Skip to comments.Trayvon Martin Killing Lead Prosecutor Says George Zimmerman Could Walk
Posted on 03/26/2012 3:27:29 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
The nationwide clamor for an arrest notwithstanding, the lead prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case tells ABC News that convicting his killer, the neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, could prove difficult.
"The stand-your-ground law is one portion of justifiable use of deadly force," veteran State Attorney Angela Corey said. "And what that means is that the state must go forward and be able to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt
So it makes the case in general more difficult than a normal criminal case."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Zimmerman found innocent.
Obama makes speech, calms the nation.
So they’d have to prove Zimmerman guilty, which would be more difficult than a normal criminal case??
Glad someone cleared that up.
Ya mean they acccually gotta PROVE he’s guilty???
I thought Barry and the Rev already done did that.
All they need is the rope.
The race pimps and the MSM will get people killed over this and they won’t be held accountable. It’s going to be a long hot summer so carry your personal defense tools everywhere you go and avoid areas where Holder’s people tend to congregate.
GZ’s already been charged, tried & convicted by the race-baiting mobs; the execution is at 6pm in the town square, BTW... bring popcorn.
This circus is never going to end; it’s just a “warm-up” for much more to come.
What needed to be said was that this is America. We do not convict innocent men in order to please Al Sharptongue and Jesse Jackass. We do not convict an innocent man even to please the Muslim in the White House.
Likewise, this whole thing is being exploited to parallel The Messiah's divisive re-election campaign, to pit group vs. group. "Free Mumia" comes to mind, along with Reginald Denny-mentality and no Prosecutions, AND, Watts, etc. will be going on all over America if the facts of the case exonerate Zimmerman.
I was trying to watch the Thunder and the Heat play yesterday, and all they could talk about was Labron James and his hoodie thugs. There is going to be a lot people that are going to share in the blame for the violence that is bound to be.
Not to be simplistic but, given the required legal presumption of innocence, every honest prosecutor would agree that every subject of prosecution “could walk”.
“Zimmerman found innocent. Race riots.”
After those Hispanics killed the black kids in the Newark playground (in cold blood), there was no unrest. If blacks had gone into the barrio, the Hispanics would have killed every one of them - they have no “white guilt”, and are displacing blacks in the workplace, neighborhoods, elected office, the drug trade, even prison.
Assuming this to be true, and if there is no other evidence at trial, a jury would almost have to assume this is true, Zimmerman was innocent under either law. Innocent under the new law which imposes no duty to retreat or under the old law which does because Zimmerman was incapable of retreat while pinned on the ground. Under the old law he was perfectly free to use deadly force in the absence of ability to retreat as long as he had reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm-which he certainly did.
Is there any other evidence to the contrary? Only the innuendo which we might draw from the 9/11 recordings. The direct third-party eyewitness testimony has Zimmerman on the ground and the police report confirms grass stains on the back of Zimmerman's shirt. If Zimmerman is indicted and tried, and there is no other evidence apart from the 9/11 recordings and the recordings which show him crying for help, Zimmerman need not take the stand and I would think he would get a directed verdict for acquittal because there is no evidence of a crime.
Zimmerman admitted to the police that he shot the "victim" but that statement no doubt was accompanied by his exculpatory statement that he was assaulted which will go uncontradicted. Thus, apart from the innuendo contrived mostly by the media from the 9/11 conversation, there is simply no evidence of guilt. There is certainly no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact I do not see any evidence that a crime is has been committed and that Zimmerman committed it so I see no basis for indictment.
The left has been distorting this incident for a number of reasons: First, they get to position themselves on the right side of a politically correct race issue. Second, they get to make a lot of money on a story which is relatively cheap to cover and which over time generates a following on cable TV; Third, they perceive that the story will help Democrats and Republicans, help Obama and hurt the Republican nominee, as it galvanizes the African-American base for Democrats and intimidates and shames white Republicans; fourth, it gives them an opportunity to inveigh against the Second Amendment and perhaps even rollback the Stand Your Ground Statute which would be regarded by them to be a victory in that war.
