I was wondering what people that carry think of the shooting in FL. I know that we were not there but go with the aasasumption that he is telling the truth. Good shoot or did he do something wrong.

Based on the one eyewitness' account, the screams captured on the 911 tape, and the wound on the back of Zimmerman's head, I would lean towards it being a clean shooting.

George

Come on folks 62 looks and only one comment. I know you have an opioion. I promise not to turn you in to the black panthers.

OK, here's my opinion-

If someone was not there then he or she needs to sit back and wait for the investigation to release its findings.

Already we are finding out the news services have edited the audio to make him sound racist. And then he had a cut on the back of his head, then he did not, and now it seems like he may have. And that is just one issue, there are PLENTY others.

My point is that ANY opinion formed at this point, without knowing all of the facts, is most likely going to be in error somewhere so it is best to keep an open mind but if you cannot do that then at least keep your opinion to yourself at this stage of the game.

I agree with Mark.I am not a "racist",although I will say that the spoutings of Jesse + Al + their ilk is definately driving me in that direction.The point here (other than a dead 17 year old) is had the person been white it would have never even made the news.Equal rights are not special rights.

The way I see it, it will be a battle of who is the best attorney.
1)The initial police response was done poorly, since no evidence was preserved, this stuff can never be recovered to either prove or disprove what may have happened
2) the autopsy should substantiate the position of the gun and the kids body when the shot was fired, as I recall the kid was reported to be on top of the shooter at the time of the shot.
As far as Zimmermans wounds, that would only carry evidential value if there was corroborating evidence or testimony. If someone else saw what Zimmermans claims to have happened or an autopsy would physical evidence on on the kid such as blood, dna that could have only came from a struggle.\\It is what it is and that is what a jury will have to chew on

My belief, he is going to walk mainly because a lack of evidence, in our system guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.... a very high standard to overcome.

Lesson, if you get into a shooting...if your convinced that you did the right thing make sure the authorities do a thorough job of collecting all the physical evidence and testimony otherwise as in this case the lawyers will start playing their pianos at your expense.
3)I believe the issue of the guy carrying the gun is irrelevant even if he was illegally carrying a gun, if he was in fact attacked he has the right to defend himself, it would be the aggressors fault for picking on the wrong person
4) Is race an issue, maybe but from what I have heard Zimmerman was not an outright racists
5)Can he considered an aggressor since he approached the kid after being told not to, to me NO, it was not a police order , a dispatcher without police powers that told him that therefor he broke no law and it would be looked at what would a prudent person do under the same circumstances and was his actions reasonable...if he was doing a neighbor hood watch thing what would other people do, again he doesn't have police powers and all the benefits that are given to the police so they can do their jobs but he has the same rights as everyone else has and yes he can make a citizen arrest and he has the right to defend himself against an aggressor, age sex weight and all that other nonsense is just a smoke screen.

Clean shooting under Florida law.

Perry

You can't say it was a good shooting, dead people can't defend themselves
What if I am armed, I confront an unarmed person, I become confrontational and at some point the other person believes he is in danger and to protect himself he punches, or pushes me to get away not knowing that I have a gun, I after being pushed or punched pulls out my gun and shoot him,,,,,, can I claim he attacked me is that a good shooting....I think not, remember this dead person could be your wife or kid running into some person with a big macho ego

quote:

Originally posted by Mark:
OK, here's my opinion-

If someone was not there then he or she needs to sit back and wait for the investigation to release its findings.

Already we are finding out the news services have edited the audio to make him sound racist. And then he had a cut on the back of his head, then he did not, and now it seems like he may have. And that is just one issue, there are PLENTY others.

My point is that ANY opinion formed at this point, without knowing all of the facts, is most likely going to be in error somewhere so it is best to keep an open mind but if you cannot do that then at least keep your opinion to yourself at this stage of the game.

The news media doesn't care if their reporting is accurate or not. I agree, we need to wait until all the unbiased facts come out.

quote:

age sex weight and all that other nonsense is just a smoke screen.

