial is plea bargaining. You've already had a judge say that there is probable cause for christsakes.

[elle]

that's why they would have been better off going with negligent homicide as recommended by the police, but isn't there something about the use of a gun and the age of the victim that bumped that up?
zimmerman still has a burden...even if the burden is less than reasonable doubt...to assert some facts that support he acted in self defense...
no one said it was gonna be easy for the prosecution...but they do, after all, have a dead body...and zimmerman on 911 call saying he thought the boy to be in his late teens, an asshole who always gets away and that he was following the kid.

The charge is bumped up, but this is just for the sentencing. They will not need to meet the regular 2nd degree murder burdan of proof.

that is the part i am curious about and unclear on...so is this true?
it seems to me counterproductive to force the state to meet higher standards for a minor being killed and with a gun...while requiring the charge to be higher because the vixtim is a minor and the offense committed with a gun.

[Me too]

I don't see it. What is he going to plead to negligent homicide? The detective already swore he had no evidence Z was not going back to his car and no evidence who started the fight.

[elle]

Even if this case makes it to trial (big if) how do you get all 12 jurors to agree to Murder 2 or Manslaughter? You are hopelessly split even on Sailing Anarchy! I am just going to wait for the book. You know its coming. I would do one of those movies with the two different versions.

well, we aren't privileged to all the evidence as was the judge. he thought there was probable cause and i am inclined to take that as meaning there is probable cause.

[elle]

I don't see it. What is he going to plead to negligent homicide? The detective already swore he had no evidence Z was not going back to his car and no evidence who started the fight.

there is the evidence of following, a kid (in his late teens), that his concern was not letting one of those assholes get away and a dead human being. indicates to me his (zimmerman's) actions precipitated a homicide that could not have happened if he had not instigated it (by following martin).

[atoyot]

Trouble is, what's morally or ethically wrong is not always found legally wrong in the strictest sense of a proveable crime in a court of law.

It would seem that this is where justice may end up being failed in this case.

[Me too]

Ellie, If Zman wanted to kill Martin he would not have waited to New punched, jumped and his head beaten in.

Zman was lucky he was carrying and was able to get to his gun or he likely would have been killed.

To answer your other question. Tell your son not to punch and or jump anyone on your way home. Otherwise, you may get your ass shot!

[elle]

Ellie, If Zman wanted to kill Martin he would not have waited to New punched, jumped and his head beaten in.

Zman was lucky he was carrying and was able to get to his gun or he likely would have been killed.

To answer your other question. Tell your son not to punch and or jump anyone on your way home. Otherwise, you may get your ass shot!

yeah...whatever.

[elle]

Trouble is, what's morally or ethically wrong is not always found legally wrong in the strictest sense of a proveable crime in a court of law.

too true...long ago an attorney friend told me...the truth and what you can prove in a court of law are 2 different things.

[Bull Gator]

I think all reasonable people can agree that it is a shame TM was not armed as well

[atoyot]

............as long as he can't afford the (heavily-taxed) ammo, right?



A 17 y/o shouldn't have to carry a gun. That, in fact, would have made young Treyvon the kind of thug Zimmerman took him to be. What a bizarre suggestion.

[puffyjman]

As long as we're throwing out hypotheticals.
What if TM didn't get suspended from school. He'd still be alive to enjoy a tea and some skittels.
And Zman would be cruising the hood as we speak.

[Mark K]

As long as we're throwing out hypotheticals.
What if TM didn't get suspended from school. He'd still be alive to enjoy a tea and some skittels.
And Zman would be cruising the hood as we speak.

He owes George an apology for all the trouble he's put him through.

[Sol Rosenberg]

He owes George an apology for all the trouble he's put him through.

I find it hard to believe that the prosecutor didn't charge that little jerk with manslaughter for his own death.

[puffyjman]

He owes George an apology for all the trouble he's put him through.

I find it hard to believe that the prosecutor didn't charge that little jerk with manslaughter for his own death.

