Skip to comments.Vanity: State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman: Affidavit of probable cause
Posted on 04/12/2012 6:26:26 PM PDT by dewawi
Oh my God, no wonder Allen Dershowitz is calling it a disgrace. This looks like something a 3rd grader would put together. It even makes a mistake as to what the Dispatcher told Zimmerman when he said he was following him. Remember: the Dispatcher said "You don't have to do that". Well in this affidavit, the State claims the Dispatcher said something else DESPITE IT BEING ON TAPE!
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Wonder what eric holder threatened her.
can someone please verify where this 7-11 is? One poster said it was 2-3 miles away.
The special Prosecutor is a Republican, apparently given the job by a Republican governor. I’m sure they were worried about what would happen if they didn’t give in to the race baiters. But, still, this is just crazy.
I think it was written on the 3rd grade level in hopes that the New Black Pampers would read it and maybe lighten up a little.
Mark Levin said it is very weak according to what he has seen. I heard Pam Bondi on Fox today with Megyn Kelly. Megyn asked her about the bounty the Black Panthers put out on Zimmerman and what will be done. She said “I cannot talk about that right now but anyone putting out a threat on his life needs to stop now.”
I imagine it doesn’t matter, but there are several false statements in the affidavit.
For example, it says Zimmerman was talking about Martin when he said “these *ssholes, they always get away”. Clearly he was talking about the others — Martin was one person, not multiple people. He also supposedly used the plural “punks”, again indicating he wasn’t specifically talking about Martin.
A better example, it says “he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime” — but the investigator has no way of knowing whether Trayvon was going to commit a crime or not, nor did anything Zimmerman say indicate he assumed a crime was going to be committed. Further, given that Trayvon beat Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had not shot Trayvon and the police had arrived, it is likely Trayvon would have been arrested and charged with a crime, so maybe it wasn’t false at all.
They also mischaracterized what the dispatcher told Zimmerman. Further, according to other sources, after the dispatcher told him not to follow Martin, he didn’t, and instead walked to the street to wait for the police, before walking back toward his truck (I guess that’s one of those things that we’ll have to see what the sworn testimony says).
Later, it says “Martin attempted to run home but was followed by zimmerman”. That almost certainly is false — Zimmerman was not in very good shape, and Trayvon was. Trayvon was only 100 yards from where he was living — that’s 20 seconds max of running. And the shooting was minutes after the dispatcher started, so if Trayvon ran home, he’d make it in plenty of time.
It is more likely that Trayvon turned around and went back to confront Zimmerman. It’s the only rational way Zimmerman would have caught up to Trayvon.
And since they know Zimmernan received treatment, they know the two had an altercation.
It is also annoying but not I guess “false” to give the 3rd-hand statement that trayvon’s mother “says” it sounds like him, and ignore that an eyewitness claims he saw Zimmerman on the ground and screaming. I would guess though that the burden is very low for this type of proceeding.
Based on the affidavit, the state’s case rests entirely on:
1. the girlfriend on the cellphone and
2. the mother claiming it was Trayvon’s voice crying for help.
They have no evidence that Martin initiated the physical contact. If they did, they would have stated that in the affidavit.
I will be shocked if Angela Corey personally prosecutes this case. She will conveniently find some other pressing engagement and leave a junior lawyer holding the bag to prosecute the case so as to avoid further damage to her career.
If this were not a political prosecution, it would be thrown out for lack of probable cause.
I thought the dispatcher said, “we don’t need you to do that,” which does carry an implication that he shouldn’t “do that”, even though it is not an instruction per se. Also, some are saying that Zimmerman did stop following him, and that he was then jumped from behind as he was going back to his car. It will be interesting to see how the defense presents its case.
Your Honor, I object.
A third grader wouldn't have the life experience to couple this much stupidity with PC BULLSHIT.
Oh wait... did I JUST REPEAT MYSELF????
Crime is self defense while being white.