The pusillanimity of all the Republican candidates, especially Santorum, but not Newt Gingrich on this issue is regrettable but understandable. The hypocrisy and shameless posturing of the media on the Sunday talking head shows yesterday was demagogic in the extreme.
If there i s any attempt at retaliation against Hispanics it won’t go well for blacks; Hispanics have the numbers, and will go “Apocalypto” on their asses...
They will continue to ignore the evidence, and keep using the
Knut like picture of the “victim”.
This is clearly the way Obama intends to distract African Americans from his dismal failure to encourage an economy that would provide jobs for them. Black unemployment is even higher than when he became president, and many blacks are disenchanted. What better way to get them back than to rush forward as the "defender of the race," reminding them in passing that he too is a member of that sacred race. In other words, as usual with Obama, it's all about him.
Never saw it before this, but "hispanic" alone just wasn't getting the point across.
I wonder if we'll start seeing the phrase "black hispanic" whenever a dominican or haitian criminal kills somebody. Oh wait, that doesn't even make the news.
You gotta love these double entendre headlines written up by 30 IQ leftists.
Now we have Martin killing the lead prosecutor. It’s in the present tense, too, so it looks like the prosecutor is still getting killed.
“If there i s any attempt at retaliation against Hispanics it wont go well for blacks; Hispanics have the numbers, and will go Apocalypto on their asses...”
Retaliation will be aimed at whites.
Or, is it saying the Lead Prosecutor killed Martin???
And I thought engineers were horrible writers - you’d think journalists would be better (I guess it’s those public and ivy league schools that teach socialism instead of writing and the other basics).
Great analysis bump!!
So....an Hispanic American kills a ‘Brother’, who was bashing hispanic/german American Zimmermans head against the sidewalk( and ultimately broke Zimmermans nose), dies when the shooter manages to pull his licensed pistol which the (ultimately)dead guy was trying to take from him. it goes off killing the hoodie wearing, pants on the ground, thug....and the media pulls out picures of the dead ‘brother’ from 10 years earlier like he was a sweet baby. and Sharpton and the left make THIS a cause celeb to ban guns?
EFFF U Rev. Al, and your media lackies too....
“...the state must go forward and be able to prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt
So it makes the case in general more difficult than a normal criminal case.”
I have read that several times and I still find it very disturbing. Somehow I thought the state was ALWAYS supposed to be able to prove its (not it’s) case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Martin is not the issue, and never was. Some of the real objectives are:
1) Eliminate "Stand Your Ground" laws and CCW, or at least make it politically harder for any new states to enact them.
2) Solidify Obama's base. Give them an excuse to rally, agitate, and be mad at "whitey".
3) Divide the conservative base. You can see it here on FR, with some taking Martin's side and some taking Zimmerman's side.
To further the quest of the racial demagogues, if a person with two black parents is killed by a person who had a white parent and a black parent, an automatic assumption of guilt would have to go to the person with the mixed white/black birth. I think.
Precisely. I thought we had progressed beyond lynching. My bad.
-——Obama be “white black” or “white Negro?”——
Black and white and red all over
I live in south Florida, and just heard Florida’s attorney general Pam Bondi (R) interviewed by Jimmy Cefelo on 610 WIOD.
She gave a shout out to the Miami Heat for their hoodies and said it was a wonderful thing they did.
Yep. Very unprofessional of her, I would say.
The State must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The point the prosecutor appears to be making is that there is a higher hurdle to overcome to prove beyond a reasonable doubt when the “Stand Your Ground” defense is invoked.
A post at 12:35 this AM says the little angel travoyn was suspended because of an assault on a bus driver. The little angel defense might be falling apart despite his mother trying to keep it a secret. Assault by young thugs seems to be the usual mo by those boys in the hood who feel dissed.
You hit it out of the ball park again.
I rarely, if ever, find myself disagreeing with you.
