Trayvon Martin Case Updates: 2 Judges Recuse, "graphic pictures" of Zimmerman's Injuries, Bond set at $150K (companies, federal government)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, we don't know what evidence, circumstantial evidence, the state may have that will go to Zimmerman starting the physical fight. We just don't know the answer to your question right now. Right now all we have is Zimmerman's word, and Zimmerman himself is blowing his credibility to bits.
Leaving his car was like seeing Trayvon from looking out the window of his home and then going outside to follow him. Seems that "observe" means just that, observe. Stay put and observe. And again this is where the dispatcher told him that they didn't "need" for him to do that. Unfortunately the person used diplomatic language and expected Zimmerman would understand. Maybe he should have been more direct and said DO NOT FOLLOW THE GUY.
We know enough, they have said under oath and in charging documents they do not know who started it.
Mr. Wanna Be Lawyer, you should know that one doesn't have to follow the advice or commands of a dispatcher. Unless Zimmerman was doing something illegal he has every right to defend himself.
Lie there and die quietly, according to some on this thread.
Hopefully this case will cause NW associations to rethink their policies. Forcing their volunteers to be defenseless when potentially observing violent criminals puts their lives in additional danger. I suspect a large number of NW volunteers are smart enough to ignore that rule.
Yes, NW may rethink. I was thinking recently this may be the end of NW programs. Interestingly, NW has been around a long time, yet I believe this is the first time an NW poseur has killed anyone. It's given NW a bad name.
We know enough, they have said under oath and in charging documents they do not know who started it.
Mr. Wanna Be Lawyer, you should know that one doesn't have to follow the advice or commands of a dispatcher. Unless Zimmerman was doing something illegal he has every right to defend himself.
Having the right to do something (follow a stranger in your community) doesn't mean you must do it, and it's seems very obvious that Zimmerman's bad judgement in that regard has ruined his life and taken the life of another. It's a big mistake to hang on so tightly to one answer, from one witness, in a hearing and to hang your hat on it, so to speak.
You're going to be so disappointed when the trial starts and nothing plays out as you are so sure it will. You do realize that Zimmerman's own lawyer has now said that his credibility has been "damaged" by the reason his bail was revoked.
The name calling is not necessary.
Btw, tell me WHERE in the "charging documents" they made the specific assertion that they don't know who started the fight. You consistently fragment the evidence, which is why you come to so many wrong conclusions. Look at the definition of circumstantial evidence.
Ghost, with all due respect, take a look at the transcript of comments by Horn. To me, this is an atrosity. Horn wanted to shoot those men, cited the law giving him the authority to do so, created a situation where he had to "stand his ground," and refused to follow the dispatcher's direct instructions. All he had to do is stay in his house since it wasn't even his house being robbed. He did not have to protect himself as he states in this transcript. He had been waiting for a situation to be created, and he created it. And yet, because of the current law, this yocal is celebrated. He is nothing more than a vigilante and equally responsible as the burglars are, if not more.
If you have to stand your ground, then stand it and shoot. But the minute you create the situation, refuse to follow instructions, you are guilty of murder. I am all for the right to bear arms and defend yourself. But the second you create the situation, you're done.
And the ridiculous statement that the dispatcher has no authority? That's intellectually insulting. By calling 911, you are putting yourself in the hands the police. If you're going to ignore the instructions and act like a vigilante, then why call 911? Just shoot and sort it all out after the people die and the police arrive--after all, that's what you want to do anyway. Just one thing--make sure the people you shoot are dead so there's no testimony against you.
Look at the operative words by the dispatcher: "Ain't no property worth shooting someone over." Get it? Do you see the difference? Property versus life?
For these reasons, Stand Your Ground should be changed. People should read this transcript below and be very grieved for the current state of this law, and how it allows people to decide to create a situation to enable them to kill someone.
One vital piece of evidence were segments of Mr. Horn’s 9-1-1 calls which could have possibly incriminated Mr. Horn or shown his innocence. The most scrutinized segment is presented below:
Joe Horn: “I’ve got a shotgun; do you want me to stop them?”
The Pasadena emergency operator responded: “Nope. Don’t do that. Ain’t no property worth shooting somebody over, O.K.?”
Mr. Horn said: “But hurry up, man. Catch these guys will you? Cause, I ain’t going to let them go.”Mr. Horn then said he would get his shotgun.
The operator said, “No, no.” But Mr. Horn said: “I can’t take a chance of getting killed over this, O.K.? I’m going to shoot.”
The operator told him not to go out with a gun because officers would be arriving.“O.K.,” Mr. Horn said. “But I have a right to protect myself too, sir,” adding, “The laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it.”The operator said, “You’re going to get yourself shot.” But Mr. Horn replied, “You want to make a bet? I’m going to kill them.”
Moments later he said, “Well here it goes, buddy. You hear the shotgun clicking and I’m going.”
Then he said: “Move, you’re dead.”There were two quick gunshots, then a third.
“I had no choice,” Mr. Horn said when he got back on the line with the dispatcher. “They came in the front yard with me, man.”
The 9-1-1 call ended about 80 seconds after the shots were fired, when officers arrived on the scene. [1]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider275452
The perps approached him after burglarizing his neighbors house, with crowbar in hand, to me that was enough of a threat to shoot them.
Isn't that bank account a legal defense fund, not personal wealth? The point of bail/bond is to make provision that a defendant will not flee or that if he does flee, the county's cost of pursuit will be offset. If the bond is paid out of a legal defense fund and not out of a defendant's own resources or those of his family, the whole business gets a bit murky in my mind. GZ's personal assets are not at risk except for the $15,000 in excess of the $135,000 in the fund. (Odd how those numbers work out.) Also, the legal work has been ongoing, so there likely was not $135,000 available in the account.
I don't know how these things work under the law. Looking for an answer.
It would be interesting to know the content of the conversation between GZ and Mrs. Z.
Isn't that bank account a legal defense fund, not personal wealth? The point of bail/bond is to make provision that a defendant will not flee or that if he does flee, the county's cost of pursuit will be offset. If the bond is paid out of a legal defense fund and not out of a defendant's own resources or those of his family, the whole business gets a bit murky in my mind. GZ's personal assets are not at risk except for the $15,000 in excess of the $135,000 in the fund. (Odd how those numbers work out.) Also, the legal work has been ongoing, so there likely was not $135,000 available in the account.
I don't know how these things work under the law. Looking for an answer.
It would be interesting to know the content of the conversation between GZ and Mrs. Z.
You are not the one who made the decision to revoke the bond.
Having the right to do something (follow a stranger in your community) doesn't mean you must do it, and it's seems very obvious that Zimmerman's bad judgement in that regard has ruined his life and taken the life of another. It's a big mistake to hang on so tightly to one answer, from one witness, in a hearing and to hang your hat on it, so to speak.
You're going to be so disappointed when the trial starts and nothing plays out as you are so sure it will. You do realize that Zimmerman's own lawyer has now said that his credibility has been "damaged" by the reason his bail was revoked.
The name calling is not necessary.
Btw, tell me WHERE in the "charging documents" they made the specific assertion that they don't know who started the fight. You consistently fragment the evidence, which is why you come to so many wrong conclusions. Look at the definition of circumstantial evidence.
The affadavit doesn't mention who started the fight. Can you give me one sensible reason why the state would not have mentioned gz started the fight if they had evidence he did ? The reason is, as the investigator said at the hearing, there was no evidence as to who started the fight.
Well, you were questioning the decision, in bold no less. Maybe they know more than you do?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