It should be ruled suicide by neighborhood watchman.

[wabbiteer]

Since our putative lawyer bailed on you, I'll give you my thoughts.

The relative age difference doesn't mean anything in the bail hearing. It would have been had the prosecutor raised some charge of violence toward a child but, they didn't.

You might consider the actions of a 17 year old as those of a goofy kid if you knew their age. You just view it differently when it's somebody who is about 4 inches taller and in your face and just knocked you down.

There is no evidence that Martin knocked down Zimmerman.

[Saorsa]

Since our putative lawyer bailed on you, I'll give you my thoughts.

The relative age difference doesn't mean anything in the bail hearing. It would have been had the prosecutor raised some charge of violence toward a child but, they didn't.

You might consider the actions of a 17 year old as those of a goofy kid if you knew their age. You just view it differently when it's somebody who is about 4 inches taller and in your face and just knocked you down.

There is no evidence that Martin knocked down Zimmerman.

I believe that you might mean there were no eyewitness to the move to the ground. There is an eyewitness that puts Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top hitting him.

I don't know of many self defense methods which advise pulling a taller opponent down on top of you as an offensive move. It would certainly make the draw of the weapon more difficult.

There is no evidence of who initiated the physical contact but, Martin did initiate the verbal as evidenced by the girlfriends recollections of her phone call.

[badlatitude]

Since our putative lawyer bailed on you, I'll give you my thoughts.

The relative age difference doesn't mean anything in the bail hearing. It would have been had the prosecutor raised some charge of violence toward a child but, they didn't.

You might consider the actions of a 17 year old as those of a goofy kid if you knew their age. You just view it differently when it's somebody who is about 4 inches taller and in your face and just knocked you down.

There is no evidence that Martin knocked down Zimmerman.

I believe that you might mean there were no eyewitness to the move to the ground. There is an eyewitness that puts Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top hitting him.

I don't know of many self defense methods which advise pulling a taller opponent down on top of you as an offensive move. It would certainly make the draw of the weapon more difficult.

There is no evidence of who initiated the physical contact but, Martin did initiate the verbal as evidenced by the girlfriends recollections of her phone call.

Do you know if there was any report as to whether or not Zman carried cuffs along with his weapon?

[TMSAIL]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

[tq2000]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

until I see testimony sworn to under oath, or evidence presented in court, I am only taking as fact that an unarmed kid was shot and killed by an armed man.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

Does it matter whether he is a civil rights lawyer, or a plumber?

Btw, your statement is incorrect. The investigator's affidavit of probable cause goes through the phone call and that witness.

[Saorsa]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

Does it matter whether he is a civil rights lawyer, or a plumber?

Btw, your statement is incorrect. The investigator's affidavit of probable cause goes through the phone call and that witness.

Was she under oath as she would have been with a grand jury?

[Mark K]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

Haven't seen any evidence or claim by the Sanford PD that they even contacted her. Seems pretty odd. The victim was wearing a phone. The phone record should have been checked, right?

[kmccabe]

until I see testimony sworn to under oath, or evidence presented in court, I am only taking as fact that an unarmed kid was shot and killed by an armed man.

I'm with you. The only evidence that matters is that in a court of law.

[badlatitude]

In other news:

Source: CBS

Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee will officially resign today, CBS News has learned.


Lee had temporarily stepped down last month in the wake of criticism over his department's handling of the investigation in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.


A source within the Sanford Police Department said one of the acting chiefs may also tenure his resignation today as well.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.c...icially-resign/

[Saorsa]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

Haven't seen any evidence or claim by the Sanford PD that they even contacted her. Seems pretty odd. The victim was wearing a phone. The phone record should have been checked, right?

The Sanford Police aren't doing the investigation now.

It will be interesting to see if the prosecution calls her as a witness.

[Dog]

In other news:

Source: CBS

Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee will officially resign today, CBS News has learned.


Lee had temporarily stepped down last month in the wake of criticism over his department's handling of the investigation in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.


