The Zimmerman / Martin Case

(Reuters) - The Florida man who shot and killed black teenager Trayvon Martin - triggering nationwide civil rights protests - planned to sell the gun he used in an auction on Thursday and to spend some of the proceeds to challenge gun control policies, the auction website said.

The one-day auction was to begin at 11 a.m. EST (1500 GMT), with bids to start at $5,000. But the listing disappeared from the site soon after its scheduled start.

Representatives for the website offering the handgun for sale, Gunbroker.com, did not immediately respond to questions about why the listing came down and whether the gun had been sold.

The shooter, George Zimmerman, had described the gun as "a piece of American history," according to the website.

U.S. Department of Justice recently returned to Zimmerman the Kel Tec 9mm pistol that he had used to kill the unarmed Martin on Feb. 26, 2012.

Daryl Parks, a lawyer for Martin's family, called the potential gun sale offensive in a phone interview but said the family remain focused on their work advocating against gun violence.

"It's a distraction, and it shouldn't be a distraction to what we're doing," said Parks, who also serves as chairman of the Trayvon Martin Foundation.

Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in the incident, which sparked civil rights rallies and brought scrutiny of Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law.

The law allows a potential crime victim who is "in fear of great bodily injury" to use deadly force in public places.

Zimmerman, who was a neighborhood watch volunteer at the time, has maintained that the shooting was in self-defense. Martin's family said the teenager was simply passing through the residential area on his way home from a convenience store.

President Barack Obama said after Zimmerman's acquittal that Martin "could have been me, 35 years ago" and urged Americans to understand the pain African Americans felt over the case.

'SOCIOPATH'

"George Zimmerman" quickly became the top trending term on Twitter in the United States on Thursday, with many users on the social media site expressing shock and revulsion.

"The only people worse than George Zimmerman are the people who bid on that gun," tweeted journalist and columnist Lyz Lenz.

National Review columnist Charles C. W. Cooke said Zimmerman "may have acted legally, but the man is a sociopath."

On the auction website, Zimmerman had said he planned to use part of the proceeds to fight Black Lives Matter, a movement that grew out of the incident, as well as to counter "violence against law enforcement officers."

Proceeds would also go towards fighting Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's "anti-firearm rhetoric," he said.

"I am honored and humbled to announce the sale of an American firearm icon. The firearm for sale is the firearm that was used to defend my life and end the brutal attack from Trayvon Martin," he said on the site.

The number from the Martin case is written on the pistol in silver permanent marker. The auction listing included a photo of the gun being held up in court by a law enforcement officer during Zimmerman's murder trial.

Zimmerman said in the description that "many have expressed interest in owning and displaying the firearm, including The Smithsonian Museum in Washington D.C."

The Smithsonian replied on Twitter that it had never expressed interest in the gun, and had "no plans to ever collect or display it in any museums."

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why would Zimmerman need a second hearing? He was acquitted in a court of law - he didn't need anything else. The jury was unanimous actually - they all found him not guilty.

All juries in criminal matters must be unanimous, or it's called a 'hung jury'.

An adjudication of 'not guilty' is not the same as an adjudication of 'legally innocent'.  In certain cases--police officials, for example, where it affects their ability to carry on as such--a person who has been adjudicated 'not guilty' will ask the court to further adjudicate that s/he is lawfully innocent.  'Not guilty' says the evidence is not sufficient to find the person guilty; 'lawfully innocent' says the evidence is indeed sufficient to determine that the person did not commit the crime.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Custody? I don't know about that. Isn't a protection programme different? The point is that you were asking why he would be in a protection programme, and I explained. There was a lot of outrage from people who thought he got away with murder, and a lot of threats. The fact is that he was acquitted and he's entitled to go about his business without being harassed and threatened.

The only protection programs of which I know are maintained by state or federal justice departments for those who testify on behalf of the government, and thereby put themselves in jeopardy of life or limb in retaliation (or anticipation).  Quite often they are accused themselves and they gain a diversion into the program by offering testimony--otherwise known as copping a plea.

In Zimmerman's case, he is not even subject to the jurisdiction of a court or government.  Nor is he in a position to give testimony for any crime, for which protection from retaliation would be necessary.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Custody? I don't know about that. Isn't a protection programme different? The point is that you were asking why he would be in a protection programme, and I explained. There was a lot of outrage from people who thought he got away with murder, and a lot of threats. The fact is that he was acquitted and he's entitled to go about his business without being harassed and threatened.