NOT TRUE...those are part of the "totality of circumstances". I don't have my lesson plan in front of me to qoute the case, but most every police officer in the country is taught the concept of "totality of circumstances"!

I think you missed my drift
Any person regardless of age sex size or race can present the same level of danger or ill intention, I am a retired LE and I dealt with everyone on the same level, you all have the same ability to inflect death or serious bodily injury in an instant.
What they are claiming that zimmerman was a much larger person and therefore should not have been fearful of a lighter younger person.... classic smoke screen

Just what I was hopeing for a debate of the possible facts by people that know what the law says. We all have a intrest in guns and shooting. I just wants to see if anyone thought that he should or could be charged. My biggest complaint is that this will be used to infringe on our rights to carry. I like many of you cannot make up my mind on it. The facts seem to change with the wind. Thank you for your insight and keep them coming.

Zimmerman just charged with 2nd degree murder!

Guess I did miss your drift.

I think once he made that 911 call he should have backed off.

Charged and convicted is two entirely different things, what it does it appeases the population that it will be looked into, it gets the evidence presented to a jury of his peers who will decide if there is a crime committed. Peers are important since what is tolerated or accepted in one part of the country may not be so in another.
I worked as a federal investigator and the sentences even federal charges varied so much in the federal system that the powers to be came out with sentencing guidelines including sentencing. This way a federal conviction would results in similar if not identical sentences no matter where the crime was committed. Conviction is fairly hard to get when there are no known witnesses, most of the physical evidence was never collected. This is not a dead bank case. They would need to negate the attack....with what no one has come forward. From what I heard in the state of Forida only a Grand jury can recommend the charge of first degree murder, I can't see this as a first degree which would be premeditated and planned. Now in the US system the US attorney office can by pass the GJ by filing an information which is another form of probable cause that a crime has been committed, which forces the legal system to kick in. The subject is brought in processed and brought before a magistrate wherein he is made aware of the charges brought against him, either guilty or not guilty is entered and the circus begins. Court procedures now kicks in and the Government is required to make all evidence available to the defendants and or his attorney. At this point they need to decide whether to continue if the evidence is weak or cut a deal if the evidence is strong or go for broke.
I had a long discussion with my neighbor who was upset that Zimmerman wasn't charged, Murder has no statue of limitations, if they indict on weak information, the defense attorney would push the speedy trial act in hope that a deal would come down quickly since an acquittal kicks in the double jeopardy and he can never be charged again. So there is no rush to get an indictment.
As far a Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, they did what they set out to do brought the FBI in to look for any federal charge should the state fail to convict or indict
Hopefully this will put an end to this race crap that is going on, eventually these people will get tired beating their drums since this could drag on for years and move on to something else.

What you have to look at a person was killed, and our legal system will look very close to the circumstances....
JMO

quote:

RAAMW - "... it gets the evidence presented to a jury of his peers who will decide if there is a crime committed. Peers are important since what is tolerated or accepted in one part of the country may not be so in another.

A "jury of one's peers" is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

ARTICLE VI - "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed... "

L.W.

Poor choice of words, jury will be a fair representation of local population

I really don't see him getting a fair trial. They have already convicted him in the court of public opinion. Unlike OJ if he is found not guilty there will be riots and more innocent people will be hurt.

One thing the judicial system does is drag things out over long periods of time which in some cases is good other bad, bad if you are looking for closure good when the drum beaters are beating a tune that few people want to hear eventually their arms will get fatigued and the beat will slow down and disappear. The judicial system is a well oil machine, a true pleasure to watch especially when all the legal minds are at the top of their games. It is a tragedy when it isn't this way
You mention OJ, classic example of the best council that money can buy, the old saying is if you can't discredit the evidence than discredit the investigators or evidence gathers. What went wrong there was the LA Police tolerated an investigator who had no morals to the point that anything he touched or talked about could not be believed. This was fine until he ran into a defense team that left no rocks unturned, imagine what the legal bill OJ had.

