Justice for Zimmerman

Famm_sl said:

Nothing has shaken my left leaning attitudes as thoroughly as the responses to this case from all the leftist news sources and my liberal acquaintances.

Click to expand...

Iannis_sl said:

Hitler had some good ideas.

Bug cars are awesome. Wouldn't have happened without Hitler.

The autobahn is pretty neat, and fairly impressive.

Click to expand...

Kedwyn_sl said:

Which is why I don't bother with the Left and Right bull shit and just call retardation and facts as I see them. Trying to keep an open mind and basing your arguments on facts is slowly vanishing in this country.

Click to expand...

The whole purpose of this case was so Ben Crump would have leverage in a wrongful death suit against the deep pocket. The deep pocket is not George Zimmerman. The deep pocket is the home owner's association.

I am a lawyer in Florida. I was a prosecutor in Volusia County (Daytona Beach is the largest city there) which is immediately adjacent to Seminole county where Sanford is located. I used to live in Sanford as well and practiced along the I-4 corridor between Orlando and Daytona. Seminole County is in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit. I have handled cases there.

Because I actually know all the lawyers involved in this case--including the prosecutor with the Eighteenth Circuit State Attorney's Office who had this case prior to the governor's assignment being made by Rick Scott taking the case away from Norman Wolfinger, the elected State Attorney for the Eighteenth Circuit. and giving it to Angela Corey--I know what was the drivinig impetus behind the case.

First, we start with the personal injury attorney for Martin's family, Ben Crump. He's a Tallahassee lawyer who is not well respected in Tallahassee much less Florida. Question for everyone to ponder. How did a divorced father and mother that lived in the Miami area get to a Tallahassee lawyer who isn't known for engaging in a statewide practice? Why, for instance, didn't the parents hire Willie Gary who has offices in Stuart and Orlando; is a personal injury attorney; has a nationwide reputation for being a damned fine lawyer; and who represents a lot of black clients as he is black himself? Why didn't the family hire Morgan & Morgan whose main office is in Orlando? Why didn't the family hire a host of hot shot lawyers out of Dade County? Could it be that no one else wanted the case?

The first thing Crump did was hire a local attorney who actually practices in the Orlando area, Natalie Jackson. Jackson hadn't even been in practice for a decade when she was contacted. Jackson is very active in the NAACP. Hence, the connection with Crump is also active in it.

Now, what was the purpose of Jackson and Crump hiring a media consultant on a wrongful death case? Why did they want the prosecution of Zimmerman to occur? A tactic that many personal injury lawyers use is to let the state attorney's office do their job for them because the verdict in a criminal case is admissible in a civil case as evidence because the burden of proof in the civil case is much lower than in a criminal case.

So the media consultant took the facts Crump and Jackson made available to him; spun a story using selected facts some of which we know to be blatantly inaccurate; and hand fed it to certain media outlets for the purpose of forcing a prosecution in a case that otherwise wouldn't be prosecuted.

Why didn't Angela Corey's office empanel a grand jury? Could it be that if the grand jury saw the facts of the case that they wouldn't indict?

Ben Crump got what he wanted. He got a criminal prosecution out of a case that shouldn't be prosecuted so he could use it as leverage in a wrongful death lawsuit.

The issue of Zimmerman "following" Martin after the dispatch operator told him to stop was manufactured by the media consultant because the unvarnished facts are that Zimmerman didn't. This fact is continually ignored by so many people. Why? Because without there's nothing in anyway that is sinister about George Zimmerman in this situation. Without it the only color to the facts of this case is a man who called about a suspicious person in his neighborhood was attacked by that suspicious person and had to kill the suspicious person to defend his life. That story doesn't help Ben Crump get a settlement from the deep pocket of the home owners association's insurance carrier. He got that settlement earlier this year likely in excess of $1 million.

That this whole situation is about a personal injury lawyer using a media consultant to spin facts out of avarice isn't a story anyone wants to tell. Yet that is the true story about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.

Click to expand...

Maester Chuk_sl said:

and dont forget he started the anti smoking movement

Click to expand...

The following is what a colleague here in Florida wrote about the case. I happen to agree completely with it and have telling people for months that this is in fact the case the prosecution would argue.


The prosecution hasn't met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Its case is full of reasonable doubts.

Here is the prosecution's story:

The prosecution rests on interpreting what happened on the basis that

Zimmerman was motivated by a vigilante mindset and racist attitudes.

Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, decides to carry a weapon. Legally. The prosecution knowingly tried to mischaracterize him as someone skilled in martial arts. But his physical skills in self-defense were rated just 1 on a scale of 1 to 10 by his instructor. Despite this, the prosecution argued that there is no reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's motivation for carrying a weapon was because he had a vigilante mindset. The prosecution would have the jury believe that, beyond a reasonable doubt, Zimmerman could not have had any concern that he needed it to defend himself. Unbelievable.

Zimmerman's neighborhood had a rash of recent burglaries committed by young men who had not been caught. The neighbors testify that they worried about crime in the neighborhood and were suspicious of strangers. Despite this, the prosecution argues that Zimmerman's only reason for being suspicious of a young stranger in the neighborhood must have been racial malice. Zimmerman saw a hooded black stranger one evening, and profiled him racially as a criminal. The prosecution would have the jury believe that, under the circumstances, and beyond a reasonable doubt, Zimmerman could only be motivated only by racist criminal malice and a vigalante mentality. Given the crimes in the neighborhood, I doubt it.

