I feel that's probably illegal.
- Thread starter Midswat
- Start date
I feel that's probably illegal.
Hoofbite
Draft Pick
- Messages
- 4,231
- Reaction score
- 0
No kidding.
The guy who almost pulls a gun on a pedestrian for a cross-eyed stare has a problem with a person who may or may not have thrown the first punch at some random person who was chasing them.
Hoofbite
Draft Pick
- Messages
- 4,231
- Reaction score
- 0
:WTF.
- Messages
- 10,636
- Reaction score
- 0
Are you still going on?
Ahem. Not Guilty.
------------
Drop George Zimmerman’s murder charge
New evidence suggests Trayvon Martin's killer acted in self-defense
By Alan Dershowitz / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.
There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.
She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.
But none of this was included in any affidavit.
Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.
A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.
Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)
This is a fact-specific case, in which much turns on what the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt. It must resolve all such doubts in favor of the defendant, because our system of justice insists that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for even one innocent to be wrongfully convicted.
You wouldn’t know that from listening to Corey, who announced that her jobs was “to do justice for Trayvon Martin” — not for George Zimmerman.
As many see it, her additional job is to prevent riots of the sort that followed the acquittal of the policemen who beat Rodney King.
Indeed, Mansfield Frazier, a columnist for the Daily Beast, has suggested that it is the responsibility of the legal system to “avert a large scale racial calamity.” He has urged Zimmerman’s defense lawyer to become a “savior” by brokering a deal to plead his client guilty to a crime that “has him back on the streets within this decade.”
But it is not the role of a defense lawyer to save the world or the country. His job — his only job — is to get the best result for his client, by all legal and ethical means.
Listen to the way a famous British barrister put it in 1820:
“An advocate, by the sacred duty which he owes his client, knows, in the discharge of that office, but one person in the world, that client and none other . . . Nay, separating even the duties of a patriot from those of an advocate, and casting them, if need be, to the wind, he must go on reckless of the consequences, if his fate it should unhappily be, to involve his country in confusion for his client’s protection.”
The prosecutor’s job is far broader: to do justice to the defendant as well as the alleged victim. As the Supreme Court has said: “The government wins . . . when justice is done.”
Zimmerman’s lawyer is doing his job. It’s about time for the prosecutor to start doing hers.
------------
Drop George Zimmerman’s murder charge
New evidence suggests Trayvon Martin's killer acted in self-defense
By Alan Dershowitz / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.
There is, of course, no assurance that the special prosecutor handling the case, State Attorney Angela Corey, will do the right thing. Because until now, her actions have been anything but ethical, lawful and professional.
She was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. The New York Times has reported that the police had “a full face picture” of Zimmerman, before paramedics treated him, that showed “a bloodied nose.” The prosecutor also had photographic evidence of bruises to the back of his head.
But none of this was included in any affidavit.
Now there is much more extensive medical evidence that would tend to support Zimmerman’s version of events. This version, if true, would establish self-defense even if Zimmerman had improperly followed, harassed and provoked Martin.
A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.
Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that. (The prosecution has already admitted that it has no evidence that Zimmerman started the actual fight.)
This is a fact-specific case, in which much turns on what the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt. It must resolve all such doubts in favor of the defendant, because our system of justice insists that it is better for 10 guilty defendants to go free than for even one innocent to be wrongfully convicted.
You wouldn’t know that from listening to Corey, who announced that her jobs was “to do justice for Trayvon Martin” — not for George Zimmerman.
As many see it, her additional job is to prevent riots of the sort that followed the acquittal of the policemen who beat Rodney King.
Indeed, Mansfield Frazier, a columnist for the Daily Beast, has suggested that it is the responsibility of the legal system to “avert a large scale racial calamity.” He has urged Zimmerman’s defense lawyer to become a “savior” by brokering a deal to plead his client guilty to a crime that “has him back on the streets within this decade.”
But it is not the role of a defense lawyer to save the world or the country. His job — his only job — is to get the best result for his client, by all legal and ethical means.
Listen to the way a famous British barrister put it in 1820:
“An advocate, by the sacred duty which he owes his client, knows, in the discharge of that office, but one person in the world, that client and none other . . . Nay, separating even the duties of a patriot from those of an advocate, and casting them, if need be, to the wind, he must go on reckless of the consequences, if his fate it should unhappily be, to involve his country in confusion for his client’s protection.”
The prosecutor’s job is far broader: to do justice to the defendant as well as the alleged victim. As the Supreme Court has said: “The government wins . . . when justice is done.”
Zimmerman’s lawyer is doing his job. It’s about time for the prosecutor to start doing hers.
- Messages
- 437
- Reaction score
- 0
I doubt this gets dropped. If it does, there will be more outrage.
Personally, I think bean boy is guilty.
