"His job was to wait for the police, not engage the person he suspected of being a criminal."

There's no law that says you can't actively engage someone you think is committing a crime. There is such a thing as a citizen's arrest.

exactly.

if there are break ins in your neighborhood and you see someone sneaking around none of you would follow? You'd just call the police?
How about if some funny looking guy was walking around a school yard, eyeing little girls? You'd call the police and go home? Im a wimp but I would keep my eye on them until the police arrive.
Based on 911 call, thats exactly what zim was doing. no crime there at all. you can spin it as stalking but the defense will spin it as civic duty.

here you go Likwid from a former prosecutor and law professor - I am sure its horse dookie to you but what will it mean to the jury?

To paraphrase President Obama, if I had a son who had been flat on the ground in a vicious fight, the back of his head would look like that of accused murderer George Zimmerman.

Thanks to a photograph broadcast by ABC News showing Zimmerman’s bloody head wounds, those trying to use Trayvon Martin’s death to challenge “stand your ground” self-defense laws had better start exploiting some other tragedy. For the picture demonstrates that Zimmerman was unable to retreat, since he was pinned to the ground taking a beating when he shot Martin. And note that one of the depicted wounds is long and straight, consistent with Zimmerman’s claim that Martin was pounding his head against an edged curbstone at the time of the fatal shot.

We don’t have all the facts, but there are things we do know.

For instance, the police radio tape proves that Zimmerman was describing his actions to the police as he allegedly stalked his victim. Doesn’t that undercut the murder charges? What kind of criminal calls 911 to tell the police he is hunting down his intended prey?

On the tape, Zimmerman not only advises he is following Martin, but he also asks for confirmation that a police officer is being dispatched to investigate. The dispatcher replies that Zimmerman doesn’t need to follow Martin, to which Zimmerman promptly responds “OK” and agrees, instead, to rendezvous with the en-route police officer.

Again, what kind of murderer, preparing for the kill, invites the police to interrupt his scheme? Moreover, doesn’t this conversation support Zimmerman’s claim that he had ceased his pursuit prior to the confrontation with Martin?

We also know that, after shooting Martin, Zimmerman waited for the police to arrive and cooperated fully with their investigation, even as emergency medical personnel treated his head wounds. Wouldn’t someone who had just committed a heinous hate crime potentially punishable by death or life imprisonment have fled the scene or, at least, requested legal counsel and refused to answer questions?

Zimmerman and Martin fought on the ground, and the fight ended when Zimmerman pulled the trigger. But at Zimmerman’s bail hearing, a prosecution detective, who had sworn out the arrest warrant, testified that he couldn’t say who had started the fight.

If this case goes to trial, the prosecution will need a better answer than that if it hopes to prove Zimmerman was the aggressor. And shouldn’t that key issue have been resolved before bringing murder charges against an obviously injured person claiming that he acted in self-defense?

While much evidence remains to be disclosed, what we have learned so far raises serious questions about the strength, rationale, and integrity of the prosecution’s case. These questions are all the more troubling given the tsunami of manufactured racist hysteria that clearly influenced the decision to arrest “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman.

Stay tuned.

yawn,

Absent something new in Corey's file, one of America's best-known lawyers feels the case against Zimmerman is doomed. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz believes that the murder charges will be thrown out.
Last week, media outlets filed motions to unseal the records concerning the arrest of George Zimmerman in connection with the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Sooner than later, the public will see what evidence special prosecutor Angela Corey has that warranted the filing of second-degree murder charges.

Absent something new in Corey's file, one of America's best-known lawyers feels the case against Zimmerman is doomed. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz believes that the murder charges will be thrown out.

In a recent interview with me, Dershowitz acknowledged the low evidentiary bar necessary at this juncture but still opined that Corey has not met it.

"Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin," Dershowitz said. "This is so thin that it won't make it past the judge on a second-degree murder charge. There is simply nothing in there that would justify second-degree murder. The elements of the crime aren't established ...

"There is nothing in there, of course, either about the stains on the back of Zimmerman's shirt, the blood on the back of his head, the bloody nose, all of that. It's not only thin, it's irresponsible. I think that what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech ... for re-election when she gave her presentation, and overcharged, way overcharged. ...

"If the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable-cause affidavit, this case will result in an acquittal."

Nothing offered by the prosecution at last week's bond hearing contradicts what Dershowitz told me. In fact, when investigator Dale Gilbreath, who signed the affidavit, was asked what proof he had that Zimmerman was the instigator, he offered absolutely no evidence.

