Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz, on Zimmerman's arrest

You die from the concussion not the bleeding.

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Any contact sport and/or activity that bounces the brain inside the skull.

A grand jury should have reviewed the evidence instead of a corrupt special prosecutor being allowed to file charges for political reasons. Originally Posted by joe bloe

#1: A grand jury will review the case, unless Zimmerman waives it.

#2: For the most part the prosecution regulates what is presented to the grand jury, just like the prosecution "cherry-picked" what went into the affidavit (probable cause) to get an arrest warrant.

#3: Much is being made of the unusual Florida law that authorizes a person to stand and fight an aggressor.
_______________________Begin Quoted Material
 "(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."
Fla.Stat 776.013(3).
_________________________End of Quoted Material

The social/political implications of the situation were fanned early on by the general liberal media that was playing a "race card" in the broadcasting of the events ... as late as two days ago I heard a "pundit" (actually an alleged attorney .. and I say "alleged" advisably) state that Trayvon was 14 (FOURTEEN) years old (a "FACT" that has been shot down days before).

Why was it "appropriate" and/or "necessary" for Zimmerman to be out there patrolling the neighorhood in the first place? (This is a rhetorical question!) Apparently, he was there also protecting the family member that Trayvon "reportedly" was going to visit.

How much blood is necessary to be consistant with Zimmerman's account of events? Hitting someone's head against a sidewalk might not cause any bleeding at all and still kill them. I'm pretty sure it's possible to kill with blunt force trauma without causing any bleeding. You die from the concussion not the bleeding.
Originally Posted by joe bloe

You are missing the whole point: Who threatened whom first?

You point to blood--how much blood came from the gun shot? Why was Zimmerman even within grabbing distance of Martin? If Zimmerman had the right to "stand his ground", why did Martin not have the same right?

Did Zimmerman threaten Martin by suspiciously following him? IF so, why do you (and most posters on here) not give Martin the same right to defend himself that you claim Zimmerman had? Which would the average person think is more threatening: a man with a gun or a man without one?

And one of the things that bothers me the most about the whole thing:

--Assume for a moment that Martin did assault Zimmerman (instead of the very viable version that says Martin was trying to disarm a man he thought was stalking him and was going to shoot him). Deadly force is only supposed to be used when less lethal force is not sufficient. Why not shoot Martin somewhere other than the head?

Odd how so many posters want to project fear of his life into Zimmerman's thoughts, but make no counter argument for Martin.

Pray tell: why should the man with a gun be more afraid than the man without one? I wonder how scared someone with a "nigger shooter" is allowed to be? Not quite sure why you thought that piece of Southern nostalgia has anything to do with this, by the way.

My guess is that when Trayvon had Zimmerman down on the ground, after he had broken his nose, and was pounding his head against a concrete sidewalk, Zimmerman probably thought, hey this guy's trying to kill me. At that point killing Trayvon was a perfectly sensible and legal thing to do. If Zimmerman had not killed Trayvon, it's reasonable to believe that Trayvon would have killed him; that's self defence. Zimmerman had good reason to fear for his life. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Well sustaining a concusion certainly can kill. Hell, I am surprised we don't see more pro Football players die of concusions. Did Zimmerman indeed suffer a concusion? And if so was it to a degree that it could be life threatening? Even though Zimmerman may have felt fear for his life, could Trayvon have felt fear of bodily harm from Zimmerman at one point. After all what was Zimmerman suppose to be protecting. Trayvon may have acted in self defense himself and did so with great furver. There are many things to consider in this case. The one main feature is the use of deadly force with a firearm.

God, no wonder Nancy Grace is still on TV. Considering the national assault on liberty across the country, this is a minor matter, yet it takes up a lot of time and space.

You are missing the whole point: Who threatened whom first?

You point to blood--how much blood came from the gun shot? Why was Zimmerman even within grabbing distance of Martin? If Zimmerman had the right to "stand his ground", why did Martin not have the same right?

Did Zimmerman threaten Martin by suspiciously following him? IF so, why do you (and most posters on here) not give Martin the same right to defend himself that you claim Zimmerman had? Which would the average person think is more threatening: a man with a gun or a man without one?

And one of the things that bothers me the most about the whole thing:

--Assume for a moment that Martin did assault Zimmerman (instead of the very viable version that says Martin was trying to disarm a man he thought was stalking him and was going to shoot him). Deadly force is only supposed to be used when less lethal force is not sufficient. Why not shoot Martin somewhere other than the head?

Odd how so many posters want to project fear of his life into Zimmerman's thoughts, but make no counter argument for Martin.

