Posted on 01/30/2015 9:41:24 AM PST by Olog-hai
An aggravated assault case against George Zimmerman that was opened when his ex-girlfriend said he threw a wine bottle at her has been dropped because she recanted her story and stopped cooperating with investigators, a prosecutor said Friday.
State Attorney Phil Archer said he wouldn’t file a formal charge against Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch leader who was acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin. The killing of the unarmed black teen touched off protests across the country.
The ex-girlfriend had made it clear she didn’t want to cooperate with Lake Mary Police officers, and there were no other eyewitnesses to what happened earlier this month, Archer said.
“While it is clear that the officers had probable cause to arrest Mr. Zimmerman … the subsequent recantation by the victim of her initial statement … precludes my office from proceeding further,” Archer said in a statement. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Aren’t gays arguably more vindictive than women? No. He should just quit relationships cold turkey. He obviously doesn’t do too well when he’s in them.
Naaah, sheep. They can’t call the police or make accusations.
I believe we’re all agreed that there is no shred of proof whatever against George Zimmerman.
Best to leave it there.
So you’re a “it’s the seriousness of the charge that’s important, not whether it’s true or not” type of guy?
So now you are telling what I can and can’t do. Better think again. All I agreed to was that he should sue, however, there is certainly no proof that supports George Zimmerman when it comes to these cases beyond Trayvon.
Nope, I'm just a guy without a chip on my shoulder.
You are entitled to your opinion. But, you aren't entitled to your own facts.
But, when someone disagrees with you, you aren't entitled to demand proof for their opinion, when you can't provide any proof for yours.
That she recanted is not proof that she is a liar, for her motivation may be trying to keep name from being known.
The definition of "recant" is to "to withdraw or repudiate (a statement or belief) formally and publicly", or "make an open confession of error".
So, by definition: she either told a falsehood earlier, or she is doing so now. I'm sure you would like to believe she is telling a falsehood now, but she has chosen to let this statement stand.
By recanting, her name escapes being printed by the news outlets.
It's too late for that. Someone has already posted an article that not only identifies the woman, it shows her face in a video.
Now if you have intimate knowledge about this case, then provide it, otherwise, you are just demanding I accept your opinion and I'm afraid that is not going to happen.
I don't care whether you accept my opinion or not. But, demanding contrary proof for an unsupported assertion is a what is known as a Negative Proof Fallacy. It's the kind of thing to which bullies resort on the playground. I presume that you are an adult -- maybe you should start acting like one.
Whatever. Are you a lawyer?
She must really love him
Ok, I tried to give you an out.
I thought you might have been a decent guy who stumbled onto the wrong side of a controversy, so I made it easy. I gave you an innocous, mutually-agreeable point to fade out on.
But now you’re telling the thread that accused people are guilty and must prove their innocence.
There is a HOT, CRAZY matrix. He should check it out!
“Whatever. Are you a lawyer?”
*********************************************************************************
Nope, I’m a “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” type of guy.
I agree and very good question.
Florida news.
By the way, anyone think the liberal south Florida media—so VERY EAGER to report this story against Zimmerman—will report he has been, for all intents and purposes, EXONERATED?
Of course not.
So provide me with her name. I haven't been able to find it. I did find the name of the 1st girlfriend Samantha Scheibe, but not this latest girlfriend's name.
Nope, I'm just a guy without a chip on my shoulder.
So you think I have a chip on my shoulder. That's laughable. What would be the cause for this chip on my shoulder?
But, when someone disagrees with you, you aren't entitled to demand proof for their opinion, when you can't provide any proof for yours.
Excuse me, but he had asked me for my proof first. At least I provided statements made by a 3rd party, thus I wasn't providing my own facts as you erroneously state. Then I asked him for his proof. So yes I can, and I did.
Recant - to withdraw or repudiate (a statement or belief) formally and publicly. Thus the recant in this case means she withdrew, it does not mean she repudiated it. If you are going to explain the definition of a word you need to make sure you understand it first. Did she say she lied? Did the prosecutor say she lied? If that were the case then why isn't the prosecutor charging her? Since he didn't I have to conclude that she withdrew her statement only.
I don't care whether you accept my opinion or not. But, demanding contrary proof for an unsupported assertion is a what is known as a Negative Proof Fallacy. It's the kind of thing to which bullies resort on the playground. I presume that you are an adult -- maybe you should start acting like one.
Perhaps you need to gather your facts first, since you obviously missed his request that I prove my opinion first, and then I asked him to prove his opinion after providing the facts I was using to come to my opinion. Let my put it to rest so you no longer have to presume, I am an adult who never bullied anyone. Nor did I engage in Negative Proof Fallacy. I merely tossed it back into his court. Of course I don't see you accusing him of using Negative Proof Fallacy.
" there is certainly no proof that supports George Zimmerman when it comes to these cases beyond Trayvon"?
Sounds like you require him to prove his innocence.
But hey, 'prove' me wrong. Agree that there's no proof of George Zimmerman's guilt in this assault case.
Or - alternatively - argue that he must prove a negative.
I thought you might have been a decent guy who stumbled onto the wrong side of a controversy
There you go again, proclaiming you are correct and I am wrong. Let me tell you so you no longer have to think, I am a decent guy. While I have no problem with stating that I may indeed be on the wrong side of this controversy, that would be impossible for you to admit.
BTW. I do not need your help as I am an old man who does not need saving by you. That's what my belief in Christ is for and he is the only savior I need.
Ok Robert: we’ve probably got as far as we’re going to get with this.
God bless and have a good afternoon/evening. I’m off to bed.
You sure read in things that don't exist don't you. Need I remind you what you said: there's no proof of George Zimmerman's guilt in this assault case. I merely turned your statement around to show you that there are two plausible sides that could be deemed factual. Of course only one is. Neither you nor I know which is and which isn't factual. Fortunately he doesn't have to prove his innocence or guilt since she recanted, nor was I suggesting that he must. I was refuting your claim that she was a liar.
I see you are going to bed. Sleep tight.
Not sure what really prompted this question from you though, as what we were debating was whether the girl lied about the assault in question.
He was lucky to have survived the attack by the “child.” I would hate to be a hunted man like he is. However, he sure has been going to court alot on Domestic charges. Coincidental?
I dunno.
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.