Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

So, I'm gonna be the jerk that pops in here randomly, gives his 2 cents without reading the thread, and gets told he's a jerk for not reading the thread.

The trend seems to be to come in and say Zimmermann is guilty so you're good.

 

[Dragonwar233]

I listened to the 911 call unedited with the volume max and it really sounded like he said coon, I don't need any expert to confirm this, I don't care what NBC or whoever says. There is no way he said thug, that is not even close to sounding like coon lol.

 

[Maccer_42]

I listened to the 911 call unedited with the volume max and it really sounded like he said coon, I don't need any expert to confirm this, I don't care what NBC or whoever says. There is no way he said thug, that is not even close to sounding like coon lol.

From watching this video of what I assume is the unedited 911 call



Im guessing the possible utter of the racial slur "coon" is around that 2.21 - 2.23 mark. but it's very muffled and he could very well be saying "It's F'ing cold"

 

[Northstar]

The real story here is the police investigation. The reason we know so little is because of the lack of work the police put into evidence gathering.

No, the real story is the overall terrible reporting of this story.

Frankly, we don't know how much actual evidence they have as after the 911 call fiasco we can't be too sure about any evidence.

I think the prosecutors are also needing a look at, seems they have a thing for caving in lately and forgoing a sure conviction(manslaughter in this case) for a charge they have little to no chance of getting a guilty verdict out of.

 

[ShobThaBob]

The trend seems to be to come in and say Zimmermann is guilty so you're good.

People are pretty up in arms about this. It spurs a lot of emotions because there's so much left to the imagination. When people hear every bit of story added onto everything else, there's a lot left that they're able to project what their experiences are and fill in the blanks.

There are a lot of blanks to fill with this story. The important thing is A - being outraged that those blanks exist in the first place, and B - understanding our judicial system and that it working correctly could very well mean that he's going to walk free.

Oh well

 

[ShobThaBob]

No, the real story is the overall terrible reporting of this story.

I disagree. News media is there to sell products to an audience and tell a story that will make them revenue. The outrage is not the way they handled their production of these events, but how they handle the production of everything they do. They're in the business to make money and get the audience coming back for more. In this case, they did their job, and people eating it up is just going to encourage them to do it the same way next time.

That being said, part of the reason they did it they way they did is because they had to fill in the blanks for themselves, just like we did.

 

[a6m5]

I disagree. News media is there to sell products to an audience and tell a story that will make them revenue. The outrage is not the way they handled their production of these events, but how they handle the production of everything they do. They're in the business to make money and get the audience coming back for more. In this case, they did their job, and people eating it up is just going to encourage them to do it the same way next time.

That being said, part of the reason they did it they way they did is because they had to fill in the blanks for themselves, just like we did.

First of all, I do see where you are coming from with your posts, and agree with a lot of what you said. But I did have problem with couple of points. First on the news media:

People expect news to be factual. If News programs start doctoring evidence, such as the 911 tape to make Zimmerman sound like he followed Trayvon Martin based on his race, they have crossed a dangerous line. NBC reportedly fired three people over it, so even they either understand that it was wrong, or that more likely, they know that they got caught & that people are pissed.

Second point regarding the evidence gathering by the Police. I don't think we know for sure that Police didn't gather enough evidence. While people were going crazy over, like you said, a lot of speculation imagining the worst, Police or media presented us very little to no evidence. Then I don't recall, but weeks later, bunch of stuff started to come out, like how Zimmerman was in fact badly beaten, substance found in Trayvon Martin's blood, and how Trayvon no longer was the kid that was depicted over & over by the media, but he went from the clean cut kid to a troubled young man, who was into thug culture, and he would have never even been in the neighborhood that he was shot in, if it wasn't for 10-day school suspension. When these information started to leak out, it was indeed like all the raged hoodie-movement just died down, or the media stopped reporting it.

Sorry, back to the point. I think the Police obviously knew much more than they let on. Perhaps they could have done a better job interacting with the public when some of the assuming people were putting on their hoodies, ready to go on a crusade when they didn't even have little facts regarding the incident. Don't get me wrong, I love hoodies & own a bunch of them.

I concur that it would be impossible to know exactly how it went down that night, as only other person who could have told us the other side of the story is dead. But I do believe that this problem with the police wasn't so much about evidence, but way they communicated with the public & media.

 

[ShobThaBob]

People expect news to be factual. If News programs start doctoring evidence, such as the 911 tape to make Zimmerman sound like he followed Trayvon Martin based on his race, they have crossed a dangerous line. NBC reportedly fired three people over it, so even they either understand that it was wrong, or that more likely, they know that they got caught & that people are pissed.