Corey's two-page "Affidavit of Probable Cause -- Second Degree Murder" says Martin "was profiled by George Zimmerman. Martin was unarmed and was not committing a crime."

The affidavit also says that in his recorded call to police, Zimmerman, "while talking about Martin ... stated 'these a-- , they always get away.'"

And, the affidavit says, when the dispatcher instructed Zimmerman not to pursue Martin, "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin, who was trying to return to his home."

What the affidavit does not reveal is what, specifically, began the physical confrontation. Here is the critical paragraph:

"Zimmerman confronted Martin, and a struggle ensued. Witnesses heard people arguing and what sounded like a struggle. During this time period, witnesses heard numerous calls for help, and some of these were recorded in 911 calls to police. Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls, identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's."

Confronted and a struggle ensued? Ensued how? Provoked by whom? And where Zimmerman presumably has told Sanford police that Martin was the initiator, what evidence does the prosecution have to refute him -- with Martin himself silenced? The affidavit does not say.

Commenting on the absence of this information, Dershowitz told me: "But it's worse than that. It's irresponsible and unethical, not including the material that favors the defendant, unless it's not true. But if it's true, as we now have learned from other information, that the grass stains are in back of Zimmerman's shirt, that there were bruises on his head, you must put that in an affidavit. The affidavit has to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

Dershowitz acknowledges that "probable cause is a very minimal standard. It just means if everything you say turns out to be true, have the elements of the crime been satisfied? ... This affidavit doesn't even make it to probable cause. Everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything."

Conventional wisdom holds that a critical pretrial moment will come when the defense argues a motion to dismiss the case on the "stand-your-ground" law (which will render Zimmerman immune from prosecution if by a preponderance of evidence he can show that he "reasonably believed" using deadly force was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm).

But if Dershowitz is right, the case won't make it that far. The affidavit suggests that Zimmerman was the provocateur with its references to his profiling, slurs and refusal to follow law enforcement advice ("we don't need you to do that"). But even if Zimmerman was the initiator, he will still maintain some right of self-defense.

"So, there is nothing in this affidavit -- and I've read it quite carefully -- that suggests the crime. It suggests the possibility of a crime, but a good judge will throw this out," according to Dershowitz.

When Sanford police initially investigated the case, they referred to it as a potential case of "manslaughter," but then declined to prosecute, at which point Gov. Rick Scott appointed Corey to investigate.

Manslaughter means the outcome was unintended. Murder, with which Corey charged Zimmerman, means he meant to kill Martin and acted with a "depraved mind." Unless the prosecution has an eyewitness to support such a claim, it is difficult to see how it will be sustained. We should soon find out.
-------

Not Really....a citizen's Arrest can only be made IF you actually Witness a crime being Committed....not think he might be going to commit a crime.

Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. For example, Arizona law allows a citizen's arrest if the arrestor has personally witnessed the offense occurring.[37]

I don't think a citizen's arrest can be used in this case... I think it will all boil down to who is deemed the Antagonist

Really? An OpEd is your evidence?

:rotf2:

not evidence, opinion. from people more educated and inexpericeced than you and Spence.
Opinion is all that is needed for reasonable doubt.

Ahhh yes, once again, the media doing the thinking for you.


This won't be a 'stand your ground' case due to the wording:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using
the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend
himself or herself or another against the such other’s imminent use of unlawful
force. However, a the person is justified in the use of deadly force and
does not have a duty to retreat only if:

(a) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent
imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to
prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

Getting the crap kicked out of you by a kid is not justifiable use of force.

:smash:
Ignorance is bliss

I wasn't saying a citizen's arrest was warranted in this case. I was saying that Zimmerman's act of following this kid (or stalking him, whatever you want to call it) was not, itself, a crime. Spence said Zimmerman's "job" was to wait for police, and that's absolutely, 100% false. If a citizen sees something suspicious, he is not required to sit and wait. There is no law saying he cannot actively engage. There are limits, or course.

What do you base that on?

I'm not saying I think Zimmerman isn't builty, because I don't know many facts. But your statement is insane. If someone is bashing my head into the concrete, and I have a gun, too bad for them.

I'm not saying that's what happened in this case. But I can point you to hundreds of cases where "kids beat the crap" out of their victims and either killed them or did grave harm.

You're saying that getting the crap beat out of you by a kid (which is irrelevent) isn't a justifiable use of deadly force. I bet there isn't a criminal lawyer in the country who would agree with you.

