I don’t know. The only murder victim I personally knew was attacked in the parking lot of a grocery store in Plano, Texas. Here in Little Rock I occasionally read in the newspaper about people who are attacked in parking lots of Walmart, gas stations or other businesses. I was once approached by an aggressive panhandler who attempted to intimidate me into giving him money at a gas station near work. So it doesn’t seem ridiculous to me to carry a firearm to the grocery store.
Oh.. the Bricker that wrote:
I suggest you “take a clue from Bricker” (or anyone else who says something I happen to agree with.)
Zimmerman was on his way to the shop when he saw Martin. That said, he needs no excuse to carry his gun anywhere he chooses in Florida, excepting private property where the owners don’t allow it.
Your argument here, like all your others, is utterly wrong. Stop focussing on stuff Zimmerman did that you, personally, dislike, and focus on what, if anything, he did that is illegal. That is the only thing that matters.
My opinion about Zimmerman hasn’t changed much over the past several months. I’m not interested nearly as much in what happened – a question that invites endless speculation – as what the state can prove.
On the evidence the public has seen, I do not believe the state of Florida can meet their evidentiary burden on a charge of second degree murder.
But since an experienced prosecutor has gone ahead with an information that alleges that charge, I conclude that she probably has something else to support it, something the public hasn’t seen.
This is the position I have held since the second degree charge was filed.
Looks like **emeraldia **is looking to knock **Magiver **off the Wild-Ass-Speculation lead.
Oh, he didn’t lie, he just made a mistake with the truth.
Why would you when, “fucking punks” - “these assholes always get away” is so damning to your argument.
You beleive that street sign nonsense?
(my bolding)
Speculation that Maritn “attacked” Zimmerman, at least unprovoked. But it makes a decent point - Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and acted as a responsible Neighborhood Watch guy should have.
Classic blaming the victim.
Wild-ass speculation.
Speculation. His claim that he didn’t brandish the weapon is the only evidence thereof. I don’t believe him. Then again, I don’t mind admitting to speculation.
Apart from the dead teenager, of course.
Wild ass speculation. You have no idea what Zimmerman may have done to provoke him.
It’s like a string-speculation. You just keep riding that Martin is a crazy thug thing like it was Secretariat.
Of course not. You’ve already decided Zimmerman is as pure as the driven snow; he would never lie to cover his ass.
Significant my balls. A pop in the schnozz and a couple of cuts on your head is not significant. I’ve gotten worse playing soccer, ferchrissakes. Now, if, say, he’d gotten a hollow point bullet through the ticker, then yeah, I’ll give you the significant injury angle.
The only evidence that generally and convincingly supports Zimmerman’s story is Zimmerman’s story itself. Amazing that we’ve found the one criminal suspect in history who’s every word is believed beyond a shadow of a doubt. Maybe there is hope for our criminal justice system after all.
But since she hasn’t show it, especially in her affidavit, why did the judge go along with it and not dismiss the charge? She can’t even give probable cause for manslaughter based on what she has so far. The job of the judge is to make sure that a citizen knows what he is specifically accused of doing, before being arrested or charged, not after having posted bond or spent months in jail until she takes her sweet ass time releasing pertinent evidence.
If she has it, why not release it? She’ll have to in due time anyways, and if it’s damning enough to support murder two, she could get the media off of her ass as Zimmerman’s support dries up like a desert. I don’t think she has anything. Michelle Wilfong should be her name.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
If she has it, why not release it? She’ll have to in due time anyways, and if it’s damning enough to support murder two, she could get the media off of her ass as Zimmerman’s support dries up like a desert. I don’t think she has anything. Michelle Wilfong should be her name.
[/QUOTE]
So for the upteenth time, why hasn’t O’Mara filed motions to have the charges dropped? Why would Lester go on record saying that the evidence against Z is strong, if the truth was that she has nothing?
Both Corey and O’Mara have tried to hold back evidence, presumably so the jury won’t be tainted and Z can get a fair trial.
