• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Justice System Broken

Martin threatened to kill Zimmerman, Zimmerman's father says

Well at least now we know why Zimmerman got preferential treatment. 4:42 mark on that video I posted, "Former judge". What I also found kind of pathetic, why is he hiding? Wouldn't he want to stand up next to his son if he's so convinced that his son is innocent? Yeah, there are death threats and some people are acting like thugs, but if your son is innocent, then you stand by him.


As far as the video posted above about the witness, why did it take him this long to come forward? There is so much going on with this story that it makes you want to just disassociate with the parties on both sides, from the mother allegedly trying to trademark a slogan, to the way the cops/DA handled the case, to the politicians that are trying to use this tragedy to garner votes. Just an all around disgusting chain of events that only shows how jacked up our society really is.
 
TxGoat said:
There is so much going on with this story that it makes you want to just disassociate with the parties on both sides, from the mother allegedly trying to trademark a slogan, to the way the cops/DA handled the case, to the politicians that are trying to use this tragedy to garner votes. Just an all around disgusting chain of events that only shows how jacked up our society really is.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced at this point that the cops/DA mishandled the case in the first place. Now, if you're talking about since the whole national controversy, I can probably go along with that. The rest I agree with you completely.
 
What NO ONE seems to grasp, from Al Sharpton on down (or up, depending on your view of Mr. Sharpton), is that THE CASE IS BEING PRESENTED TO A GRAND JURY.

Everyone has focused on the fact that has not been charged. You know why he hasn't been charged? Because the police took all of the evidence they had (to include evidence that has not yet been released to the media) to the lawyer charged with prosecuting the case, and that lawyer said, " ... uh. Huh. Hrm." The guy, who makes his living putting people in jail, thought that there was insufficient probable cause to arrest Zimmerman outright. He then did the appropriate thing, he slated the case for presentation to the Grand Jury, so that they can mull over the evidence and decide if a criminal charge is appropriate, and, if so, what charge.

As a police officer, I can assure you that this happens EVERY DAY. There are lots of cases where we think we know what happened, or have our suspicions, but gather up all of the evidence and present it to the GJ for them to decide, because we don't believe that the information that we have merits an immediate arrest. It does not mean that the case has been dropped, bungled, mishandled, back-burnered, or buried, despite what Sharpton et al might say.

If everyone down in Florida could shut their pie holes long enough for the case to be presented to the GJ, they may get exactly what they want: Zimmerman indicted. Failing that, they might at least get a reaosnable explaination as to why the cops didn't charge him that night.

And, for the poster earlier who wondered why the cops didn't detain him, they did. They handcuffed him, put him in a cruiser, took him downtown, photographed him, interrogated him, and released him. This is absolutely common and reasonable in cases where self defense is claimed and is at least plausible that the claim is legit. Just because you walk out of the station uncuffed doesn't mean that you don't get charged later if the evidence works out that way.

Mike
 
Coronach said:
What NO ONE seems to grasp, from Al Sharpton on down (or up, depending on your view of Mr. Sharpton), is that THE CASE IS BEING PRESENTED TO A GRAND JURY.

Everyone has focused on the fact that has not been charged. You know why he hasn't been charged? Because the police took all of the evidence they had (to include evidence that has not yet been released to the media) to the lawyer charged with prosecuting the case, and that lawyer said, " ... uh. Huh. Hrm." The guy, who makes his living putting people in jail, thought that there was insufficient probable cause to arrest Zimmerman outright. He then did the appropriate thing, he slated the case for presentation to the Grand Jury, so that they can mull over the evidence and decide if a criminal charge is appropriate, and, if so, what charge.

As a police officer, I can assure you that this happens EVERY DAY. There are lots of cases where we think we know what happened, or have our suspicions, but gather up all of the evidence and present it to the GJ for them to decide, because we don't believe that the information that we have merits an immediate arrest. It does not mean that the case has been dropped, bungled, mishandled, back-burnered, or buried, despite what Sharpton et al might say.

If everyone down in Florida could shut their pie holes long enough for the case to be presented to the GJ, they may get exactly what they want: Zimmerman indicted. Failing that, they might at least get a reaosnable explaination as to why the cops didn't charge him that night.

And, for the poster earlier who wondered why the cops didn't detain him, they did. They handcuffed him, put him in a cruiser, took him downtown, photographed him, interrogated him, and released him. This is absolutely common and reasonable in cases where self defense is claimed and is at least plausible that the claim is legit. Just because you walk out of the station uncuffed doesn't mean that you don't get charged later if the evidence works out that way.

Mike
Click to expand...