This might have been a good read for him.....

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...amHandbook.pdf

10. Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department.

I don't think he is guilty of Racial Profiling or Murder...I think he is more guilty of Stupidity and Over-Zealousness.

But all-in-all we'll see what the Court thinks...he doesn't have to sell it to me....he has to sell it to the jury

The police gave Zimmerman -- as a community watch officer -- strict instructions as to what he could or could not do. He was not supposed to carry a weapon, he was not supposed to engage a suspect. He violated both of these instructions.

As TDF said, witnessing a "crime" may be different. But acting on suspicion alone, especially when you've been instructed not to is clearly a conflict the jury will be forced to consider.

-spence

What about Dog? Dog, the big bad dog, the bounty hunter.........

:uhuh:

Transcript:
911 Dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]
911 dispatcher:
Alright, sir, what is your name? [2:34]
Zimmerman:
George. He ran.
911 dispatcher:
Alright, George, what’s your last name?
Zimmerman:
Zimmerman.
911 dispatcher:
What’s the phone number you’re calling from?
Zimmerman:

407-435-2400

911 dispatcher:

Alright, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?

Zimmerman:

Yeah.
911 dispatcher:

Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman:

Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]

Right there is the case - Zimmerman directs the police to his truck where based on the discussion he will be meeting them! He is not stalking Treyvon, he is going to his truck
Please show me where there is ANY evidence Zimmerman pursued Trayvon when the dispatcher ADVISED him not to? He said OK, He AGREES to meet the police.
Case closed guys, you have all voiced your opinions but have provided NO FACTS to support. Its tiring.

if Trayvon is running for the gate and Zimmerman didn't go after him then how did they end up in a scuffle.

Zimmerman:

Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.

He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman:

Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?

Zimmerman:

The back entrance.

If this was true Zimmerman would have met the police and Martin would have been with his father...alive.

-spence

uhh, unless Trayvon circled back and jumped him - which 100% backs up Zimmermans story.

You're both assuming he followed him with no evidence. Please post evidence not speculation.

Yea, cause a 17 year old kid who went to the store for Skittles and soda would just randomly attack someone? Happens all the time...

Or, Martin was being followed and felt threatened. If he was, and did attack Zimmerman it's still going to be manslaughter because Martin had every legal right to be doing what he was.

The evidence needs to show that Martin was committing a crime, not that he wasn't. You're asking for the prosecution to prove a negative here.

-spence

Its Speculation both ways...its Zimmermans word...thats all..Where's the Evidence that Martin Doubled back and jumped Trayvon...because Zimmerman said so :huh:

What I posted about that 911 call backs up my speculation just as much as what you posted about the same call backs up your speculation.

No Difference...which is pretty much why there will probably be an acquittal

"Yea, cause a 17 year old kid who went to the store for Skittles and soda would just randomly attack someone? Happens all the time..."

Earth to Spence...you weren't there.

Spence, I'd love to know what you were saying in the first day or two after the Duke lacrosse rape case eploded onto the scene.

You liberals crack me up. You won't call the Ft Hood shooter an Islamic terrorist despite overwhelming evidence. But you have no problem rushing to judgment here.

As always, if it serves the liberal agenda, it must be true. It it spits in the face of the liberal agenda, it must be false.

By the way, I think Zimmerman is probably guilty of something here. But from where I sit, there's all kinds of ways to raise reasonable doubt. Zimmerman says he was attacked, the back of his head is covered in blood, that's a whole lot of reasonable doubt right there.

"'d love to know what you were saying in the first day or two after the Duke lacrosse rape case exploded onto the scene"

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...s-thing-3.html

About 3/4 of the way down the page, mixed in w. a friendly insult to Nebe

And you were milking every last blame/attack on liberals you could muster when the kid who lost his crap lit up the afghanis.

Stay classy Jim! Stay classy!

:biglaugh:All your anger is gonna kill you.

I didn't say I was classy. I'm saying I'm correct. And when liberals stop talking about facts or relevent opinions and hurl insults instead, that's when I know I've won.

Wrong as usual. I'm not brainwashed by either side. I have said before, I think liberals have great arguments when it comes to gun control and gay marriage. I voted for Bill Clinton and thought he was a pretty good president.

I can, and do, think for myself.

And unlike most liberals, I learn from my mistakes. Liberals still have egg on their faces from the Duke lacrosse debacle, and yet here they are, assuming this guy is guilty because the race issue (made up in this case, but don't let that stop you) has you all foaming at the mouth like a bunch of Hitler Youth shouting "Sieg Heil!".

exactly the point I've been trying to make!