The only protection programs of which I know are maintained by state or federal justice departments for those who testify on behalf of the government, and thereby put themselves in jeopardy of life or limb in retaliation (or anticipation).  Quite often they are accused themselves and they gain a diversion into the program by offering testimony--otherwise known as copping a plea.

In Zimmerman's case, he is not even subject to the jurisdiction of a court or government.  Nor is he in a position to give testimony for any crime, for which protection from retaliation would be necessary.

OK, thank you.

It sounds to me like Zimmerman is tired of keeping his head down for fear of threats, and he's decided to live his life as he's entitled to - as a free man who was acquitted of a crime.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Custody? I don't know about that. Isn't a protection programme different? The point is that you were asking why he would be in a protection programme, and I explained. There was a lot of outrage from people who thought he got away with murder, and a lot of threats. The fact is that he was acquitted and he's entitled to go about his business without being harassed and threatened.

The only protection programs of which I know are maintained by state or federal justice departments for those who testify on behalf of the government, and thereby put themselves in jeopardy of life or limb in retaliation (or anticipation).  Quite often they are accused themselves and they gain a diversion into the program by offering testimony--otherwise known as copping a plea.

In Zimmerman's case, he is not even subject to the jurisdiction of a court or government.  Nor is he in a position to give testimony for any crime, for which protection from retaliation would be necessary.

OK, thank you.

It sounds to me like Zimmerman is tired of keeping his head down for fear of threats, and he's decided to live his life as he's entitled to - as a free man who was acquitted of a crime.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

All juries in criminal matters must be unanimous, or it's called a 'hung jury'.

An adjudication of 'not guilty' is not the same as an adjudication of 'legally innocent'.  In certain cases--police officials, for example, where it affects their ability to carry on as such--a person who has been adjudicated 'not guilty' will ask the court to further adjudicate that s/he is lawfully innocent.  'Not guilty' says the evidence is not sufficient to find the person guilty; 'lawfully innocent' says the evidence is indeed sufficient to determine that the person did not commit the crime.

Take it up with Wolfman - he's the one who said the jury wasn't unanimous.

It must be a different system over there - over here, not guilty is not guilty. The jury doesn't explain why. In Scotland I think they have a not proven option.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

OK, thank you.

It sounds to me like Zimmerman is tired of keeping his head down for fear of threats, and he's decided to live his life as he's entitled to - as a free man who was acquitted of a crime.

You call what he's been doing "keeping his head down"? He's been keeping himself in the spotlight with his controversial online activity, controversial business dealings, getting shot ...

Lord Foul wrote:yeah all true eddie...but since when has good taste etc ever been a consideration in money making deals......
SOME people have no concience.....

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

You call what he's been doing "keeping his head down"? He's been keeping himself in the spotlight with his controversial online activity, controversial business dealings, getting shot ...

It was hardly his fault that someone tried to shoot him. He has to go out sometimes.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Take it up with Wolfman - he's the one who said the jury wasn't unanimous.

It must be a different system over there - over here, not guilty is not guilty. The jury doesn't explain why. In Scotland I think they have a not proven option.

'Not guilty' is the same as 'not proven'.  "Factually innocent' is a further judicial determination.  You have the same system.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was hardly his fault that someone tried to shoot him. He has to go out sometimes.

How about being done for domestic abuse twice, once against his wife and once against his girffriend

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It was hardly his fault that someone tried to shoot him. He has to go out sometimes.

How about being done for domestic abuse twice, once against his wife and once against his girffriend

sassy wrote:Yea, after he'd intimidated and bribed them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

'Not guilty' is the same as 'not proven'.  "Factually innocent' is a further judicial determination.  You have the same system.

"Not guilty" is not the same thing as "not proven" in Scotland, and they have both options. Not guilty is just that - not guilty.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

"Not guilty" is not the same thing as "not proven" in Scotland, and they have both options. Not guilty is just that - not guilty.

Are you trying to say "not guilty" in Scotland is "innocent"?  If so, then it would be the equivalent of "factually innocent" over here.  

"Not guilty" in this country means what it says: you haven't proven that he is guilty.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Are you trying to say "not guilty" in Scotland is "innocent"?  If so, then it would be the equivalent of "factually innocent" over here.  

"Not guilty" in this country means what it says: you haven't proven that he is guilty.