OJ had his legal bills paid Zimmerman will end up with a court appointed lawyer. Very few time have I seen our justce system do it's job. It is to the point that I no longer believe in it. It is a legal system not a justice system. If you can afford the best lawyers they know how to twist and bend to your favor. I doub t there will be a defence fund for Zimmerman. Unblievably I still say we live in the best country in the world. People think that the wild west was bad but there was more justice there than there is now

quote:

Originally posted by mdvjrp93:
People think that the wild west was bad but there was more justice there than there is now

If you think there was more justice back then, you should read about Jim Miller, he got away with murder on several occasions because he always had a witness testify for him that it was self defense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Miller_(outlaw)

If you recall in the OJ case the legal community admitted had he had a public defender he would have been convicted in a 3 or 4 day trial, that is what I mean a tragedy but that is due to our society would not pay for it, a public defender does not have permission to hire all the support staff investigators and forensic tech's to find those kinks in the evidence. I always say the best defense is don't get into those circumstances unless you have the insurance or the resources to get the best defense money can buy. I am not an advocate of concealed carry as a blanket right, yes certain people should have it but not everyone as in the case of zimmerman, if he didn't have the gun he probably wouldn't have had the courage to get up close and personal with that kid, without the gun they may have ended up with a couple of bruises and hopefully be alittle smarter, have a gun you got problems mainly because you feel braver and put yourself in an up close and personal situation which could lead to a fight, the kid could have disarmed him and used it on him.
Even if he was justified, look what it is doing to him, he will probably be broke, unemployable for a good period of time probably need to change his name and move to a different city not to mention the grief his family is going through.
The sad thing even if he is acquitted, the best the media will afford him is a 10 second blip on the news and a shorty paragraph on a center page of the newspaper
May these drum beaters like Jesse and sharpton will hold a news conference and apologize but I don't think the networks will give the time
jmo

Well I didn't say that it was perfect but men did not molest women and children withnout answering for it. Most people were hard working, respectable and caring. Now it is me me me. I really am thankful for the example and standards my father and grand father set.

I believe the system is flawed to the extent that the outcome could be determined by the wealth of the defendant. The courts have held that a person is entitled to court appointed concil if he cannot afford one. Unfortunately the funds available to pat the court approved attorney is small and difficult to pay for the support an attorney may need. I won't go out on a limb and say that these attorney that work for the court are not up to par but it surely doesn't attract the best that this country has to offer and if the outcome of thr trial depends on the thickness of the wallet than the system is flawed.
Our system of law is to let a guilty person go than convict an innocent person
I myself believe the only time for a death sentence is at the time of the crime, life in prison has to be the worst punishment of all

I live close to the area in question. We have been bombarded by what only the media wants us to hear.

Think this over...last year a high profile murder trial was heard 30 miles south of Sanford in Orlando. Remember Casey Anthony? Almost every one in the Media had her found Guilty. Casey was charged with 1st degree murder. The state could not prove their case.

Zimmerman was charged with 2nd degree murder. I have serious doubts the state can prove it.

Just my humble opinion.

Even if they cann't his life as he knew it is over. He will probely be sued his family has been harrassed and his life threatened. Most of this becausxe some has beens wanted another 15 min. of fame.I still hold to one of my post AL, Jessie and the NBPP should be tried for trying to insite a riot and civil unrest.

I was surprised at the 2nd degree murder charge. It would be interesting to know all the details, not just what we read...

Everyone is just using it for publicity. I mean look at the Black Panther Party, they are so irrelevant, but they wanted exposure so they used this case... sad, sad. There were something like 45 shootings in Chicago in one week a time back, but hardly a peep about that because it's a "gang" thing... and black on black.

I agree with others that once he made the call he should have sat in his car and waited for the police. He showed very poor discretion and convicted or not, he paid a big price for it.