A source within the Sanford Police Department said one of the acting chiefs may also tenure his resignation today as well.


Read more: http://www.cbsnews.c...icially-resign/

Witness protection program anyone.

[TMSAIL]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

Does it matter whether he is a civil rights lawyer, or a plumber?

Btw, your statement is incorrect. The investigator's affidavit of probable cause goes through the phone call and that witness.

Thanks for the correction Funny how they included Treyvon's mother identifying her son's voice from a recording, but ignored the EYE WITNESS that stated that he SAW who was calling for help - Zimmerman.

[kmccabe]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

Does it matter whether he is a civil rights lawyer, or a plumber?

Btw, your statement is incorrect. The investigator's affidavit of probable cause goes through the phone call and that witness.

Thanks for the correction Funny how they included Treyvon's mother identifying her son's voice from a recording, but ignored the EYE WITNESS that stated that he SAW who was calling for help - Zimmerman.

At first the father said that WASN'T his son crying out for help. He then recanted.

The only eva-dense that matters is that entered into a court of law.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

Does it matter whether he is a civil rights lawyer, or a plumber?

Btw, your statement is incorrect. The investigator's affidavit of probable cause goes through the phone call and that witness.

Thanks for the correction Funny how they included Treyvon's mother identifying her son's voice from a recording, but ignored the EYE WITNESS that stated that he SAW who was calling for help - Zimmerman.

It will be interesting to see if they have a reason for that.

[TMSAIL]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

Does it matter whether he is a civil rights lawyer, or a plumber?

Btw, your statement is incorrect. The investigator's affidavit of probable cause goes through the phone call and that witness.

Thanks for the correction Funny how they included Treyvon's mother identifying her son's voice from a recording, but ignored the EYE WITNESS that stated that he SAW who was calling for help - Zimmerman.

At first the father said that WASN'T his son crying out for help. He then recanted.

The only eva-dense that matters is that entered into a court of law.

Lots of recanting from his parents. His mother was on TV in the morning, saying she believed the shooting was an accident, then recanted that same afternoon.

[kmccabe]

Here's the good news - they're listening to their attorneys.

[Sol Rosenberg]

These parents drive me up the wall, running around acting all victimized and sh!t. STFU already.

[Me too]

Here's the good news - they're listening to their attorneys.

Why do the parents need any attorney?

[Saorsa]

Here's the good news - they're listening to their attorneys.

Why do the parents need any attorney?

Preparation for the civil suit regardless of the criminal outcome.

Do you realize what the potential cost of SYG is to attorneys? How can an entire profession be so dissed by the law.

[Saorsa]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

Does it matter whether he is a civil rights lawyer, or a plumber?

Btw, your statement is incorrect. The investigator's affidavit of probable cause goes through the phone call and that witness.

Thanks for the correction Funny how they included Treyvon's mother identifying her son's voice from a recording, but ignored the EYE WITNESS that stated that he SAW who was calling for help - Zimmerman.

It will be interesting to see if they have a reason for that.

Uhhhh, they're the prosecution, right? Seems that would be reason enough.

[Sol Rosenberg]

Uhhhh, they're the prosecution, right? Seems that would be reason enough.

Did the Wizard ever get back to you about that brain?

[wabbiteer]

At first the father said that WASN'T his son crying out for help. He then recanted.

Where did you get that from?

[Happy Jack]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

until I see testimony sworn to under oath, or evidence presented in court, I am only taking as fact that an unarmed kid was shot and killed by an armed man.

Unarmed is not a synonym for harmless.

[d'ranger]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

until I see testimony sworn to under oath, or evidence presented in court, I am only taking as fact that an unarmed kid was shot and killed by an armed man.

Unarmed is not a synonym for harmless.

Bringing fists to a gunfight? You are a synonym for clueless.

[Saorsa]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

until I see testimony sworn to under oath, or evidence presented in court, I am only taking as fact that an unarmed kid was shot and killed by an armed man.