The way the police department reacted (the police chief "TEMPORARILY" resigning) to some of the media reports, the 911 tapes for instance, it makes me wonder how thorough they investigated. I know how some most police departments operate. The judges and the police officers tend to act like co-workers, and lets face it, they practically are. The fact that Zimmerman's father is/was a judge really makes me believe that this is just another case of one hand washing the other with no regard for real justice.
 
You know, my only beef with the witness saying Zimmerman was attacked is that, is shooting Martin the appropriate measure? Martin was a kid, okay so he played football, he's likely a lot stronger than I am. But, could he beat you up enough where shooting (whether or not the intention is to kill), the best course of action? Is this what "Neighborhood Watch" folks are supposed to do?
 
Unless there is some connection between the chief and the judge, I don't find much credence to the idea that the cops are not prosecuting Zimmerman because he is the son of a retired judge, especially when they are taking it to the GJ and it wasn't their decision anyway (they were following the prosecutor's recommendations).

As to the self defense angle, yeah, I agree, that's the hill Zimmerman is going to have to climb in front of the jury. Can it be justified? Absolutely. Can it also be BS? Absolutely. Who decides? The jury, either the grand jury alone or the grand jury and the trial jury. The good news is that they will have more info than we do.

My gut says he will be indicted by the GJ. I don't have enough info to guess about guilt or innocence.

Mike
 
dreadnatty08 said:
You know, my only beef with the witness saying Zimmerman was attacked is that, is shooting Martin the appropriate measure? Martin was a kid, okay so he played football, he's likely a lot stronger than I am. But, could he beat you up enough where shooting (whether or not the intention is to kill), the best course of action? Is this what "Neighborhood Watch" folks are supposed to do?
Click to expand...

Zimmerman's claim is that Martin was trying to get his gun. IF that is true, then I think he can justify his actions. But really the burden is on the prosecution to prove that claim ISN'T true. I don't know if they can do that or not.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Zimmerman's claim is that Martin was trying to get his gun. IF that is true, then I think he can justify his actions. But really the burden is on the prosecution to prove that claim ISN'T true. I don't know if they can do that or not.
Click to expand...

I guess we'll get to find out in due course. It's up to the Grand Jury now to decide whether or not there is a case to answer.

Since this case IS going before a Grand Jury I think people should stop bleating on about a broken justice system and wait and see what the GJ have to say.
 
TheBrit said:
I guess we'll get to find out in due course. It's up to the Grand Jury now to decide whether or not there is a case to answer.

Since this case IS going before a Grand Jury I think people should stop bleating on about a broken justice system and wait and see what the GJ have to say.
Click to expand...

Where's the fun in that?
 
TheBrit said:
I guess we'll get to find out in due course. It's up to the Grand Jury now to decide whether or not there is a case to answer.

Since this case IS going before a Grand Jury I think people should stop bleating on about a broken justice system and wait and see what the GJ have to say.
Click to expand...
If we did that, the system would never get fixed! For all the innocents who were executed, fixing it after the fact wouldn't do them any good.

From what I've seen/read, zimmerman went back to the truck to get the gun, after the supposely beaten down from this tall lanky kid.

Why didn't zimmerman hold the kid for the police after drawing his gun on the kid?

9/11 tapes had showed talking to zimmerman, and advised him to stop following the kid, which he continued to do. It seems he played a role into provoking the kid if anything.
 
saptech said:
If we did that, the system would never get fixed! For all the innocents who was sentenced to death, fixing it after the fact wouldn't do them any good.

From what I've seen/read, zimmerman went back to the truck to get the gun, after the supposely beaten down from this tall lanky kid.

Why didn't zimmerman hold the kid for the police after drawing his gun on the kid?

9/11 tapes had showed talking to zimmerman, and advised him to stop following the kid, which he continued to do. It seems he played a role into provoking the kid if anything.
Click to expand...

Yep, the Grand Jury will consider all that and the stuff we do not know about. My personal opinion is that there is a case to answer, at least for manslaughter, but I don't know all the facts of the case.
 
saptech said:
If we did that, the system would never get fixed! For all the innocents who were executed, fixing it after the fact wouldn't do them any good.

From what I've seen/read, zimmerman went back to the truck to get the gun, after the supposely beaten down from this tall lanky kid.

Why didn't zimmerman hold the kid for the police after drawing his gun on the kid?

9/11 tapes had showed talking to zimmerman, and advised him to stop following the kid, which he continued to do. It seems he played a role into provoking the kid if anything.
Click to expand...

I've never heard that he went back to the truck to get the gun. The story you're hearing is that Martin kicked Zimmerman's ass, then Zimmerman went back to the truck, got the gun, confronted Martin again and then shot and killed him? I haven't heard that story. If true and they can prove it, it's a cut and dried case of first degree murder. Going back to the truck to get the gun qualifies as premeditation.