To all who dismiss the inconsistencies and contradictions in Zimmerman’s multiple accounts as being nothing out of the ordinary, what makes you more qualified to say this than an experienced homicide detective? Serino was the first one who tried to arrest Zimmerman–not Corey. Why would he go through this trouble, unless he had a good reason to believe the guy was lying about what happened?
I suspect that Zimmerman could confess to murder tomorrow, and all the people defending him would still argue that Martin attacked him. That’s how deep yall are invested in his innocence.
Actually, it’s O’Mara job to defend his client from false charges. O’Mara should have, or at least, could have challenged Corey’s affidavit. A judge could assume that if O’Mara didn’t question the affidavit, then the affidavit was truthful.
You seem to be heavily invested in Zimmerman’s guilt, you just can’t prove it. You seem to object that anyone else should discuss what is so painfully oblivious to you. Innocent until proven guilty.
Serino “recommended” that Zimmerman be charged. The SA office, who knows more about court procedures and current rulings of the court, chose to ignore Serino’s “recommendation”.
I wonder how many times the SA’s office has refused to accept Serino’s “recommendations” in the past? 20%, 50%, 75% of the time?
How is it damning to my argument? In part because he was tired of them getting away he left his car to keep an eye on the kid and where he ran off to.
I suppose he was pretending to not know what street during the taped call with the dispatcher, because he anticipated using it as an excuse to “stalk” or “chase” Martin. (Even though he had no history of every pursuing or confronting anyone he had ever called the cops on. And is on the record in a previous call as saying, “I don’t want to approach him.”
There is no question that Martin attacked Zimmerman. And there is zero credible evidence that Zimmerman provoked the attack.
I agree. Just because someone leaves their car, doesn’t mean they should sustain a physical assault. He shouldn’t have left his car. She shouldn’t have worn that dress.
Are you summarizing your case against Zimmerman, or did I miss the point?
There is no evidence he brandished his weapon. He has no history of brandishing his weapon in any previous encounter.
Yes the teenager who who broke his nose and bloodied the back of his head, and who Zimmerman shot in apparent self-defense.
Personally, I think Martin attacked Zimmerman because Zimmerman was being a nosy Nelly, and he wanted to impress his “girlfriend”. But the bottom line really is that there is no evidence he did anything that should have provoked him.
You must be thinking of someone else. I haven’t used the words crazy or thug, so there is no “thing”. But, now that you mentioned it, I do think that Martin was a thug “wanna-be”.
You must not have read what I wrote- or understood it. He’s not pure as the driven snow, nor is Martin a malevolent devil. I think Zimmerman- like most people- would lie to cover their ass.
The physical injuries and witness statements alone support a case for self-defense. Zimmerman’s credibility isn’t necessary for me to have a reasonable doubt that he “murdered” or unlawfully killed this person.
So if I broke your nose, blackened your eyes, and bloodied the back of your head you would tell the police that your injuries were insignificant?
Again, if you’d read what I wrote, you’d know that I don’t believe Zimmerman’s “every word beyond a shadow of a doubt”. But why let reality get in the way of a perfectly effective straw man.
More speculation. He left his car to chase down a perp with his shiny, shiny gun, sez I. Just as much proof as your theory.
There is just as much credible evidence of Zimmerman provoking Martin as there is of Martin attaching unprovoked. Speculation.
Speculation. There is just as much credible evidence that he brandished his gun as that he didn’t.
Look who’s arguing the case … with speculation, I might add.
Fabulous. Personally I think Matin punched Zimmerman because Zimmerman grabbed his arm, put his hand on his gun, and said, “You’re not going anywhere, punk.” And the beautiful thing is – there is equal proof of both scenarios. And it’s called … say it with me, “Speculation.”
Glad I could help you come out of the closet, as it were.
The last time someone punched me in the face where I fell down and bonked my noggin, what I told the cops was, “It was just a fight. No big deal.” What I didn’t do was shoot the guy who punched me.
Because he knows that’s not going to happen, especially in a case of this political nature. I also think this is the reason the judge is not likely to grant SYG immunity as well- and why some have even speculated that O’ Mara might not try.
He only said that after he got mad about being apparently misinformed about how much money the Zimmerman’s had, and he wants to keep the option open of keeping Zimmerman locked up.