A better example, it says he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime but the investigator has no way of knowing whether Trayvon was going to commit a crime or not, nor did anything Zimmerman say indicate he assumed a crime was going to be committed. Further, given that Trayvon beat Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had not shot Trayvon and the police had arrived, it is likely Trayvon would have been arrested and charged with a crime, so maybe it wasnt false at all.
They had to allege something like this to support the depraved mind element of second degree murder.
I am sure that the Justice Department is trying to concoct some cockamanie theory of Zimmerman as a deputized state actor due to his past course of dealings with the police as neighborhood watch captain in order to bring a federal civil rights case against him and the city of Sanford.
The far left would love to make it a federal thought-crime to "profile" by thinking suspicious thoughts of a black person. There is nothing one should put past these tyrants.
Looks like they copied a transcript from an NBC news program to put this affidavit together.
Shine on. Shine down.
An honest listen will show that he wasn't lamenting that they get away, he was telling the police where to look for the suspect.
This is a dishonest affidavit. It's becoming clear that Zimmerman is being nifonged.
Even if GZ initiated the confrontation, then
Since its passage in 2005, the stand your ground law has protected people who have pursued another, initiated a confrontation and then used deadly force to defend themselves. Citing the law, judges have granted immunity to killers who put themselves in danger, so long as their pursuit was not criminal, so long as the person using force had a right to be there, and so long as he could convince the judge he was in fear of great danger or death.
The girlfriend could have made up details to make Zimmerman appear to be pursuing Martin (or misconstrued what Martin's remarks meant) and the prosecutor may have gone on the assumption that whatever the girlfriend said was true and anything Zimmerman said was false.
I've made some good friends that way. But I've never had my head beat on concrete because of it.
Oh... and sometimes, in this neighborhood, I have to ask in Spanish.
The whole issue of “duty to retreat” and stand your ground has NO application to this case, based on the defense offered by Zimmerman.
Zimmerman claims Trayvon initiated the physical altercation by striking him in the face and attacked him and was beating him on the ground.
With Trayvon on top of him, there was no opportunity to retreat before he was put in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, justifying his use of the firearm. Therefore, the situation addressed by “stand your ground” has no application to this case.
The whole issue of “stand your ground” has been injected into the case by liberals who don’t like the concept and are trying to raise public consciousness of it to get it overturned or not adopted in other states.
>> “I would guess though that the burden is very low for this type of proceeding.” <<
Its Florida man! - Remember Terri Schiavo?
Their high school proficiency test is a tiddlywinks game.
I think it was written on the 3rd grade level in hopes that the New Black Pampers could understand it.
Or an affirmative action government prosecutor.
The prosecution is going to have to massage the testimony of the girlfriend-on-the-cell-phone like it was a lump of pizza dough.
It’s all they’ve got. Unless they’ve caught Zimmerman in serious inconsistencies in his statements to police.
The testimony of the mother as to the voice crying for help will be contradicted by Zimmerman’s family and friends, who will say it was him. So the prosecution is not going to be able to get past reasonable doubt as to the identity of the person crying for help.
So it will all come down to the girlfriend, and trying like heck to discredit the eyewitness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
Guilty as sin.
The one where Trayvon probably stole the candy?
The girlfriend could have made up details . . . . .
No matter how honest she is or isn’t, her testimony would be hearsay and should not be used in court if challenged by the defense attorney. Travon Martin can not say if her version of the conversation is true or not.
There is no doubt that the prosecution will try to get her testimony in the record but I don’t believe it should be allowed in.
The personification of a Dr. Seuss character.
Correct. The left wants Zimmerman's scalp.
And they want "stand your ground" laws discredited.
They're going for both -- even though the one has nothing whatsoever to do with the case.
Technically it’s not hearsay, she is a first-person witness to what she heard through the phone line.