Personally, I think bean boy is guilty.
Spoken like someone with a complete disregard for the facts of the case and the laws of Florida.
MetalHead
In the Rotation
- Messages
- 531
- Reaction score
- 0
He has a PHD in Asshat science.He's a liberal moron.
There is no case here,Zimmerman acted in self defense.
The police released him the night of the incident because his story and the witness' story checked out.
They only arrested him to appease the race peddlers.
No jury in their right mind would convict,none,unless you put the fucking nation of islam and the black panthers there.
And where is La Raza in this?...more proof that leftist fucks are leftist over anything else.It's their religion.
- Messages
- 437
- Reaction score
- 0
No, the facts are he should have never chased him. And we all know he confronted him.
- Messages
- 437
- Reaction score
- 0
C'mon. You really think Trayvon attacked poor George, the neighborhood cop?
iceberg
In the Rotation
- Messages
- 824
- Reaction score
- 0
we also know that trayvon was a thief. expelled from school even during this time because of his actions. they found several stolen goods on him several times in his "academic" career. on this night, zimmerman said he acted like he was scoping out houses.
given his background, of which seldom got out - isn't that strange? - maybe he *was* looking in windows. if you're on neighborhood watch, what do you do? you ask him what's up.
from wiki:
While in his vehicle on a personal errand, Zimmerman noticed Martin walking inside the community. Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department to report Martin's behavior as suspicious, stating "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about" and "looking at all the houses".[6][7] (it does go on to say there was no proof of criminal activity, but perhaps martin asking him what was up stopped him from snooping in houses. again, given martin's history of criminal behavior, can you agree that he very well could have been snooping in houses?)
i can agree when the police said "do not chase" he should not have. but what if martin came back at zimmerman? it appears he did.
if you want to be hard on zimmerman, cool. but put the same microscope on martin and look at his background as well.
Last edited:
JBond
UDFA
- Messages
- 2,667
- Reaction score
- 2
You forgot JEW. Jew bean boy...or white guy depending on your news source. You need to remember to us all the possible slurs to better effect.
- Messages
- 437
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't believe he did. And, c'mon, the kid had some problems in school. So now it's OK for Zimmerman to assume he's guilty and pursue him. Looking at houses isn't a crime.
iceberg
In the Rotation
- Messages
- 824
- Reaction score
- 0
more from wiki:
Martin had been suspended from school at the time of his death, his third disciplinary suspension of the year.[44] One suspension was for tardiness. Another suspension was for graffiti, when Martin was observed by a security camera in a restricted area of the school marking up a door with "W.T.F." When he was later searched by a Miami-Dade School Police Department officer, looking for the graffiti marker, the officer found several pieces of women's jewelry in his backpack, which Martin said were not his, stating a friend had given them to him. A screwdriver was also found, which was described by the school police investigator as a burglary tool. The jewelry was impounded and given to the police, but no evidence ever surfaced to indicate that the jewelry was stolen. Martin's third suspension involved a marijuana pipe, and an empty bag containing marijuana residue. Martin was not charged with any crime related to these incidents and did not have a juvenile record.[44][45][46][47][48] Judge Nelson ruled that the defense may have access to Martin's records, including the details of these suspensions, as well as access to Martin's social media sites, but has not ruled on if they will be admissible as evidence during the trial.[49]
Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump said the parents had never heard about the bag of jewelry and that it was completely irrelevant to what happened on February 26.[50] Martin's parents and their attorneys also said the defense's request for school records and social media was a "fishing expedition" aimed at attacking their son and an attempt to assassinate his character.[51]
Martin had been suspended from school at the time of his death, his third disciplinary suspension of the year.[44] One suspension was for tardiness. Another suspension was for graffiti, when Martin was observed by a security camera in a restricted area of the school marking up a door with "W.T.F." When he was later searched by a Miami-Dade School Police Department officer, looking for the graffiti marker, the officer found several pieces of women's jewelry in his backpack, which Martin said were not his, stating a friend had given them to him. A screwdriver was also found, which was described by the school police investigator as a burglary tool. The jewelry was impounded and given to the police, but no evidence ever surfaced to indicate that the jewelry was stolen. Martin's third suspension involved a marijuana pipe, and an empty bag containing marijuana residue. Martin was not charged with any crime related to these incidents and did not have a juvenile record.[44][45][46][47][48] Judge Nelson ruled that the defense may have access to Martin's records, including the details of these suspensions, as well as access to Martin's social media sites, but has not ruled on if they will be admissible as evidence during the trial.[49]
Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump said the parents had never heard about the bag of jewelry and that it was completely irrelevant to what happened on February 26.[50] Martin's parents and their attorneys also said the defense's request for school records and social media was a "fishing expedition" aimed at attacking their son and an attempt to assassinate his character.[51]