Assuming that it so, the prosecutor is wrong about the law. There is no higher hurdle than beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Stand your ground” is a moot point when you are attacked, tackled, and are being beaten with your back on the ground.
The position of the 2nd cartridge in the pistol’s mag indicates there was a wrestling match going on for the pistol.
A wrestling match, with the shooter on the bottom getting beaten, can’t be a murder.
—I hope the Al Sharpton lynch mob loses. If Zim were not defending himself, he should be charged. The mob is ignoring that evidence.—
The mob was ignoring evidence in the Rodney King case too. They lost, and Watts burned, and Reginald Denny will never be the same.
If this goes to trial and he walks, I suspect Watts will look minor compared to what would happen here.
—So theyd have to prove Zimmerman guilty, which would be more difficult than a normal criminal case??—
Yeah, exactly how I saw it. What passes for journalism today is fascinating.
—Hispanics would have killed every one of them - they have no white guilt, and are displacing blacks in the workplace, neighborhoods, elected office, the drug trade, even prison.—
But good news is on the way. Both "To the exclusion of a reasonable doubt" and "Probable Cause" were the standards used when we operated under the guidelines of the Constitution. Since obama time after time has demonstrated that the Government no longer must operate under the guidelines set forth in the Constitution and Congress concurs, as evidenced by this body not opposing his unConstitutional acts, perhaps now the Government [State and Federal] can just haul anyone they please into Court[if the Government brings them to Court they must be guilty-of something]. So therefore, just haul Zimmerman's ass into Court, give him 500 to a 1,000 years,forget about it and move to the next. Ignore totally the fact that while there may be evidence to convict him, there is an equal amount of evidence to exonorate him. After all, the court of public opinion has already convicted him and 50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong- can they?
And the government must prove “it’s” case. They get a degree in “journalism” and don’t know that it’s is a contraction and its is possessive. Most of these people could not pass a seventh grade English language exam from a public school of 1955.
“In fact I do not see any evidence that a crime is has been committed and that Zimmerman committed it so I see no basis for indictment.”
If no indictment, then no trial opportunity for aquittal at the politically opprtune time. Thus, the Justice Department investigation. This may or may not be the incident they are looking for, but if not, they will find another.
The court be rayciss an sheit
you people are all suckers... Stand your ground doesn’t apply here... but it will be used to justify ripping out the protections of the law because some wannabee cop instigated a fight he couldn’t finish.
Their New Black Panther Army will take care of that part.
The new law imposes no duty to retreat in its general provisions but it does have special provision regarding its application to use of force by an agressor or one who provokes an attack. Note that I am specifically not applying the facts of the Zimmerman/Martin situation to the Florida law; I am merely pointing out a portion of the law to which those who argue a set of facts favoring Martin will point.
We know the perinent general provisions of the Florida Stand Your Ground Law of 2005, codified as Chapter 776 of the Florida Statutes, 'Justifiable Use of Force':
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.[A} person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:That Section contains no duty to retreat.
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself[.]
Chapter 776 also contains Section 776.041(2) ("Use of force by aggressor"), which states the use of force, including deadly force, set out in 776.012 is not available to anyone who:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: So one who provokes an incident, or is the initial aggressor, may still use deadly force as long as he meets either (a) or (b) - either exhausts all reasonable means to escape other than the deadly force or withdraws from physical contact, indicates clearly the desire to withdraw, and terminates use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
Again, that's the law. There may not be a duty to retreat, but for an aggressor or one who provokes, there may be a duty to withdraw or exhaust every reasonable means of escape other than deadly force. I'm not applying the law to the facts; I'm just attempting to state the law in Florida as I understand it from reading the Chapter linked above.
I've seen more than a few comments by FReepers who are convinced Zimmerman's guilty -- based on nothing more, I assume, than early new reports. It's going to be incredibly ugly if Zimmerman's found innocent or not even indicited.
Jewish/Hispanic Zimmerman in Florida.
Hoping this backfires and those voters turn on Obama.
Unlike L.A., this time the police better shoot to kill, or armed vigilantes will.