Trayvon Martin Case

Well...here we go. Looks like they're going to charge him.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/1...s-at-center-trayvon-martin-shooting-case-say/

DEVELOPING:
(Newscore)- Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey will announce that she is charging George Zimmerman in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, The Washington Post reported Wednesday, citing a law enforcement official close to the investigation.
It is unclear what charges he will face.

Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/11/attorneys-for-george-zimmerman-whos-at-center-trayvon-martin-shooting-case-say/#ixzz1rl4AeMlu
I hope this is based on facts, and not the fucking race-mongering bullshit that has ensued over the last month.

Does it usually take this long for a prosecutor to make a decision on charging an individual? Or have they they really had to dig for something here?
 
Well...here we go. Looks like they're going to charge him.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/1...s-at-center-trayvon-martin-shooting-case-say/


I hope this is based on facts, and not the fucking race-mongering bullshit that has ensued over the last month.

Does it usually take this long for a prosecutor to make a decision on charging an individual? Or have they they really had to dig for something here?
My predictions: I guarantee you it will continue.

It will be - it will continue to be presented as- about race.

In the USA, it will be heavily covered by CNN, MSNBC, NBC and CBS, as well as 100% of "black" media and talk radio, as well as any and every liberal media outlet. Driving today, all I could get to come in clearly was NPR, and they had one outraged speaker after another, talking about how Martin was a victim, and how "based on the facts as we know them now", this conclusion and that conclusion. All of the speech on the issue on NPR was assuming guilt on the part of Zimmerman.

And it will be exploited for its ability to polarize and energize minority groups that can be then be expertly harvested by politicians. There is no better way to fire up a base than to get them to whip out their pitchforks over some kind of injustice.
 
1) political pressure from interest groups forces an arrest and trial
2) acquittal due to lack of evidence
3) riots
4) most of America forgets this ever happened, except when it is useful to trot it out either to stoke racial tensions or to go after guns
5) wash, rinse, repeat
 
Fact and evidence will determine what happened in an otherwise cluste-rfuck of a situation.
 
It is not going to end well regardless of the outcome of the trial.

The upcoming change of venue request is going to be interesting and will probably end up in appeal no matter which way it get's ruled.

I hope they give Zimmerman a reasonable bail considering he probably surrender himself already being in-custody and this is going to be a LONG trial.
 
I have been writing long-winded posts about Al Sharpton and then deleting them because I think my true feelings about him would get me in trouble. But I will say that I hope there is a special, fiery place in hell for him. Fuck him. Five times. And Jesse Jackson.

The MSM got what they wanted. If Zimmerman wins, they will question our justice system and come up with endless stories about how the judicial system fails blacks. If Zimmerman is convicted, Al Sharpton and company party in the streets and another racial divide is created like it did when OJ was acquited.
 
Ok finally a charge to work with.....
Florida Statute 782.04 defines second degree murder as:
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(q) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
The underlined portion is the wording difference between First and Second degree. Maximum penalty for Second degree is Life. Only one life count.
Hmmm I would like to see the evidence on this case. Hopefully it comes to trial soon.
 
There's got to be an element of aggravated stalking in order for it to stick, at least so it appears.

What's the definition of "aggravated stalking" in the State of FL?

784.048 Stalking; definitions; penalties.--
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person.
(d) "Cyberstalk" means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person's child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) Any person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a minor under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(6) Any law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person he or she has probable cause to believe has violated the provisions of this section.
(7) Any person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011 or s. 800.04, and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011 or s. 800.04.
History.--s. 1, ch. 92-208; s. 29, ch. 94-134; s. 29, ch. 94-135; s. 2, ch. 97-27; s. 23, ch. 2002-55; s. 1, ch. 2003-23; s. 3, ch. 2004-17; s. 3, ch. 2004-256.
 
I hope they give Zimmerman a reasonable bail considering he probably surrender himself already being in-custody and this is going to be a LONG trial.

I'm not sure he'd be safe if he gets bail...

This whole thing is a freaking zoo and I do not believe Zimmerman will get a fair trial.
 
There's got to be an element of aggravated stalking in order for it to stick, at least so it appears.

What's the definition of "aggravated stalking" in the State of FL?
Can't be stalking. Stalking requires repeated instances. Missing one of the the three criteria for stalking. They still have to prove that he wilfully and maliciously AND repeatedly followed him.
 
Can't be stalking. Stalking requires repeated instances. Missing one of the the three criteria for stalking. They still have to prove that he wilfully and maliciously AND repeatedly followed him.
Hasn't it already been established and verified that Zimmerman stopped following Trayvon?
 
No separate, repeated, documented instances. As in different timelines. It doesn't apply in this scenario.
So it sounds like - as rabidly anti-gun and anti-2nd Amendment as the prosecutor is- she's going to have a very hard time making anything stick, am I right?

For there to be a conviction of 2nd degree murder, it's got to be a check box "a" and at least one item under "b". Isn't that right? If you don't have a tick mark next to "a" and also next to at least one item under "b", then that sounds like it's going to end in acquittal.


{MUST CHECK BOX "A":

  • the unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
{MUST SELECT AT LEAST ONE ITEM UNDER BOX "B":

When a person is killed in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:

(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(q) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony is guilty of murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided


We have a check mark under box "A", but it doesn't appear that (from what we know) he was involved in any of the other items under box "B".

Of course, I could just be reading the law- even at the layman level- incorrectly.
 
So it sounds like - as rabidly anti-gun and anti-2nd Amendment as the prosecutor is- she's going to have a very hard time making anything stick, am I right?

For there to be a conviction of 2nd degree murder, it's got to be a check box "a" and at least one item under "b". Isn't that right? If you don't have a tick mark next to "a" and also next to at least one item under "b", then that sounds like it's going to end in acquittal.





We have a check mark under box "A", but it doesn't appear that (from what we know) he was involved in any of the other items under box "B".

Of course, I could just be reading the law- even at the layman level- incorrectly.
No you are mostly correct in your understanding. You did very well at the laymen level. There is something in B "(o) Murder of another human being" They still will have a difficult time meeting the criteria. Depending on what the evidence is of course.
 
There is no way a 2nd degree murder charge sticks, unless there's a good bit of evidence we don't know, or the jury is biased, or Zimmerman pleads guilty. I think the charge is for show. Maybe Zimmerman pleads guilty to a lesser charge or something.
 
Back
Top