That is a problem, isn't it. It's true, of course, but people can be pretty stupid when they hear stuff from any media outlet. They take things as gospel and don't ask followup questions and assume that what they just heard was all there was to know.

Second point regarding the evidence gathering by the Police. I don't think we know for sure that Police didn't gather enough evidence. While people were going crazy over, like you said, a lot of speculation imagining the worst, Police or media presented us very little to no evidence. Then I don't recall, but weeks later, bunch of stuff started to come out, like how Zimmerman was in fact badly beaten, substance found in Trayvon Martin's blood, and how Trayvon no longer was the kid that was depicted over & over by the media, but he went from the clean cut kid to a troubled young man, who was into thug culture, and he would have never even been in the neighborhood that he was shot in, if it wasn't for 10-day school suspension. When these information started to leak out, it was indeed like all the raged hoodie-movement just died down, or the media stopped reporting it.

Sorry, back to the point. I think the Police obviously knew much more than they let on. Perhaps they could have done a better job interacting with the public when some of the assuming people were putting on their hoodies, ready to go on a crusade when they didn't even have little facts regarding the incident. Don't get me wrong, I love hoodies & own a bunch of them.

I concur that it would be impossible to know exactly how it went down that night, as only other person who could have told us the other side of the story is dead. But I do believe that this problem with the police wasn't so much about evidence, but way they communicated with the public & media.

From what I remember hearing, they didn't do a blood test on Zim to see if he had any substances in his system. I've heard all sorts of random stuff about what the police did and didn't do. They should be able to recreate what happened, and where it happened, based on footprints and blood. Where they were and where they went at certain points in the altercation would have immense implications regarding guilt. Anyway, I hope a lot more evidence and truth surfaces. Until then, I think most of the anger around the case should be focused on the police.

 

[a6m5]

That is a problem, isn't it. It's true, of course, but people can be pretty stupid when they hear stuff from any media outlet. They take things as gospel and don't ask followup questions and assume that what they just heard was all there was to know.

I find it tragic that ethics is so weak in meda, I've recently come to a point that I have trouble believing anything they report.

Just yesterday, new report on another mass killing in Syria. Did I believe it? No. They say that Syrian Government shelled the whole town with women & children in it. It sounds reasonable, but did the rebels maybe play the Palestinian card & park their RPGs in middle of their town, and the whole town decided to shield them? News is just too easy to spin & twist in any which way when people reporting lack integrity.

From what I remember hearing, they didn't do a blood test on Zim to see if he had any substances in his system. I've heard all sorts of random stuff about what the police did and didn't do. They should be able to recreate what happened, and where it happened, based on footprints and blood. Where they were and where they went at certain points in the altercation would have immense implications regarding guilt. Anyway, I hope a lot more evidence and truth surfaces. Until then, I think most of the anger around the case should be focused on the police.

I'm no expert, but I am surprised that there was no blood test, or some form of drug testing, immediately after the shooting. It totally is a wait & see, at least for those of us who are not part of the case. 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

I listened to the 911 call unedited with the volume max and it really sounded like he said coon, I don't need any expert to confirm this, I don't care what NBC or whoever says. There is no way he said thug, that is not even close to sounding like coon lol.

Call up the prosecution then do you can give them the benefit of your system and/or expert hearing. To date, this is not listed in their evidence. You could be the turning point in this case. Hurry! Justice depends on you.

By the way, what kind if system do you have that can go to 11 without distortion?

News media is there to sell products to an audience and tell a story that will make them revenue.

No. Media companies are there for this, and to be the watchdog of government. The news media is there to report the story. Journalism and communications studies require multiple classes on ethics and historic examples of proper reporting (and even have an award for excellence - The Edward R Murrow Award) as well a few years if covering telecommunications law.

If something is intentionally fabricated it must be labeled as such. It is why it is important to distinguish between whether you are watching something labeled as news or commentary/opinion/editorial. Why do you think cases like this only get detailed when people like Nancy Grace are on? She isn't a journalist. She has no journalism degree. She is a commentator. That said, it is easy to sway opinion by stating only certain facts in news reports and leaving others out.