>> So it will all come down to the girlfriend, and trying like heck to discredit the eyewitness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
Which brings up a question:
A prosecutor’s job is not to win a conviction at all costs, but rather to *uncover the truth* — whatever that may turn out to be. For example, this is why a prosecutor is legally (as well as morally) bound to turn over evidence it uncovers that would exculpate the accused.
Therefore, why would the prosecution even *attempt* to discredit an eyewitness?
(Not that I doubt that they *will* try.)
Taking this line of reasoning one step further, Corey’s fawning all over Trayvon and his family was unprofessional to the Nth degree.
“The special Prosecutor is a Republican”
What does that mean? She is better than a Democrat? Or is she just as scared as a Democrat?
The duty to retreat has no application but other aspects do.
“Under Florida’s stand your ground law, a person is immune from criminal prosecution when using justifiable force to protect oneself from another persons use of imminent unlawful force against them.”
It's becoming clear that Zimmerman is being nifonged.
Yes, by Little Miss Nifong.
The term “stand your ground” is being used to refer to the entire Florida law dealing with self-defense, after having been amended to deal with the duty to retreat.
But in this case, based on what Zimmerman is claiming as his defense, the relevant law is the same in all states. The particular “stand your ground” concept has no application to this case, based on what Zimmerman is saying happened.
I’m sure this prosecutor was in fear for her own life if she didn’t put something together. But if she’s going to insist on things that are contradicted by the tapes, isn’t that essentially perjury?
But hey, Zimmerman doesn’t matter to these people. To them, he’s just another subhuman who can be used to advance the Master Class.
I never imagined a White Hispanic would be in that position.
LOL! I love those videos.
A third year law student should be able to shoot down this indictment. Any judge who doesn't dismiss this charge would have to be nothing more than a political hack.
What amazes me is that apparently competent people actually signed their names to this piece of crap. If this doesn't get tossed at the preliminary hearing, then I have lost all faith in the judicial system.
Is Zimmerman being Nifonged?
Even more grist for the mill of Reichsnegro Erica.
If he was charged with Involuntary Manslaughter (still a stretch IMHO), the Bail amount would probably be something that his Family could afford to pay. Hell, if I had the extra money, I'd pay it.
The more serious charge was applied to insure that Mr. Zimmerman will remain incarcerated until the Kangaroo Court “Trial” is over.
Even if he is innocent, he must pay with his loss of Freedom. The Street Justice coming from the Left demands no less. Innocent until proven guilty? Yeah, right...
Let the show trial begin! Our 2012 version of “The Hunger Games.”
[[he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime]]
‘FALSELY’ means that he intentionally intended to decieve- George may have been mistaken, however, being mistaken, and intending to decieve are two wholly different things- it’s NOT a crime to mistakenly assume someoen may be up to no good- and the law has NO business arresting george because he might have been mistaken abotu someone
[[nor did anything Zimmerman say indicate he assumed a crime was going to be committed.]]
to be fair, he did tell the dispatcher trayvon ‘looked suspicious’ or ‘acted suspiciously’ or somethign to that effect- however, again, it is NOT a crime to follow someone who is acting suspiciously even if it is your intention to try to stop someone from doign somethign illegal- the blakc comuinity has lost sight of htis basic fact, and have convicted george simply bbecause george had the temerity to follow someone who looked and acted suspiciously in a neighborhood that had been known to have crime
[[Martin attempted to run home but was followed by zimmerman.]]
That is complete bull shit, and I hope zimmerman’s lawyer sues whoever made that false accusation, although even if zimmerman does win lawsuits agaisnt false arrest, it will all be taken from him when the martins sue him now that he has beren charged-
Every charge brought against Zimmerman was false- especially the secodn degree charges- which indicated zimmerman had a ‘depraved mind’ and ‘callous indifference toward the life of another’. None of the conditions necessary for a charge of second degree murder were met by zimmerman nor the actiosn in the case- Zimmerman has been falsely imprisoned- last I knew it was agaisnt hte law to falsely imprison someone
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.