Unarmed is not a synonym for harmless.

Bringing fists to a gunfight? You are a synonym for clueless.

It wasn't a gunfight, was it? Two guys on the ground isn't exactly the OK corral.

[Spatial Ed]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

Haven't seen any evidence or claim by the Sanford PD that they even contacted her. Seems pretty odd. The victim was wearing a phone. The phone record should have been checked, right?

The Sanford Police aren't doing the investigation now.

It will be interesting to see if the prosecution calls her as a witness.

It took the relief team to make first contact with the witness. The Sanford police didn't think it was necessary to interview her before making their decision to give Zimmerman his gun back.

[Saorsa]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

Haven't seen any evidence or claim by the Sanford PD that they even contacted her. Seems pretty odd. The victim was wearing a phone. The phone record should have been checked, right?

The Sanford Police aren't doing the investigation now.

It will be interesting to see if the prosecution calls her as a witness.

It took the relief team to make first contact with the witness. The Sanford police didn't think it was necessary to interview her before making their decision to give Zimmerman his gun back.

Gave his gun back? Can you verify that?

[Spatial Ed]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

Haven't seen any evidence or claim by the Sanford PD that they even contacted her. Seems pretty odd. The victim was wearing a phone. The phone record should have been checked, right?

The Sanford Police aren't doing the investigation now.

It will be interesting to see if the prosecution calls her as a witness.

It took the relief team to make first contact with the witness. The Sanford police didn't think it was necessary to interview her before making their decision to give Zimmerman his gun back.

Gave his gun back? Can you verify that?

Yeah. They gave it back that night after determining they would not be charging him. Stand operation. They had no grounds to keep it. They took it back when the relief team realized it was a murder weapon.

[tq2000]

Funny how everyone takes the girl friend's satement as fact (myself included) Turns out the only one telling us what she heard is the civil rights lawyer representingthe Martin Family. So at this time her statement is even less factual than the eye witness that claims he heard Zimmerman calling for help.

until I see testimony sworn to under oath, or evidence presented in court, I am only taking as fact that an unarmed kid was shot and killed by an armed man.

Unarmed is not a synonym for harmless.

where did I say that? I said the kid was unarmed, meaning that he was not carrying a gun, not that he did not have arms. please read what I actually write and try responding to that, not to what you imagine I meant.

[frenchie]

<br />

<br />

<br />Oh goodie let's play the race card again.<br />

<br /> <br /> See Jack, there's another one who thinks that I just called George a racist.<br />

<br />No, nobody said that at all.  What they are saying is that YOU see this in racial terms when it hadn't entered the discussion.<br /><br />I just went back and checked.  There were NO references to race until YOU put it into the discussion.<br />

<br /><br /><br />


Look up.


Way up.

[wabbiteer]

At first the father said that WASN'T his son crying out for help. He then recanted.

Where did you get that from?

Where did you get that from?

[kmccabe]

At first the father said that WASN'T his son crying out for help. He then recanted.

Where did you get that from?

Where did you get that from?

Where did you get that from?

[Tom Ray]

At first the father said that WASN'T his son crying out for help. He then recanted.

Where did you get that from?

Where did you get that from?

Uh oh. It's the source policeman again!

If it is not masticated by tpmmuckraker.com, it is not worth verifying, is it wabbit?

[kmccabe]

If it is not masticated by tpmmuckraker.com, it is not worth verifying, is it wabbit?

Go easy on him - he had a tough Easter.

[kmccabe]

At first the father said that WASN'T his son crying out for help. He then recanted.

Where did you get that from?

Friday March 16 report on television.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/orlandowesh-16122564/sanford-police-speak-out-in-trayvon-martin-case-28640523.html

[wabbiteer]

At first the father said that WASN'T his son crying out for help. He then recanted.

Where did you get that from?

Where did you get that from?

Where did you get that from?

Where did you read that "at first the father said that WASN'T his son crying out for help. He then recanted."

Come on. Tell us.

