Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Florida Teen murdered by


Copasetic

Recommended Posts

Myles, I agree since i'm on the fence as well as thier is just too much evidence about how much tampering had been done in this case. After readding it I also agree my grammer was astrious in that post.

It's almost humorous that 2 people can be at each others throats when we really think the same. :w00t:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPDATE: I guess no one saw it when I posted it before. Judge revoked Z's bond because he lied about the money that had been collected AND he had a extra passport. Apparently Z's not real bright and isn't listening to legal advice. So now he can spend a lovely Florida Summer in jail.

URGENT: A judge on Friday revoked the bond of the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin and ordered him returned to jail within 48 hours.

Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester said that George Zimmerman and his wife, Shellie, misled the court about how much money they had available when his bond was set for $150,000 in April. Prosecutors claim Zimmerman had $135,000 available that had been raised by a website he set up.

Zimmerman's wife testified at the bond hearing that they had limited funds available since she was a nursing student and Zimmerman wasn't working.

"He can't sit back and obtain the benefit of a lower bond based upon those material falsehoods," Lester said.

Defense attorney Mark O'Mara said the fact that Zimmerman and his wife never used the money for anything indicated "there was no deceit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor George. This says something about his intelligence, and integrity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow I can't believe this post is still open.How sad.

It's a story that will be nearly dormant for a few months then flare back to full interest when the trial starts. It should be quite interesting to see what happens when the trial ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Z will be in jail until the "next" bond hearing. All parties involved will explain to the judge exactly what happened with the internet money and passport. I expect a 1 Million dollar bail and he is out with $100,000.

Passport issue is moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't suppose it's precedented, but what if the whole trial were thrown out due to extreme prejudice because of media distortions...we need true reporters, not "opinion shapers" (i.e. propagandists) as they like to call themselves. What kinda gets my goat is, are (is?) the media TRYING to start riots? It sure looks like it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPDATE: I guess no one saw it when I posted it before. Judge revoked Z's bond because he lied about the money that had been collected AND he had a extra passport. Apparently Z's not real bright and isn't listening to legal advice. So now he can spend a lovely Florida Summer in jail.

The fact Z is stupid, does not mean he is a murderer. It does shadow his testimony as being from a Known Liar, but I feel the evidence, even if he did not testify in his own defense is enough to prevent a Murder Conviction.

It will be interesting to see what other charges are filed for this specific trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how the hell are neighborhood watch allowed to carry firearms? they should only be allowed to carry a whistle a the most!! its called neighborhood "watch" not neighborhood vigilantes. some idiots cant be trusted with a spoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how the hell are neighborhood watch allowed to carry firearms? they should only be allowed to carry a whistle a the most!! its called neighborhood "watch" not neighborhood vigilantes. some idiots cant be trusted with a spoon.

because in a lot of the states you can legally carry firearms ;)

and many of these states probably have lower crime rates then states that dont allow CC on average.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

how the hell are neighborhood watch allowed to carry firearms? they should only be allowed to carry a whistle a the most!! its called neighborhood "watch" not neighborhood vigilantes. some idiots cant be trusted with a spoon.

The concealed carry permit comes with MANY restrictions, depending on State laws. It also comes with tremendous responsibility to act according to law. If he over rected he will probably go to jail for a long time. If he truly was using that force he felt was required to save his own life he SHOULD walk free IMO

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concealed carry permit comes with MANY restrictions, depending on State laws.

In the context of his question though, his being legally permitted to carry is irrelevant. Neighborhood watch programs are universally non-confrontational. They police the neighborhood by being visible and reporting anything strange.

It also comes with tremendous responsibility to act according to law. If he over rected he will probably go to jail for a long time. If he truly was using that force he felt was required to save his own life he SHOULD walk free IMO

I still feel that he's due a manslaughter charge for creating the situation that resulted in his shooting someone. Had Zimmerman been walking along minding his own business (with his legal gun on hand) and someone chased him down and he shot them, I'd be totally on his side. All the nonsense with the witnesses and racism rants don't mean anything IMO. All that matters is that he knowingly armed himself and sought a confrontation. He got that confrontation and ended up shooting someone. It's manslaughter at least and murder if he shot Martin after the fight was actually over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the context of his question though, his being legally permitted to carry is irrelevant. Neighborhood watch programs are universally non-confrontational. They police the neighborhood by being visible and reporting anything strange.