That is possible. I had considered the possibility that Zimmerman sent a really embarrassing text message to someone- maybe using the N-word in it or something very prejudicial to him.
But what evidence could there possible be that would discount his injuries and W6’s statements? Maybe a text message saying, "I broke my own nose, caused my own lacerations, and paid off a witness named John to falsely claim that Martin was on top of me hitting me and/or pinning me down.
It would have to be something pretty big- and I can’t really imagine something like that wouldn’t leak. I personally think she may have something incendiary and prejudicial (but with limited to no evidentiary value) that she may be using as leverage. Then again, it won’t shock me to learn that she has nothing. We’ll see.
Let’s also remember that their main investigator, Gilbreath (or something like that) is on record as saying that they have no evidence that materially contradicts Zimmerman’s account. So, if there is such compelling evidence, then their lead investigator seemed unaware of it.
Serino wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, his specious reasoning being that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car, this wouldn’t have happened. Or, if Zimmerman had more proactively identified himself as a concerned citizen/neighborhood watch person that it wouldn’t have happened.
Also, if you listen to Serino’s interviews with Zimmerman, you can get the sense that Serino basically thinks Zimmerman is a good guy, and basically believes Zimmerman’s account. It’s true that Serino could have been pretending, however, when he made the case for Zimmerman’s arrest, it was not based on Serino’s disbelieving Zimmerman’s account. Just on the fact that he didn’t think he should have left the car- and should have identified himself.
Is there anyone seriously arguing that Martin didn’t attack him? I can see people making the argument (unsupported by evidence) that Martin’s attack of Zimmerman was provoked by Zimmerman. But I think it’s pretty well-established that Martin attacked him.
If Zimmerman confessed to murder tomorrow, he would lose credibility with me because the facts still wouldn’t support the admission. 
In order for me to believe it was murder, I would have to believe that the screams for help were not Zimmerman’s, but Martin’s.
But the only person that had any significant injuries during the screaming was Zimmerman. Why would the uninjured Trayvon be screaming for help?
I would have to believe that Zimmerman pointed a gun at Martin for a minute and a half while Martin screamed for help. I would have to believe that while this gun was being held on Martin, Martin’s instinct was not to try to disarm Zimmerman or gain control of the weapon. But to break Zimmerman’s nose, blacken his eyes, and hit the back of his head.
Which, of course makes not the least bit of sense. If Zimmerman admits to murdering Trayvon, Zimmerman would still have a lot of explaining to do. 
Even if O’Mara believed that the politics of this case were such that there is no hope in hell the charges would be dismissed, he would have nothing to lose by filing the motion if he had the basis for doing so. It would be negligent of him not to do this. He’d be essentially risking his reputation as a competent defense attorney.
What could possibly convince you that the detectives, lawyers, and judges involved in this case just might have a better grasp on the issue of evidence than you do? I mean, it’s crazy talk I know, but these are people who deal with homicides all the time.
While this is a nice theory and all, the simplest explanation is that the judge has seen the prosecution’s evidence and believes there’s a strong case to be made for murder-2.
How about the fact that his injuries are not consistent with his claims? He said Martin slammed his head into concrete a dozen times. That does not line up with 1) two vertical nicks inches away from his occipital area, 2) the absence of blood smear, 3) the absence of bruising or abrasions, 4) the absence of any horizontal wounds indicative of a skull making repeated contact against the edge of a sidewalk, 5) and the absence of Zimmerman’s DNA under Martin’s fingernails.
You have a homicide detective who thinks this statement is bollocks, at least two prosecutors saying the same thing (Corey and Gilbreath), a judge who calls the evidence strong, and two defense attorneys (O’Mara and West) who have not challenged the charges. But you, who presumably lacks their training, experience, and access to all the evidence in this case, feel more qualified than they are to say whether or not the charges are justified? I laugh at this.
At this point, I can’t imagine you changing your mind about Zimmerman even if something big did leak.
I mean, if hearing the guy claim with a straight face that the only reason he exited his car was to look for a street sign on the same street that he lived on is not enough to convince you he’s trying to cover up his actions that night, then there probably isn’t a whole lot that will.