Pray tell: why should the man with a gun be more afraid than the man without one? I wonder how scared someone with a "nigger shooter" is allowed to be? Not quite sure why you thought that piece of Southern nostalgia has anything to do with this, by the way. Originally Posted by Old-T

I mentioned my recollection of the term of nigger shooter to illustrate a time when whites weren't completely intimidated by PC nonsense; it was a time when you could tell the truth. It was a time when you could read Mark Twain aloud in a classroom without having to say Nword Jim. Why is it that whites have to say Nword and blacks are allowed to call white people anything they want? Blacks call each other nigga routinely; it's a term of endearment. You don't hear about blacks whose careers are ruined because they said honkie or cracker or redneck. The double standard makes me want to vomit. Black on white violent crime (murder, assault, and rape) is epidemic and has been for years; no one talks about it in a public forum for fear of being called racist. Black men rape 37,000 white women a year and no one says a word.

White liberals mistake masochism for virtue.

The one main feature is the use of deadly force with a firearm. Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Would it make a difference if Zimmerman had used a baseball bat?

Or a "night-stick"?



Then the reverse question ought to be:

Would this thread even exist had Trayvon killed Zimmerman?

Would the story even get front page news anywhere? Or even a follow up the next day?

I have faith that a Flordia jury will do their best to get it right. You can bet you ass that just like in politics , whatever they do will piss off half the population! Originally Posted by WTF

So your understanding of the legal system is ... when in doubt, let's just have a trial?

That REALLY is NOT the way the system is supposed to work. You DO NOT put someone in legal jeopardy, much less bankrupt them with legal fees, much less saddle the citizens of the state of Florida with the cost of a very long trial, just to appease Al Sharpton and the NBPP. But that is EXACTLY what seems to be the case here. And I say that based on the exact contents of the charging document. That was the whole point of offering the Dershowitz clip to start this thread ... in the expert opinion of a highly respected Harvard Law School professor, the contents of the charging document do not support the charge. And in fact, the charging document should be grounds for the prosecution of the prosecutor for unethical conduct.

My guess is that if Zimmerman had just layed there and allowed Trayvon to beat him to death. Trayvon would have said that Zimmerman threatened to shoot him and he was fighting in self defence. If there was no way to prove his account was untrue he would have probably walked. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and the standard is very high in criminal cases: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In the scenario where Trayvon kills Zimmerman, I'm not sure the state could prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you completely reverse the scenario where Trayvon is a black guy in a citizen patrol group and he is carrying a gun and Zimmerman is walking home from the store. In the hypothetical where Trayvon shoots Zimmerman to avoid being beaten to death. I think Trayvon would have completely walked. They would have probably taken it to a grand jury with the district attorney presenting a very sympathetic portrayal of Trayvon's actions. There's no way they would have indicted him.

And in fact, the charging document should be grounds for the prosecution of the prosecutor for unethical conduct. Originally Posted by mastermind238

Unfortunately, by the standard of the Zimmerman case most prosecutors engage in "prosecutorial misconduct" by sanitizing the facts to fit the elements of the offense the prosecutor desires to charge and does not include any mitigating or defending facts that might excuse or justify the conduct of the subject the prosecutor desires to persecute.

And grand jury proceedings are no exception.

Mastermind is correct, and I would add, ...

.... that those who are desiring that Zimmerman be put to trial to "resolve" what actually occurred not only lack a fundamental comprehension of the jury trial process and its inherent weaknesses, but undoubtedly have never been "forced" into a jury trial involving charges against them personally when their freedom, if not life, was on the line for a substantial period of time.

Charging people with crimes to appease politically correct motives is not only disgusting, but it is a dangerous path for this country to follow. Just remember: "the shoe is on the other foot soon enough" ... and next time it just might be yours!

So your understanding of the legal system is ... when in doubt, let's just have a trial?

That REALLY is NOT the way the system is supposed to work. You DO NOT put someone in legal jeopardy, much less bankrupt them with legal fees, much less saddle the citizens of the state of Florida with the cost of a very long trial, just to appease Al Sharpton and the NBPP. But that is EXACTLY what seems to be the case here. And I say that based on the exact contents of the charging document. That was the whole point of offering the Dershowitz clip to start this thread ... in the expert opinion of a highly respected Harvard Law School professor, the contents of the charging document do not support the charge. And in fact, the charging document should be grounds for the prosecution of the prosecutor for unethical conduct. Originally Posted by mastermind238

Exactly! It's my understanding that the justice system isn't supposed put you on trial in a criminal case unless they feel they can PROBABLY get a conviction. That's the DA's instruction to the grand jury as to whether or not they should vote to indict. Dershowitz said that not including exculpatory facts in the affidavit was certainly unethical and possibly perjurious. The last I heard perjury was a felony.

