Why is the media portraying him as a boy?

[Tudamorf]

If a prosecutor can't prove that Zimmerman was the one who assaulted Martin by confronting him

A confrontation is not the same thing as an assault.

In California, you can confront someone, but still have the justification of self-defense if you reasonably feel in danger of death or great bodily injury. You can even pursue the attacker so long as the threat exists.

The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are not entitled to the defense, so it's not as easy as you think.

[Fyyr]

Now, if the prosecutor is inept, they have a favorable judge, and/or they hit the lotto during jury selection everything above doesn't matter.

In California, remember the gun hating state, you only need one juror to believe that you are in danger.

And not in danger of dying, but bodily harm(albeit great), in order for the self defense laws to apply.

I don't think that would be very hard for Zimmerman to do, if he were in California. California has no, 'Stand Your Ground' law.

But he is not, he is in Florida. If he convinces just one juror that the man 'went for his gun', he is going to get off. If he convinces one juror that his injuries were real, he is going to get off.

Now why would he plea something out with a conviction, when he can easily be acquitted and discharged?

I have no idea about this 'equal force'. That is not in California laws 197-199, which comes directly from common law. It reads great bodily harm. Even a public defender could show that a 6 foot 2/3 athlete(the media pictures portray him as an athlete) could EASILY cause great bodily harm with his hands or feet alone. And Zimmerman only needs to convince a juror that he believed that he was in danger of great bodily harm, if the wounds to his face and back of head were real, that is a slam dunk. A single blow to the head can be fatal, don't ask me, ask Natasha Richardson(she hit her head on the soft snow of a bunny hill and suffered a fatal intracranial hemorrhage).

The fact that the man was carrying only Skittles and an Arizona Ice Tea(an athlete could do a lot of damage to you with a can or bottle of Arizona Green Tea, I might add) has nothing to do with self defense or not, as the media and family are playing this up as. I could kill you with a can of tea, I doubt I could with the Skittles.

If a Californian man, carrying a gun, confronts another man and that man charges and attacks him and the first man shoots him dead that is self defense. If the man does not have a permit to carry the weapon then he will be convicted on carrying without a permit, not manslaughter; that does not even enter into it. Maybe guilty of some other trivial civil infraction like disturbing the peace or discharging a firearm in the city. He acted in self defense, and would be acquitted and discharged providing he convince a juror that he thought his body or life were in danger.

Anyway, the story the girlfriend on the phone tells backs up that hypothesis that Martin dropped his phone and then assaulted Zimmerman. If Zimmerman would have just shot him in cold blood, then the girl would have heard the gunshot before the phone was dropped and disconnected. And all of this will come out in the trial, which will obviously be played out in the media just like the OJ trial, so we will be able to form our opinions more accurately then. With the facts as they stand right now, this would clearly be self defense in California. You can't just imprison Zimmerman now just to prevent Blacks from rioting when he gets acquitted.



Ps, I contrast California for three reasons, one I don't know what Florida law is nor care to learn. Two, I know that Florida is a much more gun tolerant state and a more Conservative state with respect to self defense and gun laws. Three, I live here and have no intention of visiting or moving to Florida.

[Tudamorf]

I don't think that would be very hard for Zimmerman to do, if he were in California. California has no, 'Stand Your Ground' law.

But he is not, he is in Florida. If he convinces just one juror that the man 'went for his gun', he is going to get off. If he convinces one juror that his injuries were real, he is going to get off.

California does have the same "stand your ground" law, in that you don't have to try to flee. Some states require you to run if you can. But the force also has to be proportional in California (for example, you can't shoot someone in the head if you're only afraid they'll slap you).

Also, he can only be acquitted if every juror is convinced there's a reasonable doubt as to the self-defense. If he convinces only one juror, it's a hung jury, and he can be re-tried.

He isn't likely to convince angry blacks or guilty white liberals.

[AbyssalMage]

Support that the prosecution should of went with manslaughter charges

Autopsy: Evidence of marijuana in Martin's blood

included the release was an investigator's recommendation to prosecutors that suspect George Zimmerman be arrested on manslaughter charges. The investigator, who was on the scene after the shooting, wrote on March 13 that the confrontation should have been avoided. That report came nearly a month before Zimmerman was arrested.

So maybe they are trying to get him to plea deal out by charging him with Murder 2 like I originally thought.

New witness accounts also emerged Thursday. A witness, whose name is redacted, told investigators he saw "a black male, wearing a dark colored hoodie," on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help.

Amazing that it wasn't Zimmerman's voice that was recorded screaming for "help." Must be another delusional Zimmerman supporter. Hope they charge him with filing a false police report but doubt it.

On second thought, after learning about "eye witness testimony" I'm glad the "screams for help" were recorded on the 911 calls because with out them, Zimmerman would probably be acquitted with this testimony alone. So maybe the guy honestly thought he saw what he saw but the whole science of psychology of eye witness testimony proves once again that its useless.

[Tudamorf]

Support that the prosecution should of went with manslaughter charges

With this evidence, he is so NOT guilty, it isn't even funny. There is no way any unbiased juror (non-black and non-guilty white liberal) could convict him.

If they had both been white (or both black), this case would never have been charged by any sane prosecutor.

[Tudamorf]

More black hypocrisy:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

Woman gets 20 years for firing warning shot

(05-19) 10:07 PDT Tampa, Fla. (AP) --

Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of a toddler and 11-year-old twins, knew it was coming. She had claimed self-defense, tried to invoke Florida's "stand your ground" law and rejected plea deals that could have gotten her a much shorter sentence. A jury found her guilty as charged: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Because she fired a gun while committing a felony, Florida's mandatory-minimum gun law dictated the 20-year sentence.

