<p>Some TV talking heads pointed out that the lead investigator, the prosecution’s witness, testified that he believed Zimmerman was truthful in his account of the events. </p>
<p>The prosecution has shown all of the tapes of Zimmerman explaining what happened. This means Zimmerman gets to testify without being cross examined. There is no chance Zimmerman will be called to testify.</p>
<p>Aren’t there other detectives? From the second investigation?</p>
<p>or am I misguided?</p>
<p>ETA: be careful with newsmax, liberal hackers put a lot of viruses in those. fyi</p>
<p>If catahoula is talking about videos of TM fighting, these videos were also mentioned by GZ’s attorney. But then the atty had to apologize publicly when it turns out it wasn’t TM in the videos.</p>
<p>The case is so weak the conspiracy theories have started. </p>
<ol>
<li><p>The prosecution never wanted to prosecute him so they are purposely throwing the case.</p></li>
<li><p>The police were offended he was charged and are purposely lying to defend him.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>No no way he’s just innocent! Must be some massive conspiracy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d agree but not without pointing out it was entirely relevant to the point of my post…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>… (was almost the only point, in fact) which I’m going to decide you simply and completely missed.</p>
<p>Jono, why did I think you were Canadian?</p>
<p>I am. I’ve never held a gun in my life. It scares me that people walk around America with concealed weapons. But that doesn’t make someone guilty of a crime when none occurred.</p>
<p>I guess I did simply and completely miss your point, catahoula. Even when you quoted the same passage of text again.</p>
<p>I understand what he is saying.</p>
<p>It’s not actually all that controversial.</p>
<p>JonoWono, you don’t know that a crime didn’t occur any more than others know one did. I for one believe GZ DID set out to kill TM. But the jury might decide otherwise. At the very least, we all know that his actions led to the loss of life for a 17-year-old boy who was apparently in the wrong place at the wrong time. That sounds like manslaughter to me. But we will see what the jury determines.</p>
<p>Yes, Jono, I know.</p>
<p>This is why I keep saying I don’t agree with the law in Florida. It makes no sense to me.</p>
<p>I’m not sure he will get manslaughter, though I think unless you are completely innocent, or it is your house or property, you have no right to take another life without consequences. I think following someone around makes you responsible for putting yourself there.</p>
<p>I agree poetgirl, guns scare me. I think concealed carry laws are stupid, as are stand your ground laws. However, I also think that if you’re having your head beaten into the concrete you’re justified in shooting someone. The <em>edit prosecution edit</em> has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman wasn’t acting in self defense. I just don’t see evidence that comes close to proving that beyond a reasonable doubt. </p>
<p>I think a lot of people are looking at the case of “armed man follows unarmed teenager, unarmed teenager ends up shot to death” and just saying because that happened there must have been a crime. But that doesn’t necessarily mean a crime occurred. Following someone isn’t a crime, confronting someone isn’t a crime and shooting someone in self defense is not a crime.</p>
<p>Sally forgive my bluntness, but you do not quite understand how a conviction can be made. They have to PROVE THAT HE WAS NOT USING SELF DEFENSE. That means that he is assumed innocent, unless they can prove it. </p>
<p>You are completely correct that we can’t prove that he didn’t do it, but nobody has to. They either prove he’s guilty, or he cannot be charge with a crime here.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, so in the Cleveland case where he kidnapped and then raped girls for a decade, they shouldn’t be allowed to use deadly force(kill him) to stop him without consequences?</p>
<p>raiders, I really don’t want to go down the line of every crime ever committed. You will, however, notice that they DIDNT use deadly force. </p>
<p>Jono, I know what you mean. I’m not sure, according to Florida law, that there was a crime committed, beyond a reasonable doubt, and I find that absolutely unfathomable, in this case. I find it a failure in the law, myself. But, that’s just me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Once again, here is the law in question:</p>
<p>[Statutes</a> & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine](<a href=“Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine”>Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine)</p>
<p>Note that 776.041 does impose a duty to retreat on the one who initially provoked the fight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hadn’t ever heard of those, hayden. I was thinking more of the things that might predict whether Trayvon was the kind of guy that would buck someone playing authority figure…</p>
<p>[Weed</a>, fights and guns: Trayvon Martin’s text messages released - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com](<a href=“http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/23/3413343/]Weed”>http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/23/3413343/)</p>
<p>… though ‘fighting’ is mentioned here.</p>
<p>Re: [Bill</a> Text: NV AB321 | 2011 | 76th Legislature | Enrolled | LegiScan](<a href=“Bill Text: NV AB321 | 2023 | 82nd Legislature | Enrolled | LegiScan”>Bill Text: NV AB321 | 2011 | 76th Legislature | Enrolled | LegiScan)</p>
<p>That bill just seems to be clarifying existing case law, and appears to slightly narrow the circumstances under which deadly force may be used (versus what the case law allows), by adding the conditions that the person has a right to be present in the location and is not actively doing something criminal at the time.</p>
<p><a href=“State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman | Affidavit of Probable Cause - Document - NYTimes.com”>State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman | Affidavit of Probable Cause - Document - NYTimes.com;
<p>The affidavit of probable cause filed by Angela Corey. Interestingly she lays out the details of what occurred as she believed them. </p>
<p>yes, TM was not an alter boy, however he had no criminal history, while GZ in fact did have a criminal, violent history; </p>
<p>In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. </p>
<p>In August 2005, Zimmerman’s ex-fiancee, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. </p>
<p>I am puzzled by the pointing of fingers at TM’s past while denying GZ’s much more relevant and obvious past. Oh and why do we have TM’s texts but not have GZ’s? think about that?</p>
<p>yes, lindz. This is why I feel this case is at least partially about being connected and not connected, as Z’s dad the magistrate is clearly behind the scenes, more than racism.</p>
<p>Though clearly the history of the Sanford PD is very problematic.</p>
<p>Catahoula, what exactly is your point in continuing to vilify and defame the dead victim in this case? Does it make you feel justified in saying he “had it coming” and that that somehow absolves GZ of responsibility? I really do not see the relevance here at all. And yet you continue with this line of reasoning.</p>