It's all up to the courts and evidence... if it was handled without the circus from the start it would be just another straight forward case.

To convict on 1st degree, you need to prove Zimmerman sought out to kill specifically, planned it and executed the plan
2nd degree does not involve the intentional killing of a certain individual or any planning, just negligence or unwarranted use of deadly force knowing death could result or words to that affect

Classic example, you are out to get person X, you watch him and he walks on a specific street everyday at the same time, you wait in your car and when he steps into the street you run him over even backing up over him doubling the chance that it would kill him.
You are hot rodding down the street in a reckless manner knowing there is always people present and you run a person over resulting in death
last your are driving down the street, another car swerves into your lane causing you to turn sharply running over a person who eventually dies

you have 1st degree, 2nd degree manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter and justifiable homicide
manslaughter is akin to 2nd degree murder, whatever form of manslaughter it is generally not akin to murder (1st degree) therefor less things to prove in a manslaughter case
self defense, order of execution by a judge and a police shooting that is ruled good....justifiable homicide

I heard on the news the other day that Chicago is on a record setting homicide rate with over 120 murders so far and 460 wounded individuals so far and it is only the 105th day

Where has Jesse, sharpton Bobby Rush been defending these victims in the town they live????? they must be hiding behind a bullet proof wall since I don't recall him and his buddies carrying on like he has with the zimmerman case, could it be the news people are there in Florida, and they like seeing themselves on TV, come up to Chicago we will keep you busy

Since I work in a Police dispatch center I feel qualified to comment on part of this that the media seems to want to make a big deal of. When the dispatcher/911 operator told him not to follow him it is not a lawful or binding order from law enforcement. We tell people all the time, especially with a drunk driver, not to follow them. It is not an order but simply a suggestion that falls under CYA. It is so the department can say we told him not to follow them so if something happens (albeit it is usually the caller not the person being followed) to him they can't come back at the department.

Another thing the Drum beaters and News whores are doing deliberately is making a big deal that the Kid was unarmed. They have to be ignorant to the fact that depending on circumstances that is irrelevant
Police shoot unarmed people all the time, it is not that they are getting away with it it is just the way it happened and not being armed or having a deadly weapon is something that doesn't come to light till the gun smoke cleared
Example, Police stop an individual on the basis of suspicious behavior, and yes they have the right to do this, the person has his hands in his pocket. The police thinking he may have a weapon tell them to not move and turn around facing away while pulling their weapon since they feel they may be in jeopardy. The person fails to respond then suddenly he pulls his hand out in what is deemed as an aggressive move, the cop shoots. good shoot /bad shoot
First he is a police officer who has the right to do what he is doing, second the individual failed to follow a lawful order given to him, and finally makes a move deemed by the police as threatening. The police don't need to be shot at first to defend themselves, called police powers. There has been circumstances where police have stopped suspicious people who where shot when they failed to heed police orders and turned out to be a deaf person who was removing a card identifying themselves as such. Police have shot each other, even when they had there badge exposed on their belt, extremely bad place since tunnel vision takes over in stress situations and all the cop is looking at it the persons eyes and hands, the badge needs to be up high around the neck to do any good, and the badge really doesn't mean much since you can buy them anywhere. In my 25 years as a LE only one time was I asked for the legal documents supporting the badge and it was by an Illinois State Trooper. I advise everyone that is they get stopped especially at night to turn on your interior lights put your hands up on the steering wheel and look forward, I would put my badge on the dash, this way the police are a little calmer when they approach, I then would point to the badge and advise I was armed.

I seem to be supported in the fact that I cann't stand the people that use situations to get thier face on TV. For those that we regularly see doing that it is because they could not get elected if they tried and aleast one has tried. They play the race card at every chance however they are the worst bigots there is.

I've heard that people in neighborhood watch programs are prohibited from carrying weapons.

I don't think you can prohibit someone from carrying. I don't understand why there was not two people there. I thought that is one of the first things they teach you. It is for your protection. They also teach not to confront unless someone is being hurt. I think they have a case for possible man slughter but not murder. To prove murder you have to show intent to committ the crime. That is going to be hard to prove.

Did I miss it or did I not see any mention of the 'Witness'? If what the witness says is true , then it was a legal shoot. BTW If I had a 6'3" 230lb+ person slamming my head into the concrete, it wouldn't have been a single shot, his ass would've been double tapped at least, seeing that I'm only 5'7". Screw that.Let's wait till the 'facts' come out and see what happened.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G...-prosecution-immoral

Some interesting Dershowitz comments.
Shame that Sharpton was permitted any comments on the case .A long time race monger [which he freely admits] his comments may make it a "long hot summer"

Interesting that the lead detective testifying at the bail hearing admitted that he did not know who started the confrontation.

465H&H

Here are some Random Thoughts. And i was a Police Officer for over 30 years...

IF, there was ANY doubt, ANY DOUBT AT ALL, by the responding officers to the shooting, that Zimmerman, did NOT act in SELF DEFENSE, he would have been arrested THAT NIGHT.

The fact that he was NOT ARRESTED, THAT NIGHT, indicates to me that the evidence overwhelmingly showed, that he acted in self defense.

In my entire 30+ carear I can only think of very few times, that if the SHOOTER, was still on the scene, or caught close by, when the Police arrived, they were not arrested.

I can think [off of the top of my head], of two killings I worked where the shooter did not even go "downtown". I took his statement and released them at the scene.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Zimmerman shooting is within the Law...

Now again, Random Thoughts...

In todays world, it is best if you do not get involved if YOU or YOUR loved ones are not in danger. Better to call it in and wait for the Police.

If you intervene in the behalf of a stranger and shot someone, to protect them, guess what???

You will be paying for your defense out of YOUR pocket, AND THE POLICE MIGHT EVEN GET THE PERSON YOU WERE PROTECTION TO TESTIFY THAT YOUR ACTIONS WERE UN-NECESSARY.

This "third person" you have protected, will not come to your aid financially, and may even as stated above be determental to your "case".

IF Zimmerman had waited for the Police to arrive he would not be in this trouble today.

Sadly in many areas, and if the killing takes a Political agenda, as the Zimmerman incident has, the fact that you as the shooter, did not break ANY LAW, will NOT MATTER.

Zimmerman broke NO LAWS.
He should not have been indicted.
It has become Political.

WHY does the[liberal anti-gun] press continue to show a picture of Trayvon when he was 11 or 12 years old???

I think the NRA should fund Zimmermans Defense.

Also think HARD before you draw your legally carried gun, to protect someone other than you or your loved ones.

After all they had the same right/oppertunity, the same legality,the same oppertunity, to spend their time, and money to be armed, to be able to protect themselves...

quote:

Originally posted by 465H&H:
Interesting that the lead detective testifying at the bail hearing admitted that he did not know who started the confrontation.

465H&H

The other interesting factoid is that FBI has tested the sound recording of the struggle and can not identify who the person screaming for help is. Seems like the Martins can do what the FBI can't!

465H&H

People need to stand on their own two feet and be accountable for what they did, NRA has no business here what so ever. NRA is for the preservation of our rights not defending some guy who wants to intervene in a situation, otherwise the NRA will go broke.
This should be a clear message to all those who carry concealed weapons for the responsibilities for shooting your weapon, many innocent people are hit for well intended bullets meant for some one else.
I am a retired Federal LE and when I worked not only did I have an attorney on retainer I also carried a one million dollar liability policy. In a nut shell no matter what I did while on duty and within the scope of my job I would be covered until Clinton stepped in and stated, the government can't represent someone when the G could be part of the suit. The suit is depriving someone of their civil rights....think about that.
Right now Zimmerman is dealing with criminal state charges, he can be indicted and tried for Federal civil rights not to mention and civil charges both state and federal.
These additional charges still can come even if he is acquitted, remember OJ.