Putting words in our mouth again, huh... All liberals... huh?

I assume he is guilty of something because based on my interpretations Zimmerman put himself in a situation that culminated in him shooting an unarmed kid who Zimmerman thought was suspicious (But was not committing a crime). My take on this would be exactly the same if Zimmerman was white, black, Hispanic, Asian, liberal, republican, and if Trayvon was white, black, Hispanic, Asian, whatever! Ultimately it will be UP TO A JURY OF HIS PEERS to decide if he committed a crime or not. Either way, this is a tragedy for both sides.

I posted a link to a thread back to the Duke case where I (as a liberal) specifically decried what Jackson/Sharpton etc.. were doing in that case with race and guilt.

But then again, I'm a liberal, so you KNOW what we all think

My position is that liberals, as a group, convicted the Duke lacrosse players before many facts were in. Today, most liberals, as a group, are doing the same thing here. That's my position, and I stand by it. If you are getting worked up because I didn't qualify my statement with "most liberals", or "nearly all liberals", I'm sorry. If I say "liberals think this", or "liberals think that", I don't mean every single liberal with literally zero exceptions. I'm talking about the group.

I think you knew what I meant, but hopefully that clears it up.

Clarification not needed.

I think you equate what you see in the media with how 'Liberals' think... just like there is a spectrum of conservatives who don't all just watch Fox News with their heads nodding like a bobble head doll, there is a large % of liberals who can (and maybe do) watch MSNBC without accepting it all as gospel truth.

Just keep that in mind please.

"I think you equate what you see in the media with how 'Liberals' think... '

I base my opinion of liberals' beliefs on what I see and hear everywhere. What else can I do? I don't let Sean Hannity tell me what to think, I'm not that simple-minded.

"there is a large % of liberals who can (and maybe do) watch MSNBC without accepting it all as gospel truth. "

That may be true, but it's not true just because you say it. And I don't see a lot of that. What I see is a guy like Juan Williams, a liberal, who says one conservative thing, and he gets fired from Public Radio (of all places).

I see almost perfect monolithic thinking on the left. Very, VERY little diversity of opinions. I don't say that because some right-wing nut tells me to say it. I say it because that's my observation, and I pay more attention to this stuff than most folks.

Seems like a lot of anger there. You say you don't sterotype but 50% of your posts have either "all" or "most" liberals (or some variation) and yet you say you think for yourself. Your actions don't match your perception of yourself.

Then why are we arguing....:hihi:

Didnt think we were, I was arguing with Jakwad, er, I mean Likwid who apparently can only see things one way. The 911 call can easily be spun in Zimmermans favor, not many murders call the police and provide their name, address, phone number and location minutes before committing a crime. Not many murders stay at the crime scene and cooperate fully with the police. I believe there is a ton of evidence that will be viewed in a way that will acquit Zim. I cant see how spence and lw cant see this. Im not saying right or wrong but come on, I dont see how the prosecution has a case they can prove.

Perhaps you should go back and look at the posts in this thread and look at the opinions of the people who tend to come at points from the left and from the right? Do that and see which side seems to have the "monolithic" thinking.

Perhaps you should look up the word "monolithic", because I see nemerous examples of that stereotypical liberal thinking here.

Because the dead kid was black, and only because he is black, most liberals have convicted this guy.

One of the liberals here even managed to compare Israel with terrorists in this thread, somehow. That's pure, liberal, monolithic thinking.

I never said I don't stereotype, can you avoid making stuff up please?

Not all stereotypes are invalid.

I'm not angry, either. I'm just correct in this case. Let the justice system play out, and when this guy gets acquitted, hunker down and prepare for the typical liberal reaction - namely anarchist rioting. and feral mayhem.

When OJ got acquitted, I don't recall seeing conservatives burning cars and throwing bricks through windows. Why is that?

I've never asserted that Zimmerman is a murderer or even a racist. I have asserted I think he's going to be convicted of manslaughter. A good upstanding citizen can royally #^&#^&#^&#^& up and kill someone in an illegal manner.

There's a reason the system doesn't like vigilante justice, it blurs the line and heads straight down a slippery slope.

-spence

Stating you're afraid of Muslims is a "conservative" thing to say?

Wow, just wow.

-spence

Really, did you go back and do what I suggested you do or instead just respond back w/your typical anger and insults? I'll bet you didn't review the thread.