I still feel that he's due a manslaughter charge for creating the situation that resulted in his shooting someone. Had Zimmerman been walking along minding his own business (with his legal gun on hand) and someone chased him down and he shot them, I'd be totally on his side. All the nonsense with the witnesses and racism rants don't mean anything IMO. All that matters is that he knowingly armed himself and sought a confrontation. He got that confrontation and ended up shooting someone. It's manslaughter at least and murder if he shot Martin after the fight was actually over.

I agree that Martin would NOT be dead had Zimmerman not decided to carry. Zimmerman was overzealous at least though I'm not sure how much farther I'd go trying to characterize his personality. In either case, the prosecution, under pressure from DoJ I believe, over reached with murder 2. And if Z walks there will be hell to pay from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the context of his question though, his being legally permitted to carry is irrelevant. Neighborhood watch programs are universally non-confrontational. They police the neighborhood by being visible and reporting anything strange.

I still feel that he's due a manslaughter charge for creating the situation that resulted in his shooting someone. Had Zimmerman been walking along minding his own business (with his legal gun on hand) and someone chased him down and he shot them, I'd be totally on his side. All the nonsense with the witnesses and racism rants don't mean anything IMO. All that matters is that he knowingly armed himself and sought a confrontation. He got that confrontation and ended up shooting someone. It's manslaughter at least and murder if he shot Martin after the fight was actually over.

We do not know that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do not know that.

I agree with Myles. We don't know what really happened. Even the reports given by the girlfriend who was on the phone don't clearly say who confronted whom. I beleive the first statement the girlfriend gave she said that Trayvon was talking to her and walked over to Zimmerman and asked why he was following him. From that it could possibly be deduced that Zimmerman was following Martin, but it was Martin that turned and confronted Zimmerman... and apparently initiated the assault.

Is following someone reason enough to try to kill that person?

I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.

Trayvon said, 'What, are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone.

http://gawker.com/5894832/trayvon-martins-girlfriend-i-told-him-to-run-seconds-before-he-was-shot

There are several variations on this, but they all have Zimmerman following Trayvon at the end, and then Trayvon speaking to Zimmerman and then a fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Myles. We don't know what really happened. Even the reports given by the girlfriend who was on the phone don't clearly say who confronted whom. I beleive the first statement the girlfriend gave she said that Trayvon was talking to her and walked over to Zimmerman and asked why he was following him. From that it could possibly be deduced that Zimmerman was following Martin, but it was Martin that turned and confronted Zimmerman... and apparently initiated the assault.

Is following someone reason enough to try to kill that person?

http://gawker.com/58...ore-he-was-shot

There are several variations on this, but they all have Zimmerman following Trayvon at the end, and then Trayvon speaking to Zimmerman and then a fight.

Exactly. We do not know. We do not know how Trayvon was acting. We do not know who confronted who. We do not know who threw the first punch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Myles. We don't know what really happened. Even the reports given by the girlfriend who was on the phone don't clearly say who confronted whom. I beleive the first statement the girlfriend gave she said that Trayvon was talking to her and walked over to Zimmerman and asked why he was following him. From that it could possibly be deduced that Zimmerman was following Martin, but it was Martin that turned and confronted Zimmerman... and apparently initiated the assault.

Is following someone reason enough to try to kill that person?

http://gawker.com/58...ore-he-was-shot

There are several variations on this, but they all have Zimmerman following Trayvon at the end, and then Trayvon speaking to Zimmerman and then a fight.

Following someone and chasing them through the neighborhood is seeking a confrontation. Whether you jumped them from behind or they turned around and jumped you doesn't change the fact that had you not been chasing someone who was minding his own business there would have been no confrontation.

The details don't matter (with the exception of the one we've previously discussed where he provably abandoned his pursuit and was heading off to meet the cops as he's stated). What matters is that he created a situation (both by stalking someone who he had seen commit no crime and by arming himself to do so) that directly resulted in someone's death. That's manslaughter.

I've said before and I'll say again, I don't believe (based on what the public has been told) that a murder charge is warranted. That said, they could have evidence we don't know about. Thing is, it's pretty routine these days to overcharge someone in the hopes that they'll plea for the lesser charge and preserve the prosecutor's high conviction rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The details don't matter

the details matter a great deal. :yes:

If Zimmerman left the young man, and was heading back to his car (as claimed i believe), and then the young man sprung on him and knocked him down and began beating him, then Zimmerman was in his right to defend himself using what force he deemed necessary. :huh: But if Zimmerman simply went up to the young man and punched him, etc, etc, he would be guilty of murder. The devil is in the details, buddy :sk (<--btw, i love this smilie XD )

Edited by Bavarian Raven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following someone and chasing them through the neighborhood is seeking a confrontation. Whether you jumped them from behind or they turned around and jumped you doesn't change the fact that had you not been chasing someone who was minding his own business there would have been no confrontation.