Ultimately, the state of media trying to steer opinions and having a lineup of more than 50% commentary shows is our own fault. We tuned into tabloid journalism, we supported those advertisers, we demanded drama and entertainment mixed with news, and it is no wonder The Daily Show is the most watched "news" show in the US.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Precisely. They sell personalities, sides of stories, and fantastical tidbits of information because that's what sells. They don't report a story, they sell a Story. You can sell the same story 5 different ways without lying in any of them. The producers think they know what their audience wants to hear, so they'll pick out which information is most vital to reaching that audience.

You're mostly saying the same thing I am, but misplacing the anger I think. You want to be angry at the news, which is fine. They've done a poor job handling the whole thing. But, if there was a lot more known evidence, there'd be a lot less for people to infer and commentate on.

 

[AndersonG22]

Stalking IMHO is an aggressive threatening act towards the person being stalked. If someone was following me not saying anything am I going to think they won't harm me? Heck no, I'd feel like my life is on the line and I hope I would do whatever I have to do to make it out alive. Just thinking about someone following(aka stalking) me freaks me out.

This is my opinion and that's why I think Zimmerman should rot in prison if and only if he was following/stalking martin without saying anything.

BTW, I'm not anti gun or concealed carry.

 

[a6m5]

Stalking IMHO is an aggressive threatening act towards the person being stalked. If someone was following me not saying anything am I going to think they won't harm me? Heck no, I'd feel like my life is on the line and I hope I would do whatever I have to do to make it out alive. Just thinking about someone following(aka stalking) me freaks me out.

This is my opinion and that's why I think Zimmerman should rot in prison if and only if he was following/stalking martin without saying anything.

BTW, I'm not anti gun or concealed carry.

To me, following is not stalking. When I was younger, I've been in situation when I was followed. I never thought my life was in danger, because I was not doing anything wrong. There has been confrontations, but then, we either understood each other, or separated.

I guess I can spin it and tell people that I was being "stalked", but every single time, they were concerned people who thought I was up to no good. Sure, I didn't consider them friendly, but they weren't stalking to murder me either. I used to be in fist fight nearly weekly in my early-teen years in school, considered myself a very capable fighter, but never started a fight with someone for just following me. Mouthed-off? Plenty of times. Attack, or attacked in that kind of situation? Never.

Overly protective idiot neighborhood watch following someone is "stalking"? Not to me.

 

[niky]

Stalking: "Harass or persecute (someone) with unwanted and obsessive attention: 'the fan stalked the actor'."

Following someone on foot in a car then getting out to confront them? That's pretty much it.

Doesn't matter if the boy was a hot-head. Doesn't matter if he beat the crap out of him when he confronted him. He was stalking him, was told to stop, kept stalking him, then he shot him. Those are the facts, however you spin it. The boy was carrying no weapon, was on foot and couldn't escape, and Zimmerman could have and should have waited for the police.

 

[a6m5]

Do we know that's how it happened? I especially don't like the "kept stalking him, then he shot him." There is a lot that can happen before the shot was fired, and it completely bypasses the part where Martin allegedly beat the crap out of Zimmerman.

 

[Tesla]

He was told to stop by someone with no authority over him. Was it sound advice? In my opinion yes, but a 911 operator cannot order you to stop following someone in the same way the police could.

 

[FoolKiller]

Wow, I've was stalked every time I entered a convenience store alone from about ages 14-25. Apparently, if the situation had become violent I'd be innocent no matter what happened to cause the violence. And to think I wasted all those opportunities by, at most, asking if they wanted something.

Let's get real here people. What Zimmerman did was not the same as a guy looking for an opportunity to shove a woman in an alley to rape her or catch someone alone to mug them. I've had cops follow my car, seen them slow down to follow a suspicious looking person to see if they matched a description of a suspect or did something illegal. When working at Meijer during a college summer job I followed teenage males who were wearing heavy, baggy coats in 85+ degree weather until loss prevention (security) got there to watch them. And I have stared out the window at a stranger walking past my house and watched them to see where they we're going. I've done the same at my in-laws' house.

Simply put, watching a stranger who seems suspicious to you, when there have been recent break-ins, while contacting authorities to notify them is far, far, far from stalking with intent to cause harm. It proves nothing other than Zimmerman was a concerned neighbor, at best, or the annoyingly nosey neighbor, at worst. If he hadn't called it in or Martin was shot in the back then maybe you could conclude some kind of criminally aggressive intent. But that is not the case.

The evidence of what he is guilty of is hidden somewhere in the gap of time between him getting off the phone with 911 and the shooting.

Had Zimmerman done the exact same thing, but then caught Martin trying to break in to a house or attack someone we wouldn't be having this conversation. It would be simply a case of what level of violence is acceptable in stopping a crime. If Martin's intentions were bad enough we'd be calling Zimmerman a hero.