Are you serious? There’s so much that is wrong with these two sentences that I want to pretend you’re kidding.
That is certainly possible- and in most cases, that would be a reasonable conclusion. However, in this case, the prosecutor:
- had tremendous media and political pressure on her to “arrest”/charge Zimmerman.
- already seemed pre-disposed to doing so very early on in her investigation. i.e., praying with the family, publicly stating she wanted “justice for Trayvon”, and chummy communications with the “arrest Zimmerman” protestors (although in the last one it could be argued that she had made up her mind at that point)
- has a history of over-charging cases.
- Most importantly the prosecutor’s lead investigator testified that he had little to no evidence that materially contradicted Zimmerman’s account of who attacked who, whose voice it was screaming for help, and other issues of fundamental importance to Zimmerman’s legal culpability.
In other words, if there was a smoking gun, their lead investigator seemed unaware of it.
His questioning of Gilbreath starts at around an hour and six minutes into it.
I agree that it is possible she has a “game-changing” piece of evidence. But I think it would be premature to actually conclude that she does.
What aspects of the sentences are confusing to you?
I was trying to listen to the recording of Serino’s questioning of George Zimmerman on the 29th. Serino needs a lot more training about how to wear a hidden microphone. Zimmerman’s and the questions by the other detective were so muffled, that it was very difficult to understand them. The noise of the microphone rubbing against cloth was very annoying.
Does anybody have a link to a transcript of the questioning?
I don’t think she is confused. She apparently believes
[ul]
[li]A broken nose, black eyes, and lacerations to the back of the head are not significant, but[/li][li]A scrape on one knuckle is.[/li][li]It makes perfect sense to scream for help while beating someone up, but[/li][li]Not while being beaten up[/li][/ul]
Regards,
Shodan
“But the only person that had any significant injuries during the screaming was Zimmerman.”
Do you think the only reason people scream is because they’re injured? People scream when they are scared too. Particularly when they are screaming for HELP.
Secondly, I can’t help but notice your emphasis on having injuries during the screaming. Without seeming to realize it, you’ve answered your own question. Zimmerman didn’t suddenly become uninjured when the screaming stopped, so based on your own logic, the sound should have continued after the gun went off. But it didn’t. The screaming died along with Martin. The simplest explanation is that Martin was the source of the screaming.
"Why would the uninjured Trayvon be screaming for help?
Because he predicted he was about to be shot to death. Amazingly, his prediction came true.
There is no indication that any “detectives” wanted to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. Until the enormous protests and media pressure, the “lawyers” chose not to indict Zimmerman. So, I don’t accept your premise. There are plenty of attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz that believe the case against Zimmerman is very weak. In fact, you will find precious few legal experts that think Zimmerman will be convicted. Besides, an argument established by appealing to “authority” is fallacious.
I like my explanation better.
I don’t know that Zimmerman ever claimed that Trayvon Martin scratched him, so I’m not sure how the absence of DNA matters. The detective (who you are so convinced believes Zimmerman is guilty of murder) explained that the lack of bruises may be due to the fact that Zimmerman was wearing long sleeves.
I don’t know that it is a fact that his injuries aren’t consistent with his claims. That is a matter for medical and forensic experts to discuss. Even if Zimmerman was exaggerating the brutality of the attack, it doesn’t change the fact that he was attacked. Whether there were “horizontal lines” or not doesn’t really change that. He still had a broken nose, blackened eyes, and a bloody head.
Again, your premise that the homicide detective thinks Zimmerman’s statement is bollocks is untrue. He questioned certain parts of it, but -as I’ve already stated- he never wanted to charge Z-man with murder, just manslaughter (and even that was for reasons that were not inconsistent with Z-man’s statements.)
As I said above, your argument ad authority/argument ad hominem are specious, in addition to containing premises that aren’t supported by facts.
Once again, an untrue premise leading into a specious ad hominem argument. Zimmerman stated he left his vehicle to keep an eye on where the kid was going and to get a street sign. You are confused and not worth debating to be honest.