quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

OK.. You are ALMOST THERE.

That stuff you highlighted. ZIMMERMAN NEEDS TO PROVE THAT TO A JUDGE.

See, now, that's another fargle.

That stuff you been saying... the state has to prove that to a jury.

See the difference?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Now we have the brother putting out from the "Zimmerman camp" that the kid was slamming George`s head repeatedly on the concrete with George about to pass out from the blows,when with one last effort.....he moves his head to one side so his head would slam on grass instead.....one more slam into the concrete, according to the brother,and George would be brain damaged and need his brothers to spoon feed him for the rest of his life.

The brother said that...............on TV last night,spoon feeding comment and all.

Then,according to George(through his bro),the kid was trying to disarm George,grabbing t the gun in his waste........telling George "you are going to die that night".......

Pretty dramatic stuff,for a 14 y/o.....so of course George had to shoot the kid because after all,the kid informed George the he 'was going to die that night".See?

The stories are getting taller and more un-believable.......

I for one will be watching to see what story they tell in court and comparing it to the one the Zimmerman/OJ camp is leaking to the media.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

OK.. You are ALMOST THERE.

That stuff you highlighted. ZIMMERMAN NEEDS TO PROVE THAT TO A JUDGE.

See, now, that's another fargle.

That stuff you been saying... the state has to prove that to a jury.

See the difference?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: blacksword404

I'm sure zimmerman didn't drive with the gun stuck in his waistband, so why was it there instead of the holster. The cops report said he took his gun and holster. It seems to me that at some point after stopping the car the gun made its way from the holster (or the seat next to him) and into his waistband. And also even though he has a holster, after he shot the kid the gun once again made its way back into his waistband.

The brother was talking about an IWB holster. The video is here.

K.

quote:

You don't get to claim self-defense when you provoke it.

quote:

Their job is to investigate, gather evidence and produce the results of that evidence, whatever it may be.

quote:

That stuff you highlighted. ZIMMERMAN NEEDS TO PROVE THAT TO A JUDGE.

quote:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor — The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Their job is to investigate, gather evidence and produce the results of that evidence, whatever it may be.

Well..... let's go with that.
However, absent a pretty clear path to shoulder the burden of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", arrest violates the civil rights of the arrested person.
And so many are clamoring for an arrest right goddamned now, almost as though a trial was a part of the investigative process.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

NO. You don't get to a Jury until after the pretrial motions.

Zimmerman's lawyer enters a motion to dismiss, based on 776.013(3) and in that motion he has to prove that he meets all the qualifications of 776.041.

Only THEN, if the Judge denies the motion, will a Jury hear anything.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to send the case to trial, not to adjudicate the accused's defense. If his lawyer can get critical evidence thrown out, he can move to dismiss on the basis that the prosecution no longer has a prima facie case against his client. But otherwise, I think it comes down to either a plea bargain or trial.

Now I may be wrong, but I don't trust you to be right. So I'll let LafayetteLady do the slicing and dicing from here.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Their job is to investigate, gather evidence and produce the results of that evidence, whatever it may be.


Well..... let's go with that.
However, absent a pretty clear path to shoulder the burden of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", arrest violates the civil rights of the arrested person.
And so many are clamoring for an arrest right goddamned now, almost as though a trial was a part of the investigative process.


Not necessary for an arrest, and no civil rights violation would exist at all.  "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is for a conviction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Their job is to investigate, gather evidence and produce the results of that evidence, whatever it may be.


Well..... let's go with that.
However, absent a pretty clear path to shoulder the burden of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", arrest violates the civil rights of the arrested person.
And so many are clamoring for an arrest right goddamned now, almost as though a trial was a part of the investigative process.


Not necessary for an arrest, and no civil rights violation would exist at all.  "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is for a conviction.

What exactly do imagine "unlawful arrest" refers to? Science fiction?
Granted that "probable cause" is a lighter burden, it is still and yet a burden.
Absent forensics contradicting his narrative, given that an eyewitness supports it... the State of Florida has already basically said once that there was not enough evidence to arrest the man (i.e. not enough to establish probable cause that a crime has even been committed).
And if they were there, they surely would not hesitate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

NO. You don't get to a Jury until after the pretrial motions.

Zimmerman's lawyer enters a motion to dismiss, based on 776.013(3) and in that motion he has to prove that he meets all the qualifications of 776.041.

Only THEN, if the Judge denies the motion, will a Jury hear anything.

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to send the case to trial, not to adjudicate the accused's defense. If his lawyer can get critical evidence thrown out, he can move to dismiss on the basis that the prosecution no longer has a prima facie case against his client. But otherwise, I think it comes down to either a plea bargain or trial.

Now I may be wrong, but I don't trust you to be right. So I'll let LafayetteLady do the slicing and dicing from here.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Their job is to investigate, gather evidence and produce the results of that evidence, whatever it may be.


Well..... let's go with that.
However, absent a pretty clear path to shoulder the burden of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", arrest violates the civil rights of the arrested person.
And so many are clamoring for an arrest right goddamned now, almost as though a trial was a part of the investigative process.


Not necessary for an arrest, and no civil rights violation would exist at all.  "Guilty beyond reasonable doubt" is for a conviction.

What exactly do imagine "unlawful arrest" refers to? Science fiction?
Granted that "probable cause" is a lighter burden, it is still and yet a burden.
Absent forensics contradicting his narrative, given that an eyewitness supports it... the State of Florida has already basically said once that there was not enough evidence to arrest the man (i.e. not enough to establish probable cause that a crime has even been committed).
And if they were there, they surely would not hesitate.

There is an internal dispute within the police department as to whether or not he should have been charged.

Problem here is that people don't seem to grasp the concept that he was merely detained, not "arrested." 

Regardless, even if they said they didn't have "enough" that night, that can easily change at any time.

If the police decided not to charge him that night, the DA could have told them to do so the next day.  Even with a DA saying that night not to charge, that DA's boss could have said to do so the next day or whenever.  Contrary to popular belief, police really are not knowledgeable when it comes to the details regarding the laws and what will stand and won't.