Well "not proven" means that there's not enough evidence to convict but the jury is not totally convinced of the defendant's innocence. You can draw your own conclusion about "not guilty", but clearly it indicates that the jury is convinced the defendant is not guilty, otherwise they'd say "not proven".

In England we only have "not guilty", which could mean either of the two things.

Online auction for gun that killed Trayvon Martin reaches $65 million, but there's a catch

Published May 13, 2016
The bidding on an online auction for the gun that former neighborhood watch George Zimmerman used to kill Trayvon Martin in 2012 appears to have been hijacked by fake accounts that are posting enormously high bids.

At one point early Friday, the bidding surpassed $65 million with the leading bidder using the screen name "Racist McShootFace." The site later showed that account had been deleted.

The website for United Gun Group began hosting the auction Thursday after another website, GunBroker.com, took down the auction saying it wanted "no part in the listing on our website or in any of the publicity it is receiving."

Hours later, United Gun Group tweeted that it would post Zimmerman's ad. The new link was posted, along with a statement from Zimmerman. The site calls itself a "social market place for the firearms community."

Bidding on the 9 mm Kel-Tec PF-9 pistol began at $5,000.

Critics called the auction an insensitive move to profit from the slaying.

Zimmerman had told Orlando, Florida, TV station WOFL that the pistol was returned to him by the U.S. Justice Department, which took it after he was acquitted in Martin's 2012 shooting death.

Zimmerman's listing said a portion of the proceeds would go toward fighting what Zimmerman calls violence by the Black Lives Matter movement against law enforcement officers, combating anti-gun rhetoric of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and ending the career of state attorney Angela Corey, who led Zimmerman's prosecution.

The listing ended with a Latin phrase that translates as "if you want peace, prepare for war."

Zimmerman, now 32, has said he was defending himself when he killed Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old, in a gated community near Orlando. Martin, who lived in Miami with his mother, was visiting his father at the time.

Zimmerman, who identifies as Hispanic, was acquitted in Martin's February 2012 shooting death. The case sparked protests and a national debate about race relations. The Justice Department later decided not to prosecute Zimmerman on civil rights charges.

Lucy McBath, the mother of another black teenager shot by a white man during an argument at a Jacksonville convenience store in 2012, said the auction reflected a "deplorable lack of value for human life."

"I am deeply disappointed that the man who killed Trayvon Martin is trying to sell the very gun he used to cut that precious life short to raise money," McBath said in a written statement.

The slaying of her son, 17-year-old Jordan Davis, by Michael Dunn drew parallels at the time to the Zimmerman-Martin case. Dunn told police he had felt threatened by Davis. Unlike Zimmerman, Dunn was convicted of murder.

Since Zimmerman was acquitted, he has been charged with assault based on complaints from two girlfriends. Both women later refused to press charges and Zimmerman wasn't prosecuted. His estranged wife, Shellie Zimmerman, also accused him of smashing her iPad during an argument days after she filed divorce papers. No charges were filed because of lack of evidence. They were divorced in January.

Orlando-based attorney Mark O'Mara has previously represented Zimmerman. A receptionist in O'Mara's office said Thursday that he no longer represents Zimmerman and had no comment.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/05/13/online-auction-for-gun-that-killed-trayvon-martin-reaches-65-million-but-there/

In a chat below the listing, one site visitor asked where all the previous bids had gone. Zimmerman responded, "The previous auction and bids were purged due to illegitimate bidding. Yes, this auction is real."
As of late Saturday evening, there were no bids on the listing, which carried a minimum bid of $100,000 and an instant purchase price of $500,000.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/05/14/zimmerman-deletes-reposts-auction-gun-used-kill-martin/84389940/

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well "not proven" means that there's not enough evidence to convict but the jury is not totally convinced of the defendant's innocence. You can draw your own conclusion about "not guilty", but clearly it indicates that the jury is convinced the defendant is not guilty, otherwise they'd say "not proven".

In England we only have "not guilty", which could mean either of the two things.

Perhaps all of your life, watching TV shows and such, you have assumed 'not guilty' means 'innocence', without really thinking about it.  But in fact, "not guilty" means the jury has concluded that the prosecution has not proven that he is guilty...in short, not guilty or not proven.

We live in a legal atmosphere where anyone is not guilty of anything, anywhere, unless some prosecutor has shown specifically that someone is 'guilty'.  It's called, but only logically, innocent until proven guilty.  So saying someone is not guilty is not the same as saying he or she is innocent; just that he resumes his freedom.  Think of it this way: it doesn't mean 'innocence'; but it does mean 'you walk'.

