Posted on 04/13/2012 2:57:34 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather
I strongly disagree with David French’s analysis. I’m inclined, instead, to agree with commentators ranging from former Reagan Justice Department official Mark Levin to Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz that the affidavit is stunningly weak — “unethical,” as Prof. Dershowitz puts it. In fact, I go further (which, after nearly 20 years of writing and supervising the writing of complaint affidavits, I think I’m qualified to do). This affidavit is not law, it is agitprop: invoking, for example, the explosive term “profiled” but carefully avoiding any discussion of what it means and failing to note that (a) there is no evidence of racial profiling, and (b) absent an invidious racial component there is nothing wrong with profiling (indeed, we want police to do it so that innocent people don’t get hassled).
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I’ve never heard of third degree murder. Murder, at common law, is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. In most US jurisdiction, it is “first degree” if it is also premeditated — but “premeditation” doesn’t mean it was planned for a long time; it can be a mere moment’s malicious planning. So even lawyers often have difficulty deciding whether a murder is 1st or 2d degree.
Manslaughter — perhaps that is what was meant by M3? — also comes in two flavors. Voluntary manslaughter typically is “what would otherwise be a murder,” but committed in a heat of passion caused by a provocation that would cause a reasonable person (and DID cause the defendant) to lose control. Involuntary is — again, speaking off the cuff here — when your incredibly stupid, reckless conduct accidentally kills someone.
From what has come out, Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and headed back to his vehicle. Only an idiot would think that Zimmerman initiated physical contact with a larger young stud than himself while carrying a concealed weapon. His history of contacting authorities instead of initiating contact implies he wanted the LEOs to do their job in a neighborhood that had been victimized for some time.
Agree the other poster muffed it with presuming to know Martin's thoughts, but those condemning Zimmerman and insisting he initiated physical contact are conjuring that data from thin air too.
From what the public has been privy to, the odds that Zimmerman's story is the most factual are far greater than other "versions".
I agree with this portion of your comments and often discuss it in a similar manner.
I strongly disagree with your closing remark that it would be an injustice if Zimmerman went scot-free.
Much depends on exactly what happened when these two men came to resolve their suspicions of one another.
It wasn’t a 911 call or operator.
That’s probably true. But... if they don’t riot over this they will find something else to riot about. They will continue unchecked because of the DOJ’s marching orders.
Good for you!
Yep. You are right about that.
I decided to trust this woman's judgement based on her reputation as a Republican who was tough on crime. Stupid me. As one FReeper commented to me, "she's a hack."
I now think he was right.
______________________________________
My point exactly...both variations are based on pure speculation.
For every theory in one direction, such as....
" From what has come out, Zimmerman lost sight of Martin and headed back to his vehicle. Only an idiot would think that Zimmerman initiated physical contact with a larger young stud than himself while carrying a concealed weapon."...
There is one that says...
We know that Martin ran away from a grown stranger, an act of avoidance, why would he change his mind and attack? - and - How do we know that Zimmerman was going back to his truck? He had already told the dispatcher where it was and then modified his directions to request that the cops call him when they got there so he could tell them where he was...
I could come up with multiple plausible scenarios, all based on what we know, that have Zimmerman still looking for Martin. It wouldn't make me popular here but they would all be as valid as any of the 'Martin turned attacker' scenarios that people swear are true.
What ?
The witness stated the 6 foot 1 football player was slamming
George’s head into the cement !
Would you allow yourself to be beaten to death just to not upset the riled youth !
Have you ever been MUGGED !
Everyone is forgetting that GOP Gov Rick Scott appointed this media whore arorney based On GOP AG Pam Bondi recommendation !
Bondi is a moron .
She is doing her job.
Well, it speaks well of you to admit you were wrong. It is understandable that you stood up for her after all the glowing reports. We all live and learn, ha?
What has he done wrong?
If he's telling the truth (as it has been reported by his father and brother), he was attacked by someone who was threatening to kill him--and might have done so if the other guy had managed to get ahold of his gun. It's possible that he did not intend to fire the gun but it went off as Trayvon was trying to get it from him. I don't know that for sure but it is a possibility.
Why, if he was really defending himself from imminent danger of death, should he spend many years in prison just because Al Sharpton and Barack Obama decided to turn this event into a national news story?
As someone else has pointed out, since February 26, over 1,000 black Americans have been killed--by other black Americans. No one is making a lot of noise over them, and many of them probably have grieving relatives.
There you go. Making assumptions and predisposed without hearing all the facts empanelled. No jury duty on this for you, friend.
Why, without any evidence or witness statements to prove your speculation, are you so certain that Martin (who we do know ran away and was unarmed) suddenly changed his attitude and attacked Zimmerman (who we do know had followed him and was armed)?
Your scenario can only be true if both of them did a 180 from the behavior that we know the displayed, even though there is absolutely no evidence that they did.
Why are you all so positive, without any evidence, that the only possibility is that they both did in fact change their action?
When did proven truth stop being important? Nevermind ---- we know the answer.
__________________________________
Isn't it equally possible that Trayvon was trying to disarm the stranger who had been following him? Isn't it equally possible that Trayvon was fighting to keep the stranger from shooting him?
Do you know at what exact moment Trayvon saw the gun? Was it already in Zimmerman's hand? Was Zimmerman about to pull it? Did Zimmerman move his jacket aside to let Trayvon see it? Did he reach?
If any of these possibilities were to be true, wouldn't Trayvon have had the right to defend himself under SYG?
Tell me please why none of this can be possible
__________________________________
Isn't it equally possible that Trayvon was trying to disarm the stranger who had been following him? Isn't it equally possible that Trayvon was fighting to keep the stranger from shooting him?
Do you know at what exact moment Trayvon saw the gun? Was it already in Zimmerman's hand? Was Zimmerman about to pull it? Did Zimmerman move his jacket aside to let Trayvon see it? Did he reach?
If any of these possibilities were to be true, wouldn't Trayvon have had the right to defend himself under SYG?
Tell me please why none of this can be possible
What right does a prosecutor have, without proper evidence, to cause the arrest and detention of an innocent man? When a judge throws out this charge the prosecutor should be forced to spend the same amount of time in lock-up then FIRED.
The alternative I suggested is based partly on the recording of the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher a few minutes before the shooting, and partly on repports of what Zimmerman told family and friends (some of whom have appeared on Hannity's program). To follow Zimmerman's version, it appears that Zimmerman did not pull the gun out on his own but after Trayvon had knocked him down and was on top of him, he caught sight of the gun and tried to grab it.
A new piece of evidence yesterday was that Trayvon was at the store where he bought the skittles between 6 and 6:30. He had a 16-minute walk back to his father's place, so he had 20 or more minutes to spare either dawdling on the way or walking around the neighborhood in the rain looking at the houses--which is what he was doing when Zimmerman first saw him and reported him as someone behaving in a suspicious way.
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.