What I've heard is that Zimmerman lost Martin (and that's what he told the dispatcher too I think) and got out of his truck to figure out where he was. He had the gun on his person at the time. Martin jumps him, beats the crap out of him, one or both of them reach for the gun, Zimmerman, fearing that Martin will get the gun and shoot him, shoots Martin first. That's the story I've heard. You can make a strong argument that Zimmerman instigated the incident by following Martin in the first place.

TheBrit said:
Yep, the Grand Jury will consider all that and the stuff we do not know about. My personal opinion is that there is a case to answer, at least for manslaughter, but I don't know all the facts of the case.
Click to expand...

I think they will indict him just for political reasons. It's not politically feasible at this point to let him walk regardless of what the evidence says. So they'll indict him for manslaughter (which is the only charge they have any hope of making stick) and he'll plea out and get probation. That's my prediction.
 
Go look at the link I posted where they interview Zimmerman's father. Based on what his father claims, Martin threatened to kill Zimmerman and that's why Zimmerman claims he felt threatened for his life.

How many people walk in public, have someone approach them by someone asking what they're doing there, and then react with "I'm going to kill you"? That defense makes NO sense to me at all.

But, everything that happened that day is speculative at best. The reason so many people are angry is as I stated earlier, you have people arrested all the time for all sorts of minor offenses. They post bail, and then have their day in court. Some people prove their innocence, and some people are proven guilty. This didn't happen here. It's as if Zimmerman was being pulled over for going 2 miles over the speed limit, "I'll give you a warning this time. Don't let it happen again". An arrest should have been made and Zimmerman should have his day in court to explain his actions. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
TxGoat said:
Go look at the link I posted where they interview Zimmerman's father. Based on what his father claims, Martin threatened to kill Zimmerman and that's why Zimmerman claims he felt threatened for his life.

How many people walk in public, have someone approach them by someone asking what they're doing there, and then react with "I'm going to kill you"? That defense makes NO sense to me at all.

But, everything that happened that day is speculative at best. The reason so many people are angry is as I stated earlier, you have people arrested all the time for all sorts of minor offenses. They post bail, and then have their day in court. Some people prove their innocence, and some people are proven guilty. This didn't happen here. It's as if Zimmerman was being pulled over for going 2 miles over the speed limit, "I'll give you a warning this time. Don't let it happen again". An arrest should have been made and Zimmerman should have his day in court to explain his actions. Nothing more, nothing less.
Click to expand...

In order for an arrest to be made, they'd have to have probable cause that this wasn't self-defense. Apparently the DA looked at the facts and said that's not the case.
 
A.Nonymous said:
In order for an arrest to be made, they'd have to have probable cause that this wasn't self-defense. Apparently the DA looked at the facts and said that's not the case.
Click to expand...


It still doesn't sound like much effort was made by the DA nor the police department, especially if new facts that are coming to light are to be believed. It's actually kind of sad that the media has done more to investigate this than the police department and the DA. I think that's really an indictment on the justice system in Sanford.
 
TxGoat said:
It still doesn't sound like much effort was made by the DA nor the police department, especially if new facts that are coming to light are to be believed. It's actually kind of sad that the media has done more to investigate this than the police department and the DA. I think that's really an indictment on the justice system in Sanford.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely convinced the DA or the police department botched it in the first place. Reports say that the investigator recommended that manslaughter charges be brought against Zimmerman, but the DA declined saying there wasn't enough evidence to press charges. For all we know, the DA and PD had access to all the facts we've seen.

But let's say that they did botch it. Let's say that all the evidence we've seen is completely brand new. I still don't see anything that would justify any charges beyond manslaughter. If that's the case, then it sounds like the DA got it right the first time.
 
I think no end will come to all this speculation until the forensics are in.
I think the bullet trajectory and gsr will answer all of our questions.
Personally, I haven't formed any opinion, except I think both took an aggressive stance, and the gun went off accidentally as they both wrestled for it.
 
So apparently the special prosecutor decided today that she will NOT present the case in front of a grand jury. Given that a grand jury is required for first degree murder charges, it's pretty obvious that Zimmerman won't be charged with first degree murder. That's not surprising though. I don't think anyone really thought he would be. That is not a charge anyone is going to be able to make stick.

It's starting to look more and more like Zimmerman may walk or at worst be charged with manslaughter. It's also looking like those are the right options to go with as well.
 
Hmmm.

So, if the GJ is off the table, are they now pondering an indictment for the lesser offenses, or is he going to not be charged at all? That's an interesting development, but it's not clear if it means that the cops' first instinct, to charge for manslaughter, is correct or if there is insufficient PC to sustain ANY criminal charge.