Apply your reasoning to a similar act in a situation that doesn't end in a tragic mistake and see if Zimmerman's actions before the confrontation sound unreasonable.

 

[niky]

He was told to stop by the 911 operator. While it's debateable whether a mere operator has the same authority as a beat cop, he was told to stop following the man.

Tailing a suspicious looking character is one thing. Getting out for a physical confrontation is another. Other person looks suspicious, call it in and stay in the car. They look violent? Lock your doors and stay in the car.

If Martin was intent on mischief, then perhaps there would be reason to accost him... but civilians don't get to shoot suspicious people on the basis of "bad intentions".

In the end, Martin was shot not after performing a break in, stealing a car or smashing a house window. He was shot after beating up a man who was following him. If the man wasn't following him, then there is a very valid case for self-defense. But since he was, and since he apparently got out of his vehicle in order to get beaten up, then the case for the prosecution is that Zimmerman instigated the incident... which would make the "stand your ground" ruling moot.

I've played cop myself in my time, but have never forgotten the rule: If you don't have a badge or a uniform, you don't have the authority or training to handle the situation. Call for back-up. Unless said suspicious person is in the process of assaulting another human being, stay the hell away.

Shooting another human isn't a tragic mistake. It's a conscious decision to end someone else's life. The mere act of carrying carries with it the mindset (I've had arms training) that a gun is useless unless used. Which is why I don't carry. A gun isn't a defensive solution, it's an offensive one. And a pretty final one, at that.

----

EDIT: This is not to say that Zimmerman had no right or duty to protect his neighborhood, but again, as above... there's a reason most neighborhood watches don't go around packing heat...

 

[Zenith]

Doesn't matter if the boy was a hot-head. Doesn't matter if he beat the crap out of him when he confronted him. He was stalking him, was told to stop, kept stalking him, then he shot him. Those are the facts, however you spin it.

You just spun it right there.

You make no mention of the evidence that suggests that Martin had attacked Zimmerman and could possibly have been beating him to death. This is the same thing that the news organizations have been doing.

I believe CNN was reporting new evidence that came out in Zimmerman's favor when they introduced the story as...

"The story of a teenage boy who was shot to death while walking through a neighborhood."

These are facts, but a selected group that make the story appear differently than it would if all the facts were presented.

He was told to stop by the 911 operator. While it's debateable whether a mere operator has the same authority as a beat cop, he was told to stop following the man.

This is true, but so what? Any person could have told him to stop. It could be you, me, or my mother and it would have the same weight in the legal system as the advice from the 911 Operator.

Tailing a suspicious looking character is one thing. Getting out for a physical confrontation is another. Other person looks suspicious, call it in and stay in the car. They look violent? Lock your doors and stay in the car.

There's no way to prove whether or not Zimmerman was looking for a physical confrontation. We will probably never be sure of his true intentions.

If Martin was intent on mischief, then perhaps there would be reason to accost him... but civilians don't get to shoot suspicious people on the basis of "bad intentions".

Yes, but civilians should be able to shoot a person if that person is putting their life in serious danger (case in point: the person is beating said civilian into a pulp.)

and since he apparently got out of his vehicle in order to get beaten up

This is more "spin." The reason he got out of his vehicle could be any of a hundred reasons.

I've played cop myself in my time, but have never forgotten the rule: If you don't have a badge or a uniform, you don't have the authority or training to handle the situation. Call for back-up. Unless said suspicious person is in the process of assaulting another human being, stay the hell away.

I don't think many people will defend Zimmerman's actions of tailing and confronting Martin. I certainly won't. What's important to the courts is whether or not Zimmerman was acting in self defense, not whether or not he is a good neighborhood watchman.

Shooting another human isn't a tragic mistake. It's a conscious decision to end someone else's life. The mere act of carrying carries with it the mindset (I've had arms training) that a gun is useless unless used. Which is why I don't carry. A gun isn't a defensive solution, it's an offensive one. And a pretty final one, at that.

I agree, but often times making this offensive decision is with the intention of avoiding certain consequences. There are many cases where a shooter was justified.

EDIT: This is not to say that Zimmerman had no right or duty to protect his neighborhood, but again, as above... there's a reason most neighborhood watches don't go around packing heat...

Agreed.

 

[niky]

If he got beaten up, he obviously didn't plan to kill the boy outright... so he has that in his favor. The question really is how well each team of attorneys spin the story. Zimmerman can claim self-defense, but the prosecution can make a case for Martin also acting in self-defense.

