Skip to comments.Affidavit of Probable Cause - Second Degree Murder (Zimmerman)
Posted on 04/12/2012 6:15:01 PM PDT by Scoutmaster
Here's a copy of the Affidavit of Probable Cause filed as the basis for the Second Degree Murder charges against George Zimmerman. I can't find an electronic copy from which I can copy and paste, so you'll need to review the .pdf on your browser or download it.
At least in this document, sounds like the prosecutor was relying on the mother’s statement and a girlfriend on the phone....while completely ignoring the testimony of an EYE WITNESS to the incident. Go figure.
She gave in to the political pressure AND realized this was her chance for some fame. Too bad.
That was an interesting read... I also read this http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back and I see conflicts. Like in the one you posted they say Zimmerman never stopped the pursuit yet in the one I just linked it is said that after a while he did stop..
If for no other reason Zimmerman stopped the pursuit because he lost track of Martin and was heading back to his vehicle when Martin popped up and said “Do you have a problem with me?”
I thought it was all an accident. That’s what the Mom said.
zimmerman continued on for a bit after the dispatcher told him he didnt have to do that because he wanted to be able to tell the police in which direction martin went. Now the broad prosecutor is trying to imply that zimmerman “profiled”.
O’Steen and Gilbreath are paid stooges employed by Special Prosecutor Corey. From the get go this affidavit contradicts previously released info from ALL parties. Including the police, Z and his attornies, and Martin’s family lawyers.
So. Were they lying then, or are they lying now?
Cory may be playing ‘rope a dope” on this...You charge Z with a heavy charge, it gets thrown out at arraignment or asquitted in ‘trial”...You have then moved along “WITH OUR JUSTICE SERVED SYSTEM” AND many people will finally believe thw defence’s formal report of the evidence.
I’m surprised it wasn’t signed “Epstein’s Mother”.
The EXACT quote was "Okay, we don't need you to do that.
When a police officer 'instructs' someone to put both hands on the steering wheel, the officer says "put both hands on the steering wheel," not "okay, I don't need you to have your hands occupying Cartesian coordinates other than those that would result in them being on the steering wheel."
I frequently watch shows on television where the police instruct someone "drop your weapon!" But I've never heard "okay, we don't need you to be continuing to hold your weapon."
Calling that 'instructing" Zimmerman not to pursue Martin - and swearing to it in an affidavit - is stretching it beyond comprehension.
CharlesWayneCT has posted a pretty devastating analysis of the misstatements contained in this affidavit in the companion thread (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2871442/posts)
I think it is important for FReepers understand that the prosecutor has a very low bar to negotiate here, which is merely by probable cause to establish that a crime was committed and that the defendant committed it. That is a far different standard from beyond a reasonable doubt which will occur at trial.
It is also well to understand that the prosecutor does not usually unveil her whole case at this point, although I understand Florida has quite liberal discovery rules including deposition of witnesses in criminal cases, but that will come later.
All that being said, the prosecutor is still morally bound to exercise her discretion. If she submits an affidavit in support of a indictment or information which contains mischaracterizations or even misstatements of fact, she might be able to get past the low bar of probable cause at this stage where the inferences will be drawn in her favor and against the defendant, but at the same time she indicts herself for abusing her discretion which comes with the office.
I am particularly exercised about her grandstanding her own self-righteous piety in terms of being apolitical in administering justice and then producing such a shoddy affidavit which is supported by lies. If nothing else, she has indicted herself as a hypocrite.
The fact that she waived the grand jury compounds her sin because, fundamentally, a grand jury stands as an institution to protect the accused. In other words, although we are fond of saying that the prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, nevertheless those jurors sit there and have an absolute right to return no bill if they think the prosecution is going rogue. This prosecutor took that proceeding away from citizens and thus deprived Mr. Zimmerman of that protection and assumed the responsibility herself in a highly politically charged case. In doing so she had a moral obligation both to the law, Mr. Zimmerman, the Martins, to the public, and to decency to elevate her conduct to the highest level.
She set the bar for herself high and she did not even attempt to negotiate it. She has left herself open to the charge of playing rank race politics with people's lives.
Shame on her.
I'll go a step further and call it what it is. It's a lie.
This prosecutor is going to lose her law license. Angela Corey meet Mike Nifong.
Yep. I had originally hoped she opted out of the Grand Jury in order to insulate them from reprisal when they decided not to indict. Looks like we just have another Janet reno clone who will knowingly condemn the innocent in order to further her career. This will end badly and I prayu it ends even worse for the race-baiting whores who lit the match, scrounged for kindling and fan the flames daily.
She's been tagged "The New Nifong."
Little Miss Nifong?
The affidavit of probable cause is very weak tea. The way the case is laying out the local cops will be witnesses for the defense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.