Raggamuffin wrote:I have assumed nothing. If you can't see that there's a difference between "not proven" and "not guilty", that's your problem. Why do you think that juries in Scotland go for one or the other?

McGill University Law wrote:Scots law is a unique legal system with an ancient basis in Roman law. Grounded in uncodified civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis, it also features elements of common law with medieval sources. Thus Scotland has a pluralistic, or 'mixed', legal system, of which South Africa law is comparable, and, to a lesser degree, the partly codified pluralistic systems of Louisiana and Quebec.

Since the Acts of Union, in 1707, it has shared a legislature with the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland retained a fundamentally different legal system from that of England and Wales, but the Union brought English influence on Scots law. In recent years, Scots law has also been affected by European law under the Treaty of Rome, the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (entered into by members of the Council of Europe) and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament which may pass legislation within its areas of legislative competence as detailed by the Scotland Act 1998.

Although there are many substantial differences between Scots law, English law and Northern Ireland law, much of the law is also similar, for example, Commercial law is similar throughout all jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, as is Employment Law. Different terminology is often used for the same concepts, for example, arbiters are called arbitrators in England. However, there are major differences in some areas, an example being house buying, where Scots practice makes the English problem of gazumping a rarity. Another example would be the third verdict available to judges and juries (which consist of 15 members) in criminal cases: ' not proven'.

Raggamuffin wrote:Not guilty means innocent in law. Of course there will be people who think that such a person is guilty, but that's just speculation and they can't prove it.

Raggamuffin wrote:In the case of Zimmerman, I think there was indeed enough evidence to prove that he was innocent of murder.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I have assumed nothing. If you can't see that there's a difference between "not proven" and "not guilty", that's your problem. Why do you think that juries in Scotland go for one or the other?

If the two are not synonymous then logically you must accept that someone can be “proven”, yet be found not guilty.  That is exactly what happened in the case of George Zimmerman.  But it was the result of prejudice against the black victim, and not semantic arguments over differences between "not" and "not".

Scotland, like Louisiana in the US, is influenced by the old Roman Code, as noted in this McGill University excerpt:

McGill University Law wrote:Scots law is a unique legal system with an ancient basis in Roman law. Grounded in uncodified civil law dating back to the Corpus Juris Civilis, it also features elements of common law with medieval sources. Thus Scotland has a pluralistic, or 'mixed', legal system, of which South Africa law is comparable, and, to a lesser degree, the partly codified pluralistic systems of Louisiana and Quebec.

Since the Acts of Union, in 1707, it has shared a legislature with the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland retained a fundamentally different legal system from that of England and Wales, but the Union brought English influence on Scots law. In recent years, Scots law has also been affected by European law under the Treaty of Rome, the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights (entered into by members of the Council of Europe) and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament which may pass legislation within its areas of legislative competence as detailed by the Scotland Act 1998.

Although there are many substantial differences between Scots law, English law and Northern Ireland law, much of the law is also similar, for example, Commercial law is similar throughout all jurisdictions in the United Kingdom, as is Employment Law. Different terminology is often used for the same concepts, for example, arbiters are called arbitrators in England. However, there are major differences in some areas, an example being house buying, where Scots practice makes the English problem of gazumping a rarity. Another example would be the third verdict available to judges and juries (which consist of 15 members) in criminal cases: ' not proven'.

'Not proven' is the equivalent of 'not guilty'.

Raggamuffin wrote:Not guilty means innocent in law. Of course there will be people who think that such a person is guilty, but that's just speculation and they can't prove it.

“Not proven” is the same as “not guilty” and neither of them mean “factually innocent”.  Even you recognize this, as you phrase it as “innocent in law” presumably to distinguish factual innocence.  When you say "in law" you are stating that the law defines it; when you say "in fact" you are describing real states of affairs (ie, reality).

There is a third verdict in Anglo-American law, too.  We’ve been discussing it: factually innocent.  That would be the case of a denotative finding of fact that a person is innocent.

Raggamuffin wrote:In the case of Zimmerman, I think there was indeed enough evidence to prove that he was innocent of murder.

Alas…unless he were black.  This was a southern jury.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If the two are not synonymous then logically you must accept that someone can be “proven”, yet be found not guilty.  That is exactly what happened in the case of George Zimmerman.  But it was the result of prejudice against the black victim, and not semantic arguments over differences between "not" and "not".