You are missing the whole point: Who threatened whom first? Originally Posted by Old-T

You are missing the point. Simple threatening does not justify use of deadly force.

Why was Zimmerman even within grabbing distance of Martin? If Zimmerman had the right to "stand his ground", why did Martin not have the same right? Originally Posted by Old-T

Everyone has the right to be within "grabbing distance" of everyone else unless you have a restraining order. But you bring up a good point. Martin is less than 70 yards from his condo. He has at least 3 minutes to go that 70 yards. Why not just go home and enjoy the NBA all-star game? Seems to support Z's contention that Martin cold cocked him.

Did Zimmerman threaten Martin by suspiciously following him? IF so, why do you (and most posters on here) not give Martin the same right to defend himself that you claim Zimmerman had? Which would the average person think is more threatening: a man with a gun or a man without one? Originally Posted by Old-T

You really aren't keeping up with the evidence and facts of this case. Martin approached Zimmerman in his car. Listen to the 911 tape.

And one of the things that bothers me the most about the whole thing:

--Assume for a moment that Martin did assault Zimmerman (instead of the very viable version that says Martin was trying to disarm a man he thought was stalking him and was going to shoot him). Deadly force is only supposed to be used when less lethal force is not sufficient. Why not shoot Martin somewhere other than the head?

Odd how so many posters want to project fear of his life into Zimmerman's thoughts, but make no counter argument for Martin.

Pray tell: why should the man with a gun be more afraid than the man without one? I wonder how scared someone with a "nigger shooter" is allowed to be? Not quite sure why you thought that piece of Southern nostalgia has anything to do with this, by the way. Originally Posted by Old-T

You and the Lizard King must have had the same experiences in the 60s.

I've posted the link several times of the eyewitness who saw Trayvon pinning Zimmerman to the ground and beat the crap out of him and Zimmerman yelling for help. You (and the Lizard King) have totally discounted it. It backs up Z's story.

You just want to believe the Sharpton narrative.

.... in a criminal case unless they feel they can PROBABLY get a conviction. That's the DA's instruction to the grand jury as to whether or not they should vote to indict. Dershowitz said that not including exculpatory facts in the affidavit was certainly unethical and possibly perjurious. Originally Posted by joe bloe

The question before the grand jury is whether or not there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed based upon the facts presented .... in some jurisdictions there may be some requirement that the prosecuting attorney provide all the evidence "in their possession" at the time that it is presented to the grand jury, but not all of that evidence is readily available to the prosecution ... for instance Zimmerman's testimony.....as in his side of the story.

The DA can elect to submit the matter to a grand jury for "cover" to let the grand jury decide whether or not to indict and if the grand jury does not indict then the DA has done his or her job of presenting to the grand jury ... and its a done deal ... citizens have spoken according to the constitution and the laws of the state. It's "cover" for the DA.

Do they have to arrest him? No. But if there is some feeling that he might flee the country then they are duty bound to round him up and hold him until the grand jury decides and/or he is ready to go to trial. If the DA does not arrest and the grand jury indicts then the DA is in a world of hurt to explain why Zimmerman was not arrested.

This ain't TV ... "Law and Order" ... no 60 minute conclusions here!

... but not all of that evidence is readily available to the prosecution ... for instance Zimmerman's testimony.....as in his side of the story. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The police questioned Zimmerman for 5 hours immediately after the shooting. The record of that interrogation would be available to the prosecutor as a matter course. So in a real sense, Zimmerman's side of the story is already on record, though it was not given in court under oath. Is there any reason to believe the prosecutor would get a different story from Zimmerman in court?

Simple threatening does not justify use of deadly force. Originally Posted by gnadfly

If you mean verbal only without a display of a "deadly weapon" (or something that looks like a deadly weapon) you're right.

I have yet to see any account that suggests this was "verbal only."

Please remember that the decision of justification is based upon the perspective of the person being charged with the offense ...

.... not some third person or the victim's perspective ... at the time of the act sought to be justified ... and NOT based on information subsequently obtained.

For instance: Someone pointing what appears to be a pistol in a threatening manner that suggests the one pointing the pistol is going to shoot you .... if the pistol later turns out to be a water gun .... the action taken against the person doing the pointing can still be justified.

Answer: Don't take a water gun to the OK corral....you may die...justifiably.