Then, according to the prosecution, Zimmerman, beyond a reasonable doubt, either set out to harm Martin or, with no legitimate concerns and with criminal indifference to whether Martin would be harmed, to confront him physically. That's an assumption. The evidence is that Zimmerman had legitimate concerns. The undisputed evidence is that before doing anything himself, Zimmerman called 911 from at or near his car. He stayed on the phone with the police while allegedly stalking his victim. According to the police, there is no reasonable doubt these actions show a vigilante mentality and criminal malice. I seriously doubt that anyone with a vigilante mentality or any kind of criminal malice calls the police first.

According to the prosecution, Zimmerman got out of his car and pursued Martin. The innocent victim fled to avoid a confrontation. The prosecution doesn't explain how the result of this flight is that the fatal struggle wound up close to Zimmerman's car or how that is consistent with Martin trying to avoid a confrontation. The undisputed evidence is that Zimmerman got out of the car, but exactly what happened next is speculation.

The prosecution's argument is that Zimmerman, beyond a reasonable doubt, either maliciously, or with indifference to the safety of a taller, younger man, must have started a physical struggle with Martin. More speculation. Given the testimony of Zimmerman's MMA instructor, and the fact that Zimmerman felt the need to carry a gun, that seems wildly unlikely.

The prosecution's case is that then Zimmerman, either maliciously or with reckless indifference to the well-being of Martin, either started a fight or caused Martin to start a fight. In this fight, the prosecution would have the jury assume that Martin was the innocent party. He innocently pinned Zimmerman to the ground, innocently broke Zimmerman's nose, and innocently banged Zimmerman's head against the concrete pavement several times, drawing blood. Not Martin's fault. Unbelievable.

The prosecution would have the jury believe that Zimmerman either maliciously, or indifferently with excessive force and with no fear for his own safety, shot and killed Martin. But the evidence is that Zimmerman only fired one shot and that was from a prone position with the defendant on top of him. The prosecution's case is that beyond a reasonable doubt, this force was excessive. The prosecution would have the jury believe that a reasonable person would have known that he could dislodge the person on top, and act accordingly. Certainly there's a reasonable doubt of that.

The prosecution would have the jury ignore the opinion of the martial arts instructor that there was no way Zimmerman would have been able to use a martial arts maneuver from the bottom position. It wouldn't be reasonable to ignore that testimony. It certainly must raise a reasonable doubt about what Zimmerman should have done.

The prosecution tried to present testimony characterizing Zimmerman's injuries as "insignificant." The prosecution would have the jury believe that a reasonable person would not have feared being seriously injured by having their head banged repeatedly against a concrete pavement. Therefore, Zimmerman firing a gun was excessive force. Apparently, the prosecution wants the jury to believe that Zimmerman should have waited until Martin successfully cracked Zimmerman's skull open. Any reasonable person would doubt that. Of all the incredible arguments in the prosecution, this is the most incredible.

Zimmerman remained at the scene of the crime rather than fleeing, surrendered peacefully, waived his Miranda rights and voluntarily answered police questions for hours. The prosecution would have the jury believe that, beyond a reasonable doubt, that's the conduct of a person who acted with criminal malice and a vigilante mentality. Any reasonable person would have their doubts.

The evidence was that Zimmerman appeared dazed and shocked when told that Martin died from the shot. Any reasonable person would doubt that would be the reaction of a racial profiler with a vigilante mentality. In fact, it seems like the reaction of someone who shot reluctantly and only hoped to wound.

The investigating officer testified that Zimmerman's story was consistent with the evidence. Despite this, the prosecution's case is that there can be no reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's story is a lie. If a police officer had reasonable doubts, certainly the jury should too.

Martin's body showed evidence of drugs. Despite this, the prosecution's case assumes that Martin must have acted rationally that evening. There's no evidence for making that assumption. The prosecution argues that, because Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not, that Zimmerman must have acted either maliciously or recklessly. That's another assumption without evidence. Any reasonable person would have their doubts about that.

The prosecution amounts to this: there was a confrontation between an unarmed man and a man who was armed. Only the two of them know what really happened. The unarmed man is dead and can't tell his story. Therefore, we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the unarmed man and assume it was the armed man's fault. Therefore, the armed man is guilty.

That's not the law. The accused gets the benefit of any reasonable doubt. The law says to the jury: look at the defendant. There sits an innocent man. If only the two of them know what happened, you the jury are not allowed to guess.

The accused must be proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal case. That hasn't been done here.

Click to expand...

Famm_sl said:

Nothing has shaken my left leaning attitudes as thoroughly as the responses to this case from all the leftist news sources and my liberal acquaintances.

Click to expand...

hodj_sl said:

Wrong.

Its evidence of intent to do enough bodily injury that death becomes a possibility.

Troll harder. You can't double back down on retarded now.



Yes, actually, it really is. Especially when its a forensics specialist who has dealt with more cases in 40 years than you can even imagine, is one of the foremost professionals in his field of work, and is demonstrably correct in what he's saying.



Irrelevant. The point is that if you're bashing someone's head into concrete, you have a reasonable expectation that serious bodily injury, up to and including death, can occur.

You've been wrong this entire time, and you and redshift need to put up some fucking quotes and evidence and facts or shut up.

Click to expand...