Scotland, like Louisiana in the US, is influenced by the old Roman Code, as noted in this McGill University excerpt:



'Not proven' is the equivalent of 'not guilty'.



“Not proven” is the same as “not guilty” and neither of them mean “factually innocent”.  Even you recognize this, as you phrase it as “innocent in law” presumably to distinguish factual innocence.  When you say "in law" you are stating that the law defines it; when you say "in fact" you are describing real states of affairs (ie, reality).

There is a third verdict in Anglo-American law, too.  We’ve been discussing it: factually innocent.  That would be the case of a denotative finding of fact that a person is innocent.



Alas…unless he were black.  This was a southern jury.

The point is that in Scotland at least they're not the same thing, otherwise the juries wouldn't choose one over the other.

Raggamuffin wrote:It doesn't of course apply in the case of Zimmerman because there was no option to say the case was "not proven". All I can say is that from the evidence I saw with my own eyes, and heard, I would have found him not guilty on the grounds that it was clear that Trayvon Martin was on top of him just prior to the shooting, and that it was self defence. One could say that shooting someone was a drastic thing to do, but that's what your gun laws allow.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that in Scotland at least they're not the same thing, otherwise the juries wouldn't choose one over the other.

But the semantic differences are not what you claim.  Both Scot and Anglo-American law provide for factual innocence, they are simply not heard of because once the defendant gets off, why bother?  The only reason you would want a judicial edict that you are factually innocent is if there were some collateral concern, such as your license to practice law or medicine...or be a policeman...some situation where merely being accused puts you in jeopardy.

Raggamuffin wrote:It doesn't of course apply in the case of Zimmerman because there was no option to say the case was "not proven". All I can say is that from the evidence I saw with my own eyes, and heard, I would have found him not guilty on the grounds that it was clear that Trayvon Martin was on top of him just prior to the shooting, and that it was self defence. One could say that shooting someone was a drastic thing to do, but that's what your gun laws allow.

If Zimmerman had been stalking a white woman the way he was stalking Trayvon Martin, he would be on death row right now.  If it were shown that he had been ordered by police to cease and desist stalking a white woman, and he went ahead anyway, he would be on death row right now.  I think the whole world knows: but for the fact that Trayvon Martin was black, George Zimmerman would be on death row right now.

Cass wrote:Back to the OP

Who would do something like this? And call it a piece of American Gun History? The guy is deranged and twisted and not all there. I've seen many thousands of gun owners say that what he is doing is beyond the pale and that is why the 2 sites he posted on took it down.

He needs to go away and stop trying to prolong his 15 minutes of infamy.

Raggamuffin wrote:If Zimmerman had been stalking a white women, I doubt that she would have ended up on top of him banging his head on the ground...

Raggamuffin wrote:If you assume that a verdict came about because the dead person was black, you have to give up on the justice system.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:If Zimmerman had been stalking a white women, I doubt that she would have ended up on top of him banging his head on the ground...

Um...are you claiming that only black men do that?

Raggamuffin wrote:If you assume that a verdict came about because the dead person was black, you have to give up on the justice system.

It is depressing, isn't it?  We in America have lived with it for 150-years.  

This is the American south, turning the whole concept of justice and right on its head all because they want to be considered racially superior.  Equality is not for them.

Miffs2 wrote:For a man that is supposed to have broken the law so many times why hasn't he been in court every other week? Regarding the assaults on partners, it must have been "he said she said" surely? If there was evidence the police would have gone ahead and prosecuted - wouldn't they? 
As for Zimmerman he has been found not guilty, but to even think of trying to profit from Martin's death just about sums up the man.

Since Zimmerman was acquitted, he has been charged with assault based on complaints from two girlfriends. Both women later refused to press charges and Zimmerman wasn't prosecuted. His estranged wife, Shellie Zimmerman, also accused him of smashing her iPad during an argument days after she filed divorce papers. No charges were filed because of lack of evidence. They were divorced in January.

Orlando-based attorney Mark O'Mara has previously represented Zimmerman. A receptionist in O'Mara's office said Thursday that he no longer represents Zimmerman and had no comment.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/05/13/online-auction-for-gun-that-killed-trayvon-martin-reaches-65-million-but-there/

4EVER2 wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:For a man that is supposed to have broken the law so many times why hasn't he been in court every other week? Regarding the assaults on partners, it must have been "he said she said" surely? If there was evidence the police would have gone ahead and prosecuted - wouldn't they? 
As for Zimmerman he has been found not guilty, but to even think of trying to profit from Martin's death just about sums up the man.