[kmccabe]

Source attack imminent....

[Tom Ray]

You should make him wait two days and ask five times before revealing your source, K. That's the way it went when I finally dragged it out of him that he gets his news from tpmmuckraker.com, despite earlier denials that he would ever do such a thing.

[TMSAIL]

You should make him wait two days and ask five times before revealing your source, K. That's the way it went when I finally dragged it out of him that he gets his news from tpmmuckraker.com, despite earlier denials that he would ever do such a thing.

Wabbitt has his own rules when it comes to sources and cites.

[kmccabe]

You should make him wait two days and ask five times before revealing your source, K. That's the way it went when I finally dragged it out of him that he gets his news from tpmmuckraker.com, despite earlier denials that he would ever do such a thing.

I know its fun but not terribly sporting.

[kmccabe]

You should make him wait two days and ask five times before revealing your source, K. That's the way it went when I finally dragged it out of him that he gets his news from tpmmuckraker.com, despite earlier denials that he would ever do such a thing.

Wabbitt has his own rules when it comes to sources and cites.

I've noticed.

[wabbiteer]

At first the father said that WASN'T his son crying out for help. He then recanted.

Where did you get that from?

Friday March 16 report on television.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/orlandowesh-16122564/sanford-police-speak-out-in-trayvon-martin-case-28640523.html

Not that I believe that you live in Orlando and heard that on the TV news, but here's the Orlando Sentinel story referred to in that TV news report:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-911-call-20120316_1_deadly-shooting-shot-man-reports

Serino said Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, listened to all of the 911 calls in the case before the entire family convened at City Hall to listen Friday night. When asked if the voice on one, a male calling for help was his son, told Serino no.

Police lied Friday, Crump said, when they said Tracy Martin said the voice crying for help was not his son. What Tracy Martin told police, Crump said, was that "he couldn't tell, that it was too distorted."

The audio has since been cleaned up, and now Tracy Martin has no doubt but that the voice is his son, Crump said.

The Sanford Police chief suffered a vote of "no confidence" almost immediately after that leak.

Why are you willing to take the word of people who have been known to alter 'eva-dense' presented to the public?

[Saorsa]

<br />

<br />

<br />Oh goodie let's play the race card again.<br />

<br /> <br /> See Jack, there's another one who thinks that I just called George a racist.<br />

<br />No, nobody said that at all.  What they are saying is that YOU see this in racial terms when it hadn't entered the discussion.<br /><br />I just went back and checked.  There were NO references to race until YOU put it into the discussion.<br />

Look up.


Way up.

I looked up. Way up. the first reference I see to race is in Post #74 from some guy calling himself Mark K

If you know of another, cite it, don't just hand out search assignments.

[Happy Jack]

At first the father said that WASN'T his son crying out for help. He then recanted.

Where did you get that from?

Friday March 16 report on television.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/orlandowesh-16122564/sanford-police-speak-out-in-trayvon-martin-case-28640523.html

Don't you love a great Smack down.

[Spatial Ed]

Don't you love a great Smack down.

Yes we do.

[kmccabe]

Friday March 16 report on television.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/orlandowesh-16122564/sanford-police-speak-out-in-trayvon-martin-case-28640523.html

Not that I believe that you live in Orlando and heard that on the TV news, but here's the Orlando Sentinel story referred to in that TV news report:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-17/news/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-911-call-20120316_1_deadly-shooting-shot-man-reports

I'm sorry but what you quote and the audio of the report are NOT the same. It's very clear in the video.

Why did you do that?

Its a lie. blatant misrepresentation of what was said in the news report.

I'm honestly shocked you would lie like that.

[kmccabe]

At first the father said that WASN'T his son crying out for help. He then recanted.

Where did you get that from?

Friday March 16 report on television.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/orlandowesh-16122564/sanford-police-speak-out-in-trayvon-martin-case-28640523.html

Don't you love a great Smack down.

Listen to the report from my link and look at what he claims the report is.