If the latter is correct, it probably means that there is some evidence of extreme significance that we do not know about. I'd be unsurprised by that, but a lot of people who think that cases should be and are tried in the media will be all in a tizzy.

Mike
 
The other thing that comes into play is whether it's worth spending the time, effort and money to prosecute the case. If the guy is going to get probation, is there a point in prosecuting the case other than for political reasons? It really depends on the resources and case load of the office. How likely is Zimmerman to go shoot someone else? Probably not very likely.

There may be enough evidence to charge him with something like manslaughter, but not enough evidence to convict him. I think if you put a case like this in front of the jury and they hear that Martin jumped Zimmerman, beat the crap out of him and Zimmerman shot Martin as they struggled for the gun, the jury is probably not likely to convict. From a technical perspective you may have manslaughter since Zimmerman followed the kid, but it's certainly not a slam dunk.
 
You're then going to run afoul of the fact that merely following someone, even if told not to do so by a 911 dispatcher, is not illicit. If Trayvonn is allowed to walk on that street while black, which is an argument made by the lynch mob forming on this case, Zimmerman is allowed to do so while hispanic and armed. What matters is what happened once they met, which is what we don't know.

I think that the prosecutor cannot NOT prosecute this case, despite the potential lack of evidence. The choice not to use the GJ is an odd one. It gives the prosecutor a neutral body to take the case to for a decision, and thus reduces charges of impropriety from both sides in a hot-button case. By refusing to present to the GJ, the special prosecutor has elected to take sole responsibility for the decision to charge and what to charge.

My guess, also, is that Zimmerman will find himself charged with manslaughter. Since we've taken the GJ off of the table, I think that the SP will feel compelled to do something along those lines.

I wonder if it was done because it is believed that all of the idiotic trying of the case in the media has destroyed the GJ pool's impartiality.

Mike
 
Coronach said:
You're then going to run afoul of the fact that merely following someone, even if told not to do so by a 911 dispatcher, is not illicit. If Trayvonn is allowed to walk on that street while black, which is an argument made by the lynch mob forming on this case, Zimmerman is allowed to do so while hispanic and armed. What matters is what happened once they met, which is what we don't know.
Click to expand...

I'm going to pretend for a second that I have a legal degree of some sort and I'm going to pretend that I'm a prosecutor. Just because following someone around isn't an illicit event doesn't mean it's not an instigating event. I can call your mother a whore and it's not illegal. If it causes you to punch me in the face I brought it on myself. I instigated the incident. To take the analogy further, I call your mom a whore so you pull a gun on me. I respond by pulling a gun and shooting you. Can I claim self defense? No. I instigated the incident in the first place. As a prosecutor I might argue that Zimmerman instigated the incident by following Martin. I would further this premise by pointing out that the dispatcher specifically told him not to follow. Why? Because following can make things worse. Yet Zimmerman followed anyway. Therefore his self defense argument is invalid.

I think that the prosecutor cannot NOT prosecute this case, despite the potential lack of evidence. The choice not to use the GJ is an odd one. It gives the prosecutor a neutral body to take the case to for a decision, and thus reduces charges of impropriety from both sides in a hot-button case. By refusing to present to the GJ, the special prosecutor has elected to take sole responsibility for the decision to charge and what to charge.

My guess, also, is that Zimmerman will find himself charged with manslaughter. Since we've taken the GJ off of the table, I think that the SP will feel compelled to do something along those lines.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that I think. I'm not sure they can get a conviction or not, but for political reasons I think they will end up charging him. He'll plea out and get probation and people will be pissed.
 
Yeah, but there is usually a charge to address behavior that instigates a fight: disorderly conduct, incitement to violence, etc ... most jurisdictions will have a provision in the law that makes deliberate instigation of a fight illegal, even if the first amendment gives you great leeway in expressing yourself.

This is different ONLY because what we're talking about- following someone- is not in and of itself illegal. It CAN be, or it can be part of a series of behaviors that can instigate a fight, but just walking down the street is not illegal, even in this context, in the same way that yelling "hey, expletive, what the expletive do you think you're doing? Get the expletive out of my neighborhood, racial-slur" is.

Now, could the following-after have led to exactly that same conversation that I just hypothesized above? Absolutely, but the illegal act is the saying the 'fighting words', not the following of another person.

Of course, it is equally possible that the it went down like Zimmerman said ... which is where the problem with PC comes in.

Once you look at it, it is not at all clear that Zimmerman did anything illegal. Stupid? Probably. Illegal? Possibly ... but can it be proven?

I think not taking it to the GJ is a mistake, but I don't know what they know.

Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom