Is there honestly enough proof to warrant bail being set at $150,000? Is he honestly such a danger?
I would say he's in more danger than anything else. If he gets locked up, at least he'll be guarded for the time being.
I thought of that.
Even if he is in danger, my question was if there was enough evidence against him, and that he is a danger for a $150,000 bail to be fair.
Well, at this point, to call him the most hated man in America would be an understatement. I do think he'd want to try to get out of the states if he could. But I don't think that'd be possible, because his face is everywhere
I would say he's in more danger than anything else. If he gets locked up, at least he'll be guarded for the time being.
I thought of that.
Even if he is in danger, my question was if there was enough evidence against him, and that he is a danger for a $150,000 bail to be fair.
Well, at this point, to call him the most hated man in America would be an understatement. I do think he'd want to try to get out of the states if he could. But I don't think that'd be possible, because his face is everywhere
Probably, but I don't like "protection" being used as a justification for incarceration in this case.
So I really hope it wasn't used in setting the bail. That's actually why I wanted to know if the case was convincing enough.
If we assume your statement "Every SINGLE government mass murder was perpetrated upon unarmed civilians." is correct;
Please explain how the Kurdish Peshmerga killed over 10,000 Iraqi soliders in one year alone, yet were still subjected to genocide in their millions (by Sadam)?
Because it appears that it does not matter how many firearms the citizens have, if your opponent decides to attack you with chemical weapons, attack helos, artillery and tanks, no amount of small arms will help.
Is there honestly enough proof to warrant bail being set at $150,000? Is he honestly such a danger?
Isn't bail more about the seriousness of the crime and how likely he is to skip town?
That's the thing I'm not sure.
I thought it was a combination of several things (including your two). I thought evidence/prior offenses had to be considered as well.
I'm not even sure if $150,000 bail is high.
I don't really know much about what a high/low bail is either, but 150k doesn't seem that high for second-degree murder (I assume that's what he's being charged with?). I mean, let's say you were being charged of that, and you knew half the country wanted you dead. You might have a bit of an incentive to scrape up that money (your relatives are allowed to put their assets on the line for your bail, I think) and run to Mexico, right?
I know one of the major factors is likelihood to flee (they factor in weight of the crime, how closely tied to the community the suspect is, etc), so it doesn't seem that unreasonable. I'm not really sure how they could accurately use evidence as a factor before the trial. Prior offenses, maybe, though maybe that could work in your favor if you posted bail in the past and showed up to trial?
Is there honestly enough proof to warrant bail being set at $150,000? Is he honestly such a danger?
Honestly, if I had a mob after my head, I'd like to stay in jail to while I wait for the trial.
I'll speculate that Zimmerman feels the same way, regardless of what his wife and family tried to do.
Well, if he really did, I would think he wouldn't of actually paid the bail. You don't actually have to pay it, you can go straight to jail.
His attorney says that they are working on finding some protection for him outside of Florida while he awaits his trial.
I still can't believe that they are pushing 2nd degree murder. That jury selection is going to take forever, and then he's going to walk because some DA is too ambitious or terrified of public outcry.
Even if there was tons of evidence, the delayed response by the police is enough to kill any chance at a murder conviction.
reonhato: tech just explained it. just because you have the right to have a gun does not mean it cannot be controlled. restrict access to handguns and the major issues with guns are dealt with. forced registration, penalties for anyone who does not store guns safely, restrict the number of non collection guns per person, required mental health check and compulsory training and so on. there are a million ways to keep the right to bear arms while making america a much safer place to live. my favourite would be to only allow guns from the time the constitution was written.
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
there is of course the fact that the constitution is old and horrible outdated and it is possible to change it.
Then change it and stop whining.
i also love how CM and farson use the exact same arguments whenever i post, they attack me and not the argument, they bring up some random survey of a tiny amount of people or a study conducted by the NRA and say that proves they are right, ignoring the countless studies from around the world that shows the opposite.
Wow, I have seen such a person so blatantly unaware of their own hypocrisy. How about you go ONE gun debate without bringing up the NRA. Think you can manage that? I doubt it.
Even then the majority of Americans favor stricter firearm controls; "While the American public backs the view that gun ownership is a constitutional right, Americans favor having legal restrictions on it. In the same poll, 49% favor stricter gun laws than exist now and 38% would like to see gun laws remain as they are. Just 11% advocate gun laws that are less strict."
So 49% want stricter controls and 49% don't and you say that the antis have the majority. Amazing.
Scientific studies show repeatedly that less firearms means less mass murders, less homicides and less suicides.
Then why don't you explain Lithuania. They have one of the lowest gun ownership rates on earth and also double the homicide rate and 3 times the suicide rate of the US.
Also, why don't you try explaining away the fact that there are more guns in the US than ever before and more people own guns but suicide and murder is dropping. You can't because the idea that something other than guns is to blame is abhorrent to you.
your rights are already infringed. you cannot buy personal rocket launchers or have an AA battery setup in your backyard, hell there are countless rifles and handguns that you cannot buy, there is nothing stopping the government being more strict.
i love how one of your main fighting points against all the studies and statistics that are shown in the other gun threads is that you cannot compare america to other countries like UK, AUS and so on, yet you have no issues at all trying to compare america to countries like jamaica and lithuania.
i actually explained about lithuania before when you tried to use it as a reason that guns to not cause deaths, seeing as the only thing you actually seem to know about the country is its name and its gun count. the TLDR version is that lithuania has a severe problem with a violent culture and extreme racism combined with several minority groups. (poles, russians, jews, gypsies). they have huge problems with violence against women and there right wing politics make the republicans look like saints for all there anti gay and racism.
see this is why arguments never get anywhere against you, you simply ignore facts, you do not actually listen and take in the othersides argument, which is why people stop arguing against you, it is not because as you often claim they lost and cannot prove their argument and that you are so much better at debating, it is because you simply ignore anyone who does not agree with you, ignore any arguments against your position and repeat the same things over and over in every thread, even when they are proven time and time again to be false. the lithuania thing is a perfect example, it is not the first time you have used it and it has already been countered, yet you still use it in your argument.
Tyler Perry: Most "gun control" laws have come about well after the era of lynchings. That's a total lie designed to make "gun control" advocates look like racists.
Is there honestly enough proof to warrant bail being set at $150,000? Is he honestly such a danger?
Isn't bail more about the seriousness of the crime and how likely he is to skip town?
That's the thing I'm not sure.
I thought it was a combination of several things (including your two). I thought evidence/prior offenses had to be considered as well.
I'm not even sure if $150,000 bail is high.
Bail is based on how likely the defendant is to skip out on court and flee. Obviously the assumption is the greater the penalty the defendant faces the more incentive they have of fleeing. So typically the worst the crime, the higher the bail.
There are a bunch of other factors to it as well, community connections, history of court appearances, financial situation etc etc.
There is no specific amount that bail has to be, but BBS, an industry website, lists a typical bail for any murder as $1,000,000. Just a quick search through news articles resulted in finding numbers ranging from $250k to $3 million, excluding Zimmerman of course.
It would appear that $150k is a pretty low amount.
Even if there was tons of evidence, the delayed response by the police is enough to kill any chance at a murder conviction.
How exactly do you envision a police investigation? Please don't tell me if visions from various drama shows popped into your head where everything gets wrapped up by suppertime.
If we were to assume that it was true that they didn't have enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman on the spot, a delay of a few months to gather evidence for the prosecution to make a case is NORMAL.
If we assume your statement "Every SINGLE government mass murder was perpetrated upon unarmed civilians." is correct;
Please explain how the Kurdish Peshmerga killed over 10,000 Iraqi soliders in one year alone, yet were still subjected to genocide in their millions (by Sadam)?
Because it appears that it does not matter how many firearms the citizens have, if your opponent decides to attack you with chemical weapons, attack helos, artillery and tanks, no amount of small arms will help.
Given what the Kurds really feel about their territory, namely that it's not Iraq? Small scale guerrilla war with the inherent casualties that come from using WMD.
Even if there was tons of evidence, the delayed response by the police is enough to kill any chance at a murder conviction.
How exactly do you envision a police investigation? Please don't tell me if visions from various drama shows popped into your head where everything gets wrapped up by suppertime.
If we were to assume that it was true that they didn't have enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman on the spot, a delay of a few months to gather evidence for the prosecution to make a case is NORMAL.
That's if you believe that they were investigating at the time. However, from a defense standpoint, as well as every NORMAL person's standpoint, it looks an awful lot like he was charged because of public pressure or the high profile nature of the case.
I'm not getting anything from TV shows, but considering how people can walk because of any mistake by the police, looking at all the evidence and deciding that they were not going to charge him, and then later looking at the same evidence and deciding that they are pushes into the realm of reasonable doubt.
That's if you believe that they were investigating at the time. However, from a defense standpoint, as well as every NORMAL person's standpoint, it looks an awful lot like he was charged because of public pressure or the high profile nature of the case.
I'm not getting anything from TV shows, but considering how people can walk because of any mistake by the police, looking at all the evidence and deciding that they were not going to charge him, and then later looking at the same evidence and deciding that they are pushes into the realm of reasonable doubt.
You're right, them bringing charges up at this point and in this manner is interesting, but it seems we're drawing quite different conclusions.
To me, it suggests a few scenarios: A.) They finally found a crucial bit of evidence that supports probable cause. B.) They were covering for Zimmerman from the beginning and are just now trying to cover their own arses by stringing him up. C.) They still haven't found enough evidence for probable cause, whether due to incompetence or there simply not being evidence to find, and are moving forward with the case only because public outrage has made it politically impossible to do anything else.
Considering how weak and filled with conjecture the affidavit was, I'm actually inclined to think option C is closer to the truth than the other scenarios. While some combination between the three is certainly possible, if A or B were primarily true, I would expect the prosecutor to have a much stronger public case against Zimmerman.
reonhato: your rights are already infringed. you cannot buy personal rocket launchers or have an AA battery setup in your backyard
Most of which are not ARMS.
BTW yes you can buy those things (owning is another story) as FPS Russia proved-
And again-
hell there are countless rifles and handguns that you cannot buy, there is nothing stopping the government being more strict.
If the federal government followed its own laws then that would not be the case. Unless of course you are arguing that the government shouldn't have a constitution and should be allowed to do whatever the hell it wants.
i love how one of your main fighting points against all the studies and statistics that are shown in the other gun threads is that you cannot compare america to other countries like UK, AUS and so on, yet you have no issues at all trying to compare america to countries like jamaica and lithuania.
Actually I think the comparison is completely flawed however by YOUR logic the comparison works.
i actually explained about lithuania before when you tried to use it as a reason that guns to not cause deaths, seeing as the only thing you actually seem to know about the country is its name and its gun count. the TLDR version is that lithuania has a severe problem with a violent culture and extreme racism combined with several minority groups. (poles, russians, jews, gypsies). they have huge problems with violence against women and there right wing politics make the republicans look like saints for all there anti gay and racism.
First of all you are wrong about the problems. Second of all if that is the case then you admit that gun are irrelevant and it is socioeconomic-cultural issues that are at play.
Damn, this topic is great for proving the antis wrong. First you had Blablahb saying that Martin could have morally used a gun in self defense, then you have Tech advocating Martin using violence, and now we have Reon catching up.
see this is why arguments never get anywhere against you, you simply ignore facts, you do not actually listen and take in the othersides argument, which is why people stop arguing against you, it is not because as you often claim they lost and cannot prove their argument and that you are so much better at debating, it is because you simply ignore anyone who does not agree with you, ignore any arguments against your position and repeat the same things over and over in every thread, even when they are proven time and time again to be false. the lithuania thing is a perfect example, it is not the first time you have used it and it has already been countered, yet you still use it in your argument.
You know most people have trouble talking in the 3rd person but you have mastered it. Maybe it is because you spend so much time by yourself that you have to do so.
Heronblade: You're right, them bringing charges up at this point and in this manner is interesting, but it seems we're drawing quite different conclusions.
To me, it suggests a few scenarios: A.) They finally found a crucial bit of evidence that supports probable cause. B.) They were covering for Zimmerman from the beginning and are just now trying to cover their own arses by stringing him up. C.) They still haven't found enough evidence for probable cause, whether due to incompetence or there simply not being evidence to find, and are moving forward with the case only because public outrage has made it politically impossible to do anything else.
Considering how weak and filled with conjecture the affidavit was, I'm actually inclined to think option C is closer to the truth than the other scenarios. While some combination between the three is certainly possible, if A or B were primarily true, I would expect the prosecutor to have a much stronger public case against Zimmerman.
I don't think we are drawing different conclusions. I want him arrested and charged, but there's a lot of stuff that mucks that up when it comes to the whole jury thing. I also don't think that there's going to be a whole lot of evidence that they find several months later for a murder that wasn't premeditated, but I've definitely given thought to B and agree that C is likely. Also, prosecutors are ambitious, and a case like this is a great way to receive publicity.
I just think that they should settle for voluntary manslaughter. It's an easier sell given the way the investigation has progressed. Most people could be convinced of a "heat of the moment" situation considering how the guy with the weapon killed the guy without the weapon, but even I have a hard time buying that Zimmerman had "specific intent to kill".
subtlefuge: I just think that they should settle for voluntary manslaughter. It's an easier sell given the way the investigation has progressed. Most people could be convinced of a "heat of the moment" situation considering how the guy with the weapon killed the guy without the weapon, but even I have a hard time buying that Zimmerman had "specific intent to kill".
I think if they had any intentions at all of Mr Zimmerman being convicted of a crime they would have went with Manslaughter over Murder 2. Unless they have one Hell of a surprise in store that the public is unaware of they simply can not and will not make a murder 2 conviction and there is no way any defense lawyer worth his salt will let this get pleaded out. Barring any hugely surprising developments I'd wager George Zimmerman walks free and clear once this is settled.
As I said before the fact they had an almost perfect case to get a Manslaughter conviction but still elected to go with Murder 2 tells me they aren't interested in putting Mr Zimmerman in jail but rather of simply covering their asses in the public eye. With pursuing Murder 2 they are basically gift wrapping the case for the defense and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that is their exact intention.
I'd be willing to bet that the only reason an arrest was made was due to the public and political pressure. The prosecution is very likely well aware how weak of a case they have and fully expect this to either get kicked before going in front of a jury or get a not guilty verdict in the unlikely event it makes it to a jury.
(so much for me thinking we wouldn't hear much after the 11th!)
The media is looking to make him a violent man, which I don't think is the case. I do, however, think he is a man with something to prove. He is shown to have a habit of escalating conflicts, rather than walking away from them. He's not running out and causing trouble, but he is too proud to back down from it.
I think that's what happened in this case. Zimmerman should have walked away and let the police handle it, but he wanted to do something more active. Rather than backing down, he escalated the conflict, and a kid wound up dead. Was the kid some innocent boy scout? Probably not, but that doesn't matter to this situation.
Prediction: Zimmerman will plead to voluntary manslaughter. His lawyers may be tempted to go to trial on the chance he'll be acquitted, but I think Zimmerman will realize it's not worth the possibility of life in prison.
Xanthious: As I said before the fact they had an almost perfect case to get a Manslaughter conviction but still elected to go with Murder 2 tells me they aren't interested in putting Mr Zimmerman in jail but rather of simply covering their asses in the public eye. With pursuing Murder 2 they are basically gift wrapping the case for the defense and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that is their exact intention.
I would almost agree with you on this, except that we've already heard clear proof that Zimmerman was the instigator here. He was told not to follow, and he did so. To classify it as "voluntary manslaughter," they would have to demonstrate that a reasonable person would, in that situation, be so emotionally distraught that they would kill.
This doesn't have that flavor. The kid had done nothing threatening to Zimmerman up to the point of the altercation. He hadn't stolen from Zimmerman, or from anyone as far as Zimmerman knew. He just looked shady, nothing more. I believe the prosecution will be able to demonstrate this amounts to an act of vigilantism, which is a cut above voluntary manslaughter.
Zimmerman would be wise to please out, rather than risk a 2nd degree conviction.
The reason we're so tempted to see him get away, for a lot of us, is we support Stand Your Ground laws. I know I do. And I would hate for this case to be the dambreaker on them. But that'll only happen if we allow this man to become the face of Stand Your Ground. He clearly misused the law -- he wasn't "standing" anything, but rather taking ground from his "suspect" -- and that's not the image we want on this law.
Overzealous neighborhood watch leader, a bit too excited about the prospect of using the SYG law, disregarding the request of a 911 operator to cease pursuit, and a demonstrated history of unnecessarily escalating conflicts (his prior records will attest to that). They can get 2nd on this.
Xanthious: As I said before the fact they had an almost perfect case to get a Manslaughter conviction but still elected to go with Murder 2 tells me they aren't interested in putting Mr Zimmerman in jail but rather of simply covering their asses in the public eye. With pursuing Murder 2 they are basically gift wrapping the case for the defense and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that is their exact intention.
I would almost agree with you on this, except that we've already heard clear proof that Zimmerman was the instigator here. He was told not to follow, and he did so. To classify it as "voluntary manslaughter," they would have to demonstrate that a reasonable person would, in that situation, be so emotionally distraught that they would kill.
This doesn't have that flavor. The kid had done nothing threatening to Zimmerman up to the point of the altercation. He hadn't stolen from Zimmerman, or from anyone as far as Zimmerman knew. He just looked shady, nothing more. I believe the prosecution will be able to demonstrate this amounts to an act of vigilantism, which is a cut above voluntary manslaughter.
Zimmerman would be wise to please out, rather than risk a 2nd degree conviction.
The reason we're so tempted to see him get away, for a lot of us, is we support Stand Your Ground laws. I know I do. And I would hate for this case to be the dambreaker on them. But that'll only happen if we allow this man to become the face of Stand Your Ground. He clearly misused the law -- he wasn't "standing" anything, but rather taking ground from his "suspect" -- and that's not the image we want on this law.
Overzealous neighborhood watch leader, a bit too excited about the prospect of using the SYG law, disregarding the request of a 911 operator to cease pursuit, and a demonstrated history of unnecessarily escalating conflicts (his prior records will attest to that). They can get 2nd on this.
We have no proof at all he instigated the event. None. The detective on the stand yesterday even admitted as much when he testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch and that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin.
If there is no evidence to prove or disprove who threw the first punch and whether or not Mr Zimmerman was or was not in fact walking back to his vehicle then there is no way this will end with any sort of conviction unless there is some ace in the hole the prosecution has yet to reveal.
The prosecution's case thus far is made up wholly of conjecture and baseless accusations. The affidavit claims things they simply have no evidence of such as who instigated the event and whether or not Mr Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle or not.
As I've said before if this is basically all the prosecution has to go on I would not be the least bit surprised to see this get kicked before ever going in front of a jury. However, should it go to a jury there is simply no way they will get a Murder 2 conviction out of it.
I would almost agree with you on this, except that we've already heard clear proof that Zimmerman was the instigator here. He was told not to follow, and he did so. To classify it as "voluntary manslaughter," they would have to demonstrate that a reasonable person would, in that situation, be so emotionally distraught that they would kill.
The problem is that: 1. There is no proof that supports the fact that Martin reacted to any direct or implied threat other than being followed. 2. There is no proof that Zimmerman set out with the intent to draw or use his weapon, much less kill the kid.
In order to classify it as voluntary manslaughter, they actually need to demonstrate significantly less, like say that he followed someone, causing that person to rough him up, and him unduly discharging his firearm. Second degree murder would require them to basically prove that he either started the confrontation to deliberately murder Martin in self defense, or that he executed Martin for the crime of trespassing.
This doesn't have that flavor. The kid had done nothing threatening to Zimmerman up to the point of the altercation. He hadn't stolen from Zimmerman, or from anyone as far as Zimmerman knew. He just looked shady, nothing more. I believe the prosecution will be able to demonstrate this amounts to an act of vigilantism, which is a cut above voluntary manslaughter.
Zimmerman would be wise to please out, rather than risk a 2nd degree conviction.
He won't, because there is practically no risk.
The reason we're so tempted to see him get away, for a lot of us, is we support Stand Your Ground laws. I know I do. And I would hate for this case to be the dambreaker on them. But that'll only happen if we allow this man to become the face of Stand Your Ground. He clearly misused the law -- he wasn't "standing" anything, but rather taking ground from his "suspect" -- and that's not the image we want on this law.
This is where it differs from cases like the "Subway Vigilante". In that case, a frequently victimized man responded to a direct threat that was contrary to the media narrative that was being created to make the thug teenagers sound like angels. This isn't so simple. Zimmerman wasn't a repeat victim, and Martin wasn't trying to mug him with his friends wielding crowbars. I just wish that they would bring a charge that they could actually get a conviction on, so that this good law is not legitimately called into question.
Also, I feel bad about how regardless of how this case turns out, society will want to take its debt from his hide. It's a little bit horrific actually.
Xanthious: As I said before the fact they had an almost perfect case to get a Manslaughter conviction but still elected to go with Murder 2 tells me they aren't interested in putting Mr Zimmerman in jail but rather of simply covering their asses in the public eye. With pursuing Murder 2 they are basically gift wrapping the case for the defense and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that is their exact intention.
I would almost agree with you on this, except that we've already heard clear proof that Zimmerman was the instigator here. He was told not to follow, and he did so.
We don't even know for certain whether or not Zimmerman followed Martin for more than a few dozen paces, he claims to have stopped upon request, and the noises you can hear during his 911 call support that claim. Whether he returned to his vehicle and Martin doubled back as he claims, or resumed the chase after hanging up is one detail we're missing.
Even if Z did follow M after the operator told him that following M wasn't necessary (a statement that is quite different from an order or instruction to stop), that action would not be proof of misconduct in and of itself. If Zimmerman himself made no aggressive or abusive moves, the SYG laws would still take effect for him if Martin turned around and attacked at some point. If the prior conditions were met, you might have a harassment or involuntary manslaughter case against Zimmerman, but not murder or voluntary manslaughter.
In order to classify it as voluntary manslaughter, they actually need to demonstrate significantly less, like say that he followed someone, causing that person to rough him up, and him unduly discharging his firearm. Second degree murder would require them to basically prove that he either started the confrontation to deliberately murder Martin in self defense, or that he executed Martin for the crime of trespassing.
Actually, they would have difficulty proving a voluntary manslaughter charge as well, it only applies if the defendant went into a situation intending to cause harm. If Zimmerman wanted and/or attempted to start a fight and it got out of hand, that would be voluntary. If Zimmerman made stupid mistakes that caused a fight that got out of hand, that would be involuntary.
Xanthious: As I said before the fact they had an almost perfect case to get a Manslaughter conviction but still elected to go with Murder 2 tells me they aren't interested in putting Mr Zimmerman in jail but rather of simply covering their asses in the public eye. With pursuing Murder 2 they are basically gift wrapping the case for the defense and I wouldn't be surprised to find out that is their exact intention.
I would almost agree with you on this, except that we've already heard clear proof that Zimmerman was the instigator here. He was told not to follow, and he did so. To classify it as "voluntary manslaughter," they would have to demonstrate that a reasonable person would, in that situation, be so emotionally distraught that they would kill.
This doesn't have that flavor. The kid had done nothing threatening to Zimmerman up to the point of the altercation. He hadn't stolen from Zimmerman, or from anyone as far as Zimmerman knew. He just looked shady, nothing more. I believe the prosecution will be able to demonstrate this amounts to an act of vigilantism, which is a cut above voluntary manslaughter.
Zimmerman would be wise to please out, rather than risk a 2nd degree conviction.
The reason we're so tempted to see him get away, for a lot of us, is we support Stand Your Ground laws. I know I do. And I would hate for this case to be the dambreaker on them. But that'll only happen if we allow this man to become the face of Stand Your Ground. He clearly misused the law -- he wasn't "standing" anything, but rather taking ground from his "suspect" -- and that's not the image we want on this law.
Overzealous neighborhood watch leader, a bit too excited about the prospect of using the SYG law, disregarding the request of a 911 operator to cease pursuit, and a demonstrated history of unnecessarily escalating conflicts (his prior records will attest to that). They can get 2nd on this.
We have no proof at all he instigated the event. None. The detective on the stand yesterday even admitted as much when he testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch and that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin.
If there is no evidence to prove or disprove who threw the first punch and whether or not Mr Zimmerman was or was not in fact walking back to his vehicle then there is no way this will end with any sort of conviction unless there is some ace in the hole the prosecution has yet to reveal.
The prosecution's case thus far is made up wholly of conjecture and baseless accusations. The affidavit claims things they simply have no evidence of such as who instigated the event and whether or not Mr Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle or not.
As I've said before if this is basically all the prosecution has to go on I would not be the least bit surprised to see this get kicked before ever going in front of a jury. However, should it go to a jury there is simply no way they will get a Murder 2 conviction out of it.
*Sigh* That he followed the kid 'after' being told not to 'is' disregarding the authorities. And also points to the fact that he was the one following the kid, he instigated the event. You dont follow someone in a car, and then get out of your car, go after the kid for a while, and just stand still for a while, then walk back to your car and the kid assaults you. It just seems so.. Stupid.
Nikolaz72: *Sigh* That he followed the kid 'after' being told not to 'is' disregarding the authorities. And also points to the fact that he was the one following the kid, he instigated the event. You dont follow someone in a car, and then get out of your car, go after the kid for a while, and just stand still for a while, then walk back to your car and the kid assaults you. It just seems so.. Stupid.
George Zimmerman is claiming that he did indeed follow Treyvon Martin. However, after being told by the 911 dispatcher that he didn't have to continue following him he turned around and walked back to his vehicle at which point he was confronted who asked him "Do you have a problem?" to which Mr Zimmerman said no and then was told by Treyvon "Well you do now" at which point he was attacked by Treyvon Martin. By the investigator's own words they have zero evidence to prove that this is not the case.
We have no way of knowing who started what or who attacked who first. All we have is George Zimmerman's account of what happened and he claims he was confronted and attacked by Treyvon Martin after returning to his vehicle as instructed by the 911 dispatcher. Could this be a lie? Certainly. However, with no way of proving otherwise the prosecution is going to have near impossible time of securing a conviction.
Dastardly: The reason we're so tempted to see him get away, for a lot of us, is we support Stand Your Ground laws. I know I do.
This case has absolutely nothing to do with SYG.
If Zimmerman was lying then it is not self defense. If he was telling the truth then it still has nothing to do with SYG because the situation he was in would be classified as self defense in a Duty to Retreat state as well as a SYG state.
As for him being arrested, take a look at the 4th Amendment and you will see that the SYG law simply reiterates the 4th Amendment.
reonhato: your rights are already infringed. you cannot buy personal rocket launchers or have an AA battery setup in your backyard
Most of which are not ARMS.
BTW yes you can buy those things (owning is another story) as FPS Russia proved-
hell there are countless rifles and handguns that you cannot buy, there is nothing stopping the government being more strict.
If the federal government followed its own laws then that would not be the case. Unless of course you are arguing that the government shouldn't have a constitution and should be allowed to do whatever the hell it wants.
i love how one of your main fighting points against all the studies and statistics that are shown in the other gun threads is that you cannot compare america to other countries like UK, AUS and so on, yet you have no issues at all trying to compare america to countries like jamaica and lithuania.
Actually I think the comparison is completely flawed however by YOUR logic the comparison works.
i actually explained about lithuania before when you tried to use it as a reason that guns to not cause deaths, seeing as the only thing you actually seem to know about the country is its name and its gun count. the TLDR version is that lithuania has a severe problem with a violent culture and extreme racism combined with several minority groups. (poles, russians, jews, gypsies). they have huge problems with violence against women and there right wing politics make the republicans look like saints for all there anti gay and racism.
First of all you are wrong about the problems. Second of all if that is the case then you admit that gun are irrelevant and it is socioeconomic-cultural issues that are at play.
Damn, this topic is great for proving the antis wrong. First you had Blablahb saying that Martin could have morally used a gun in self defense, then you have Tech advocating Martin using violence, and now we have Reon catching up.
see this is why arguments never get anywhere against you, you simply ignore facts, you do not actually listen and take in the othersides argument, which is why people stop arguing against you, it is not because as you often claim they lost and cannot prove their argument and that you are so much better at debating, it is because you simply ignore anyone who does not agree with you, ignore any arguments against your position and repeat the same things over and over in every thread, even when they are proven time and time again to be false. the lithuania thing is a perfect example, it is not the first time you have used it and it has already been countered, yet you still use it in your argument.
You know most people have trouble talking in the 3rd person but you have mastered it. Maybe it is because you spend so much time by yourself that you have to do so.
so a rocket launcher is not a weapon? i think that would be pretty hard to prove.
this post is a perfect example of why you are an idiot. you say im wrong about lithuania..... and that is it. you do not show any reason as why i am wrong, you simply state it. you do not counter my argument you just say it is wrong.
no one has every denied there are other reasons for violence and death. it is something you have just made up and kept saying, exactly like the republicans. what we have said is that guns are part of the problem.
half the time you do not argue, you just insult and say people are wrong, when you do argue it is against a made up argument
reonhato: so a rocket launcher is not a weapon? i think that would be pretty hard to prove.
Goddamn. People are still using the "rocket launcher argument"?
A rocket launcher is not covered by the Second Amendment. No group that I know of with any political capital is trying to push for civilian ownership of rocket launchers. It is THE most nonsensical argument in the second amendment debate, short of "the 2nd Amendment only covers muskets". Both have been thoroughly debunked by courts. But it's not too uncommon to see. C'est la vie in the gun debate.
Far too often I see people say "If you're OK with nuclear misses and rocket launchers being banned, why are you against guns being banned?" The simple fact is, guns aren't nuclear missiles. The argument is akin to someone saying that "if you do not believe people should be permitted to ride horses on the freeway, then I'm sure you would be happy to ban cars from those same freeways." It's utterly nonsensical.
what we have said is that guns are part of the problem.
And what we keep saying is that we want to deal with the other parts without infringing on people's rights.
half the time you do not argue, you just insult and say people are wrong, when you do argue it is against a made up argument
...
...
Do I even have to point out the irony in this statement?
Also, fun fact: Insulting other users by calling them an "idiot" is a mod-worthy offense, IIRC.
reonhato: so a rocket launcher is not a weapon? i think that would be pretty hard to prove.
Rocket launchers are not typically arms. Not all arms are weapons and not all weapons are arms.
this post is a perfect example of why you are an idiot. you say im wrong about lithuania..... and that is it. you do not show any reason as why i am wrong, you simply state it. you do not counter my argument you just say it is wrong.
Actually I have why several times. In fact I said it in the OP.
no one has every denied there are other reasons for violence and death. it is something you have just made up and kept saying, exactly like the republicans. what we have said is that guns are part of the problem.
Actually y'all have categorically denied the importance of those factors.
half the time you do not argue, you just insult and say people are wrong, when you do argue it is against a made up argument
You realize the irony in that statement right?
Edit: CM pointed out the fact that your statement is worthy of mod reprisal. I suppose someone will take care of it and you will be suspended AGAIN. Then just one more bad post and you are gone forever. Auf Wiedersehen.
Goddamn. People are still using the "rocket launcher argument"?
A rocket launcher is not covered by the Second Amendment. No group that I know of with any political capital is trying to push for civilian ownership of rocket launchers. It is THE most nonsensical argument in the second amendment debate, short of "the 2nd Amendment only covers muskets". Both have been thoroughly debunked by courts. But it's not too uncommon to see. C'est la vie in the gun debate.
Far too often I see people say "If you're OK with nuclear misses and rocket launchers being banned, why are you against guns being banned?" The simple fact is, guns aren't nuclear missiles. The argument is akin to someone saying that "if you do not believe people should be permitted to ride horses on the freeway, then I'm sure you would be happy to ban cars from those same freeways." It's utterly nonsensical.
it was your gun buddy who said this
"THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
i was just giving examples of how the right has already been infringed in the manner of which i assumed he meant.
Rocket launchers are not typically arms. Not all arms are weapons and not all weapons are arms.
really, you're really going to try and claim that a rocket launchers are not arms?
rocket launcher - armament in the form of a device capable of launching a rocket
im sure military forces call a stash of explosives and RPGs an arms cache just for fun
Actually y'all have categorically denied the importance of those factors.
more made up fantasy
i really do not know why i bother to respond to you two. i guess its why i respond to religions people, its fun to see just how backwards and ignorant some people are. i guess in a sense you are both religious, just the constitution is your bible and your gun your saviour
reonhato: i really do not know why i bother to respond to you two. i guess its why i respond to religions people, its fun to see just how backwards and ignorant some people are. i guess in a sense you are both religious, just the constitution is your bible and your gun your saviour
Is that really what you've reduced your argument to?
And anyways, I AM religious, so it's not as if what you're saying has any potential to offend me.
Y'know, if people were really worried about rocket launchers they would outlaw precision machine tools since making a RPG-7 or 9 is dead simple as these things go. Something like a LAW would be harder, mainly because the LAW is designed to be as compact and light as possible. In any case, they are not used in crime because they are large, unwieldy, and suck for taking out human targets. Since criminals are generally not terrorists blowing shit up in a spectacular way is not high on their to-do list. Not to mention rocket launchers are in fact legal, you just need to pay the destructive device tax to own each round of ammo. So an additional 6 months and 200 dollars for every round you want to buy, along with extensive FBI background check.
I thought of that.
Even if he is in danger, my question was if there was enough evidence against him, and that he is a danger for a $150,000 bail to be fair.