With facts. I showed you the overzealousness. And I don’t have to show you the political pressure, it’s obvious.
You don’t bluff four aces in hold-em with only one ace showing after the river. When you overcharge, to force the defense to plea, you have to have a chance in hell to actually win your case. Corey cannot pretend to have some dynamite evidence - she HAS to disclose all evidence she holds to defense lawyers in discovery, right now. So, unless she discloses to them that explosive proof that she didn’t mention in the affidavit, all she added to known facts is that Martin’s mother thinks it’s his voice shouting for help. That’s about as thin as you can get and will never meet the “reasonable doubt” standard.
She cannot. There is no known witness to this. Sje may have a secret witness that saw it, but I doubt it. With the case leaking like this, it would have come out by now. There is no way for her to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. She is bluffing, openly and stupidly.
I already showed here the article in which multiple forensic audio experts dispute the Sentinel’s experts. Do you think it will be hard to bring them to trial? Then you have battle of the experts. Good luck getting past “reasonable doubt”.
Yip, she’s overzealous. That’s why she initially told the police that she couldn’t charge him with anything…
When did she initially say that?
Do you have a cite for that?
Geeze!!
How about the fact that Zimmerman told one story to police, and then completely changed his story after they played him the 911 tapes?
Oh, I don’t know if that happened. But neither do you. Where does your confidence come from?
I know you’re being facetious, but actually, I saw in one of the news reports that one of the policemen who interrogated Zimmerman for five hours immediately after the incident said Zimmerman didn’t change his story even once. Ah here it is:
Police stressed that Zimmerman was interviewed at least three times and gave a videotaped statement and a walk-through of what happened. Zimmerman, whose father is a retired Virginia magistrate, never asked for an attorney or changed his story, former Sanford police Chief Bill Lee said.
No you didn’t. You based your speculation on certain facts, but since I’m pretty sure mind reading is not one of your abilities , you can’t possibly know her motives.
They have not reached the point of disclosure, I believe. This stuff doesn’t happen all at once.
I guess it depends on the crime level of the neighborhood.
Personally, I think it’s weird and paranoid, but I don’t live in Florida (if I had to move to Florida, frankly I might wonder if I needed one to defend myself from the paranoid vigilantes) and didn’t grow up somewhere where many people think owning and carrying guns for use against people is a really important thing to do. That’s just the culture and place and background I grew up in. It’s not what George Zimmerman grew up in.
Like it or not, CCW is the law in the State of Florida. You can’t use Zimmerman’s decision to exercise his right to carry a gun against him with stuff like “well, gosh, why take a gun to the store?” The whole point of CCW is that there is an inherent belief that ordinary citizens should have guns with them almost anywhere. That’s now a basic principle of Florida law. You can’t reverse it just for this case; that would be illogical and unfair.
In fact, I’d argue that the case against Zimmerman would be vastly stronger (relative to what we know so far) if in fact he usually didn’t carry his gun with him, but instead pulled it out of his glove box or something this one time, when he was pursuing Martin. If he usually carries it then his having it when the confrontation began doesn’t really tell you anything, but if he took it specifically to enter into this confrontation, that suggests malicious intent.
15 days maximum after he is charged. It’s not there yet but it is soon.
Then, of course, the fact that such disclosure has not been made still stands. And your speculations on those facts remain just that, speculations. Firmly supported by insinuations, founded on rock solid innuendos.
Terr, you can see the problem though, no? In the long lead-up to this point, we were taught that one of the best reasons why we should believe that Zimmerman was innocent is that the police and prosecutors, who are more intimately acquainted with this case than any of us, had not charged him.
But now we learn, apparently, that that failure to bring charges was immaterial, because at last charges have been preferred and that means nothing, as it is clearly at the behest of a politically motivated prosecutor.
What bit of evidence will you state would be unequivocally inculpating? And if no such evidence exists to your mind, doesn’t that mean you are sort of inappropriately taking Zimmerman’s innocence, an empirically testable thesis, as a priori (sorry, Bricks) settled?
In any state with CCW it becomes the norm for a permit holder to carry a gun wherever it is legal. When I lived in Texas, it was just as natural to holster my pistol as it was to put on my shoes when I went out. No paranoia or fear involved. And it seemed sillier to not have the extra protection than to have it, when it is perfectly legal.
This is what I posted before:
“Unless she has a secret witness who, with night-vision-goggles, observed Zimmerman sucker-punching Martin while screaming racial epithets, she is not going to get murder second degree.”
But what I would expect for her to be able to even attempt to prove the charge is a witness (or preferably multiple ones) that saw Zimmerman initiate the physical confrontation or at least brandish a weapon. Lacking that, if she can show that Zimmerman shot Martin while sitting on him (maybe a bullet in the ground under Martin) that would be something.
Without such explosive evidence she really has no way to prove her charge. If she has nothing like that, it is pure bluff and grandstanding.
Ooooh, Counselor gonna spank!
I would think that the angle of the bullet from autopsy could put paid to much baseless speculation pretty easily.
I think I know what you’re getting at. Maybe not so much the angle but more the presence or absence of powder residue. If Zimmerman shot Martin at close range during a scuffle then it would be more likely for residue to be found somewhere on Martin’s body. More likely but not absolutely a sure thing.
Zimmerman then shot Martin once in the chest from very close range, authorities said, according to the Sentinel.
That account is not based on forensic evidence. It is just what GZ told the police.