I have to disagree. Following someone that you have suspicions about is not controntation. If you follow someone at, say 50 feet, and then run off when they turn around, that is not confrontation, it is following. If you intend on chasing them down and stopping them, that is confrontation. There is little to no evidence (So far) that Z did that. Even Trayvon is quoted as saying... "Why are you following me?".

The details don't matter

That is the kind of ignorant talk that put innocent people into prison in railroad trials, and ruin lives with Trial by Media.

they could have evidence we don't know about. Thing is, it's pretty routine these days to overcharge someone in the hopes that they'll plea for the lesser charge and preserve the prosecutor's high conviction rate.

I agree they probably have a lot more then has been let out so far, as evidenced by the lawyers in the upcoming trial repeatedly asking the judge to lock up everything from public record.

I think they are Fishing with the Murder charge and will try him for like 4 or 5 charges with the lowest being Negligent Homicide or some such. He could very well be found guilty of such a lower charge depending on the evidence, how it is presented and what the judge allows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following someone and chasing them through the neighborhood is seeking a confrontation. Whether you jumped them from behind or they turned around and jumped you doesn't change the fact that had you not been chasing someone who was minding his own business there would have been no confrontation.

The details don't matter (with the exception of the one we've previously discussed where he provably abandoned his pursuit and was heading off to meet the cops as he's stated). What matters is that he created a situation (both by stalking someone who he had seen commit no crime and by arming himself to do so) that directly resulted in someone's death. That's manslaughter.

I've said before and I'll say again, I don't believe (based on what the public has been told) that a murder charge is warranted. That said, they could have evidence we don't know about. Thing is, it's pretty routine these days to overcharge someone in the hopes that they'll plea for the lesser charge and preserve the prosecutor's high conviction rate.

So following someone is confrontation? Have you ever followed someone? Having a gun does not equal intent to use it. Many people legally carry firearms. Are they all guilty of intent to kill someone? If the gun did not come out until the confrontation happend then I don't see where it playes a factor in determining who started the confrontation. It may have been George. It may have been Trayvon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree. Following someone that you have suspicions about is not controntation. If you follow someone at, say 50 feet, and then run off when they turn around, that is not confrontation, it is following. If you intend on chasing them down and stopping them, that is confrontation. There is little to no evidence (So far) that Z did that. Even Trayvon is quoted as saying... "Why are you following me?".

Well, based on his history, Zimmerman has "apprehended" people in the neighborhood. I've read a couple of statements by neighbors that said he stopped them on the street and questioned them. While there's no hardcore proof that I'm aware of, I can't imagine this being the one case where he was planning on observing instead of confronting.

That is the kind of ignorant talk that put innocent people into prison in railroad trials, and ruin lives with Trial by Media.

What I was saying was that the minutae make no difference until trial. It's the jury's job to determine whether they have some effect on what he's convicted of. Before trial, they mean jack squat.

I agree they probably have a lot more then has been let out so far, as evidenced by the lawyers in the upcoming trial repeatedly asking the judge to lock up everything from public record.

I think they are Fishing with the Murder charge and will try him for like 4 or 5 charges with the lowest being Negligent Homicide or some such. He could very well be found guilty of such a lower charge depending on the evidence, how it is presented and what the judge allows.

I agree. From what I've seen, it's standard procedure to try to throw on as many and as severe charges as possible in the hopes that the defendant will plea to the charge they actually want to convict him of. It's that whole "guaranteed 3 years VS possible 40" thing.

So following someone is confrontation?

No, following someone (unless you just happen to be walking in the same direction) is stalking. Following them in a car then hopping out to chase them through the backyards of a neighborhood - that's looking for a confrontation.

Have you ever followed someone?

Sure, and every single time I was hoping for a confrontation where I'd either be kissed or punched.

Having a gun does not equal intent to use it. Many people legally carry firearms. Are they all guilty of intent to kill someone? If the gun did not come out until the confrontation happend then I don't see where it playes a factor in determining who started the confrontation. It may have been George. It may have been Trayvon.