It's going to be awfully hard to find an impartial jury at this point.

-

There's a reason police often arrest or discourage vigilantes, even in the absence of shootings or firearms. This is because private individuals trying to perform the job of the police are not trained, equipped or prepared for these situations... and they can and do make mistakes.

Getting out of his car was Zimmerman's first big mistake. Not having a truncheon or a taser was his second. Whether it was to confront, search or whatnot... Zimmerman is probably wishing now that he didn't get out of his car that night.

 

[FoolKiller]

He was told to stop by the 911 operator. While it's debateable whether a mere operator has the same authority as a beat cop, he was told to stop following the man.

I went back and listened to the recording again, because I have not seen anything that definitely shows he was actively pursuing Martin after the call. He said, "OK" when they said they didn't need him to follow Martin and the background wind noise seems to quiet down. He then says that Martin is running, but the audio does not indicate that he follows. In fact, he goes on to give his address and discuss where he will meet the police.

If Martin was intent on mischief, then perhaps there would be reason to accost him... but civilians don't get to shoot suspicious people on the basis of "bad intentions".

This assumes Zimmerman accosted Martin. We don't know who accosted whom.

In the end, Martin was shot not after performing a break in, stealing a car or smashing a house window. He was shot after beating up a man who was following him. If the man wasn't following him, then there is a very valid case for self-defense. But since he was, and since he apparently got out of his vehicle in order to get beaten up, then the case for the prosecution is that Zimmerman instigated the incident... which would make the "stand your ground" ruling moot.

I agree. If Zimmerman acted recklessly and his actions resulted in Martin's death Zimmerman is to blame. But that describes manslaughter. Zimmerman is charged with second degree murder.

If Martin was not assaulting Zimmerman then you can have a second degree murder but if Zimmerman was acting in self defense, due to a situation he unintentionally caused, then it is manslaughter.

Shooting another human isn't a tragic mistake. It's a conscious decision to end someone else's life.

But the law has different degrees of crime based on the situation the killing happened under.

A gun isn't a defensive solution, it's an offensive one. And a pretty final one, at that.

Way too generalized of a statement. And one that implies owning a gun shows criminal intent.

If he got beaten up, he obviously didn't plan to kill the boy outright... so he has that in his favor. The question really is how well each team of attorneys spin the story. Zimmerman can claim self-defense, but the prosecution can make a case for Martin also acting in self-defense.

The only difference that needs to be made is what led Zimmerman to pull his gun. If the prosecutor over-charged then the case is already lost.

 

[niky]

This assumes Zimmerman accosted Martin. We don't know who accosted whom.

We'll just have to wait and see.

I agree. If Zimmerman acted recklessly and his actions resulted in Martin's death Zimmerman is to blame. But that describes manslaughter. Zimmerman is charged with second degree murder.

If Martin was not assaulting Zimmerman then you can have a second degree murder but if Zimmerman was acting in self defense, due to a situation he unintentionally caused, then it is manslaughter.

But the law has different degrees of crime based on the situation the killing happened under.

Then the Prosecution is aiming a bit too high. A shot at point blank range and evidence of a scuffle suggests that likely they were in in the middle of the fight when Zimmerman shot Martin.

Reading the known facts of the case suggests as much, and that would indicate manslaughter, at most... unless a witness comes out and says otherwise or indicates that the fight was over and that Zimmerman went back to Martin after procuring the weapon. But as it stands... manslaughter or a valid self-defense argument seems most likely... but we're not privy to all the witness testimony that the defense and prosecution have.

Way too generalized of a statement. And one that implies owning a gun shows criminal intent.

Not criminal. Simply that a gun is not a defensive weapon. Full stop. It's an offensive weapon. And as such, you don't discharge a gun with the intent to scare someone away (unless you're pointing it up in the air... and shooting wildly into the air in a populated area is pretty criminally stupid), you shoot to kill. Not shoot to disable. That's why police and even professional vigilantes carry equipment like pepper spray and tasers.

If Zimmerman was being beaten to death and the gun was his only equipment, he did the right thing. But it's not a situation that you should ever put yourself in. Personal opinion, he should not have ever gotten out of the car, for whatever reason, unless he saw Martin assaulting another human being and was getting out to help. This is from the point of view of someone trained (somewhat) in situational awareness and security... and assuming the scuffle took place somewhere besides Zimmerman's own driveway.

I'm interested in finding out how it all went down... should serve as a lesson to neighborhood watchmen everywhere...