Her case in Jacksonville has drawn a fresh round of criticism aimed at mandatory-minimum sentencing laws. The local NAACP chapter and the district's African-American congresswoman say blacks more often are incarcerated for long periods because of overzealous prosecutors and judges bound by the wrong-headed statute. Alexander is black.

U.S. Rep. Corinne Brown, D-Jacksonville, has been an advocate for Alexander. Brown was present at the sentencing, where she and Corey had a brief, terse exchange afterward as sign-toting supporters rallied outside the courthouse.

"The Florida criminal justice system has sent two clear messages today," Brown said afterward. "One is that if women who are victims of domestic violence try to protect themselves, the `Stand Your Ground Law' will not apply to them. ... The second message is that if you are black, the system will treat you differently."

On Aug. 1, 2010, Alexander was working for a payroll software company. She was estranged from her husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him, even though they'd had a baby together just nine days before. Thinking he was gone, she went to their former home to retrieve the rest of her clothes, family members said.

An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle and retrieved the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling.

Gray testified that he saw Alexander point the gun at him and looked away before she fired the shot. He claims she was the aggressor, and he had begged her to put away the weapon.

A judge threw out Alexander's "stand your ground" self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside. Alexander rejected a plea deal that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence and chose to go to trial. A jury deliberated 12 minutes before convicting her.

So according to the NAACP and a (black) member of Congress, a (black) woman who was in no danger after leaving an argument, went outside, got her gun, and fired at her husband should be entitled to self-defense.

However, a (non-black) man who at night saw a high 6'3" (black) athlete, got punched in both eyes, had his nose broken, was thrown down and had hit head cut on the pavement, was not entitled to self-defense.

Which is worse here, the hypocrisy or the racism?

[AbyssalMage]

More black hypocrisy:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

Woman gets 20 years for firing warning shot

(05-19) 10:07 PDT Tampa, Fla. (AP) --

Marissa Alexander had never been arrested before she fired a bullet at a wall one day in 2010 to scare off her husband when she felt he was threatening her. Nobody got hurt, but this month a northeast Florida judge was bound by state law to sentence her to 20 years in prison.

Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of a toddler and 11-year-old twins, knew it was coming. She had claimed self-defense, tried to invoke Florida's "stand your ground" law and rejected plea deals that could have gotten her a much shorter sentence. A jury found her guilty as charged: aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Because she fired a gun while committing a felony, Florida's mandatory-minimum gun law dictated the 20-year sentence.

Her case in Jacksonville has drawn a fresh round of criticism aimed at mandatory-minimum sentencing laws. The local NAACP chapter and the district's African-American congresswoman say blacks more often are incarcerated for long periods because of overzealous prosecutors and judges bound by the wrong-headed statute. Alexander is black.

U.S. Rep. Corinne Brown, D-Jacksonville, has been an advocate for Alexander. Brown was present at the sentencing, where she and Corey had a brief, terse exchange afterward as sign-toting supporters rallied outside the courthouse.

"The Florida criminal justice system has sent two clear messages today," Brown said afterward. "One is that if women who are victims of domestic violence try to protect themselves, the `Stand Your Ground Law' will not apply to them. ... The second message is that if you are black, the system will treat you differently."

On Aug. 1, 2010, Alexander was working for a payroll software company. She was estranged from her husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him, even though they'd had a baby together just nine days before. Thinking he was gone, she went to their former home to retrieve the rest of her clothes, family members said.

An argument ensued, and Alexander said she feared for her life when she went out to her vehicle and retrieved the gun she legally owned. She came back inside and ended up firing a shot into the wall, which ricocheted into the ceiling.

Gray testified that he saw Alexander point the gun at him and looked away before she fired the shot. He claims she was the aggressor, and he had begged her to put away the weapon.

A judge threw out Alexander's "stand your ground" self-defense claim, noting that she could have run out of the house to escape her husband but instead got the gun and went back inside. Alexander rejected a plea deal that would have resulted in a three-year prison sentence and chose to go to trial. A jury deliberated 12 minutes before convicting her.

So according to the NAACP and a (black) member of Congress, a (black) woman who was in no danger after leaving an argument, went outside, got her gun, and fired at her husband should be entitled to self-defense.

However, a (non-black) man who at night saw a high 6'3" (black) athlete, got punched in both eyes, had his nose broken, was thrown down and had hit head cut on the pavement, was not entitled to self-defense.

Which is worse here, the hypocrisy or the racism?

Not seeing the point, she was found guilty like the SOB Zimmerman is. Nothing about this screams racism at least from me. The jury and prosecutor got it correct. The sentence was a little steep though but that is a different subject. The politician is just playing politics.

[Fyyr]

If they had both been white (or both black), this case would never have been charged by any sane prosecutor.

If the ethnicities of Zimmerman's parents were reversed, this whole thing would never gained any traction. Zimmerman is definitely must belong to a white man, a Jew no less; and we all know how they feel about blacks.

If his last name were Hernandez, we would never even heard of this story.


BTW, the media still keeps showing the man as a 12 year old in their news stories.

It is interesting to watch how opinions are formed, especially inaccurate ones.

[Tudamorf]

Not seeing the point, she was found guilty like the SOB Zimmerman is.

The point is, the blacks here are blatant racists and hypocrites. Why aren't more people calling them out on it (semi-rhetorical question)?

The guilty white liberals, on the other hand, are doublethinkers -- arguably even worse, considering no trip to the Ministry of Love was necessary.