Who said having a gun means intent? All it means is that what would have been a scuffle turned into a shooting. You can be guilty of manslaughter with absolutely no intent to cause any harm. The key is whether you created or failed to avoid a situation that could reasonably result in someone's death. Zimmerman was hoping to be the pseudo cop hero like he has in the past. There's nothing wrong with being an imbecile until it hurts or kills someone else.

Unless there's some evidence (like a witness who saw Zimmerman much farther from his car than where the confrontation took place), there's no way to prove that Martin came after him after he gave up the chase. That's what he'd need to get off scot-free. In other words, we don't know (based on the public evidence) exactly what happened in the moments leading up to their coming to blows. We do know what led to the situation in its entirety though, and it wasn't the guy who was being chased for no reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nless there's some evidence (like a witness who saw Zimmerman much farther from his car than where the confrontation took place), there's no way to prove that Martin came after him after he gave up the chase. That's what he'd need to get off scot-free. In other words, we don't know (based on the public evidence) exactly what happened in the moments leading up to their coming to blows. We do know what led to the situation in its entirety though, and it wasn't the guy who was being chased for no reason.

actually, you got that backwards imho - the crown needs to prove this is what didn't happen (ie, that zimmerman didn't back off and then was attacked). it's still innocent until proven guilty (though the media is trying hard to change this :o )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually, you got that backwards imho - the crown needs to prove this is what didn't happen (ie, that zimmerman didn't back off and then was attacked). it's still innocent until proven guilty (though the media is trying hard to change this :o )

That's an attitude that is muddying the water too.

Yes, it's innocent until proven guilty. Are you saying you believe there's doubt that Zimmerman was the one who shot Martin?

His defense is self defense. That makes Martin guilty of a crime, no? In order to make this defense, he must reasonably prove that there is some basis for what amounts to convicting Martin of a crime. Without being able to do so, there's no getting around the fact that the responsibility for the whole episode is on Zimmerman's shoulders (well, there wouldn't be except for the terribly written SYG law that would have lawyers arguing that their clients are protected by it regardless of what they do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an attitude that is muddying the water too.

Yes, it's innocent until proven guilty. Are you saying you believe there's doubt that Zimmerman was the one who shot Martin?

His defense is self defense. That makes Martin guilty of a crime, no? In order to make this defense, he must reasonably prove that there is some basis for what amounts to convicting Martin of a crime. Without being able to do so, there's no getting around the fact that the responsibility for the whole episode is on Zimmerman's shoulders (well, there wouldn't be except for the terribly written SYG law that would have lawyers arguing that their clients are protected by it regardless of what they do).

Exactly! And it's the law that's actually on trial here even though it's Zimmerman's freedom at stake. If they cannot prove he meets the criteria of murder 2 then he walks unless I'm mistaken. Is he charged with murder 2 and manslaughter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! And it's the law that's actually on trial here even though it's Zimmerman's freedom at stake.

The law SHOULD be on trial. No law that makes you guilty of a crime based on how someone else feels is a good law. Ambiguous laws are a lawyer's wet dream. I have a few friends who are lawyers and I like them, but I loath their profession. One buddy of mine actually had a case where his client brought a dog to a college football game and in the middle of the game, it ran out onto the field and bit someone. His defense of the dog at trial was that the dog had always dreamt of being Uga (the University of Georgia mascot) and was overcome with the excitement of being in the stands at a Georgia game and lost control. Seriously, he charged a guy ten grand to basically stand up in court and tell a joke...

If they cannot prove he meets the criteria of murder 2 then he walks unless I'm mistaken. Is he charged with murder 2 and manslaughter?

Unless they've changed the charge since updates became sparse, it was murder 2 - which is basically a murder of opportunity as opposed to premeditated. As I said in the posts above, I really don't think the prosecution wants to take it to trial. The case is such a cluster@. Generally, they have a crime committed and the trial is about whether the right guy is sitting in the defendant's seat. In this one, they know they've got the right defendant and they're going to be deciding whether a crime was committed. Add the SYG law, the publicity, the cops failing to do a real investigation, the wishy-washy witnesses, and everything else, and this no slam dunk for the prosecution even at manslaughter - and prosecutors hate cases that aren't slam dunks.

On the flip-side, all those factors make it a very iffy proposition for Zimmerman too. That's why I believe they overcharged him and are hoping he'll plea to avoid trial for the more serious charge. Of course, Zimmerman's already shown that he's not the brightest bulb in terms of making wise choices as a defendant so we'll probably see the thing go to trial...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.