**bumped up from several post back**

Since Zimmerman was acquitted, he has been charged with assault based on complaints from two girlfriends. Both women later refused to press charges and Zimmerman wasn't prosecuted. His estranged wife, Shellie Zimmerman, also accused him of smashing her iPad during an argument days after she filed divorce papers. No charges were filed because of lack of evidence. They were divorced in January.

Orlando-based attorney Mark O'Mara has previously represented Zimmerman. A receptionist in O'Mara's office said Thursday that he no longer represents Zimmerman and had no comment.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/05/13/online-auction-for-gun-that-killed-trayvon-martin-reaches-65-million-but-there/

Just can't get any prosecutor in this country to shove a case forward without a witness willing to PRESS CHARGES on an domestic battery offense --- especially when the women refused to testify.  It has been done in RARE CASES but there was a paper trail of charges on file for the abuser---this brainless/spineless moron just changes victims like he changes his undies!

sassy wrote:We changed that over here a while ago, the police now prosecute, the woman doesn't have to file charges, they do.   The police definitely aren't perfect when it comes to domestic abuse cases, but that was a step in the right direction.   BTW, he was also done for road rage.

sassy wrote:We changed that over here a while ago, the police now prosecute, the woman doesn't have to file charges, they do.   The police definitely aren't perfect when it comes to domestic abuse cases, but that was a step in the right direction.   BTW, he was also done for road rage.

4EVER2 wrote:

sassy wrote:We changed that over here a while ago, the police now prosecute, the woman doesn't have to file charges, they do.   The police definitely aren't perfect when it comes to domestic abuse cases, but that was a step in the right direction.   BTW, he was also done for road rage.

Quite right, Sassy and here in KS...someone WILL be arrested but unless there are extreme circumstances {hospitalization} then the chances for an actual court filing/adjudicated case is still 'IFFY' because it falls right back onto the victim of the abuse and whether or not she/he will sign the charges filed and follow through with the testimony against her abuser. Drugs & Domestic violence police calls as well as traffic violations fill up the 911 call centers here in the Midwest.

This entire 'ZIMMERMAN' regurgitated discussion from some members limited knowledge of our USA's legal definition's/the court proceedings and assumptions that because one "sat and watched the entire footage" {that was allowed/edited for TV} makes the viewer the end all be all for FACTS is very humorous; to say the least. 

Quill's replies have been above patient to explain and keep explaining the unique wording difference of what OUR LEGAL terminology means and what Scotland terminology means   

sassy wrote:You happen to think that Rags, you don't know, unfortunately nobody does.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:You happen to think that Rags, you don't know, unfortunately nobody does.

Can you explain why Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman ended up near that T-junction then? We know where Zimmerman parked his vehicle - that's a fact. Are you suggesting that Zimmerman did not go up that path to the T-junction, but that he went a different way and chased Trayvon Martin back to the T-junction?

sassy wrote:And so was the girl who Martin was talking to a credible witness, and Martin hadn't stalked Zimmerman, Zimmerman had stalked Martin.



George Zimmerman was involved in a road rage incident in Florida today with a man named Matthew Apperson -- and it wasn't the first time, police said.
In September 2014, the Associated Press reported that Apperson was stopped at a light in Lake Mary when a passenger in the car next to him started yelling, unprovoked.
The truck's driver, who Apperson believed to be Zimmerman, then reportedly said to Apperson, "Do you know who I am?"
Apperson pulled over, he said, and the truck followed him, blocking him in. Apperson claimed both men threatened to shoot and kill him, the AP reported.




Frankly, if a murder charge cannot be proved against someone, but they then go on to be violent on many occasions, I think that puts in some doubt that they were innocent.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Can you explain why Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman ended up near that T-junction then? We know where Zimmerman parked his vehicle - that's a fact. Are you suggesting that Zimmerman did not go up that path to the T-junction, but that he went a different way and chased Trayvon Martin back to the T-junction?

Nobody can explain it.  It could be that Martin took a circuitous route because he knew someone odd was following him and he was trying to avoid them.   Nobody, but nobody knows.   But Zimmerman's life ever since is testimony to the fact he is a very violent individual.