The only difference that needs to be made is what led Zimmerman to pull his gun. If the prosecutor over-charged then the case is already lost.

I'm not familiar with the US court system (ours is a non-jury system), but isn't it likely that they can lower charges over the course of the trial? But again, not privy to whatever witness testimony is available to the lawyers on either side, so it's a wait-and-see.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm not familiar with the US court system (ours is a non-jury system), but isn't it likely that they can lower charges over the course of the trial? But again, not privy to whatever witness testimony is available to the lawyers on either side, so it's a wait-and-see.

Once the trial starts you are being tried for the charges against you. But double jeopardy rules do not mean he can't face new charges after the trial. As we have a jury system constantly changing the charges would result in confusion, and eventually a mistrial. Keep in mind the majority of rights lies with the defendant, as he is considered innocent until the trial ends with a conviction. The burden of proof lies with the prosecutor, which is why charging too high of a charge can be risky and why a case this public is dangerous. The prosecution has won the media trial, but if they went for too much then they not only potentially risk letting a criminal get away, but destroy their own reputation. It's even worse if the suspect truly is innocent, as you destroyed his life too and he can counter sue.

 

[niky]

In this case, I feel you are right... and a backlash that would result from a mistrial would be a huge blow to the system.

I have a feeling that even if Zimmerman is eventually proven innocent (i.e.: he shot Martin in self-defense), he's not going to feel very safe after all is said and done...

 

[a6m5]

You can say that again. Oh, wait.....

 

[niky]

You can say that again. Oh, wait.....

Ninja Mod Edit.

I blame my ping.

 

[ShobThaBob]

In this case, I feel you are right... and a backlash that would result from a mistrial would be a huge blow to the system.

I have a feeling that even if Zimmerman is eventually proven innocent (i.e.: he shot Martin in self-defense), he's not going to feel very safe after all is said and done...

There isn't really an easy-to-reach court system in place that proves people innocent. It does exist in the US, but it can be very expensive and is only used by people who absolutely need it. In this case, there is no chance whatsoever that Zim could ever been proven innocent. We know he was there, we know he pulled the trigger that killed Martin. On that basis alone, there's no way he could be proven innocent - just that he couldn't be proven guilty.

There was a pretty under-the-radar case about a young man who went to great lengths to have courts find him innocent and actually say "he did not commit this crime." He crazy ex wife accused him of tying her up, beating her, and raping her. In actuality, she did it herself and he wasn't even in the city. Unfortunately, there wasn't much evidence proving that he wasn't there. The gas station he stopped at didn't have cameras, he paid with cash, and was forgettable to the people he interacted with. Her story changed a lot along the way, and she eventually admitted to fabricating the whole thing doing damage to herself just so he could never get custody of their child. She, of course, lost custody of their child and had charges filed against her.

However, due to the major implications of being charged with a 2nd degree felony, the man had a hard time moving and getting another job. All of that shows up on records regardless of whether it gets dismissed. So, he went through the process of having a court declare him not guilty and that he was in no way linked to the crime that he was charged with. Pretty gross on the womans part, but interesting to read about.

 

[FoolKiller]

it can be very expensive and is only used by people who absolutely need it.

Its called appeals court. Everyone has access to it and can have their legal costs paid by the government if their case was obviously screwed up.

In this case, there is no chance whatsoever that Zim could ever been proven innocent. We know he was there, we know he pulled the trigger that killed Martin. On that basis alone, there's no way he could be proven innocent - just that he couldn't be proven guilty.

Homicide is not a crime by itself. Homicide is all he is unable to claim innocence of. He can easily claim innocence on a second degree murder charge if his actions leading up to the death don't fit the legal definition.

It should also be noted that Zimmerman does not need to prove his innocence. He is assumed to be innocent until the trial is over. He has to disprove the prosecutions evidence of his guilt of the crime he is accused of committing. I know it sounds like semantics but there is a big difference between proving innocence and disproving guilt. It is why the prosecution must present all evidence and information to the defense in advance, when possible, but the defense can withhold information. The defendant can refuse to testify to avoid being tricked into sounding guilty, but all investigators and prosecution witnesses must testify and face cross examination that is intended to discredit their testimony.

However, due to the major implications of being charged with a 2nd degree felony, the man had a hard time moving and getting another job. All of that shows up on records regardless of whether it gets dismissed. So, he went through the process of having a court declare him not guilty and that he was in no way linked to the crime that he was charged with.

This is not a hearing, but rather a legal petition to have the record of his arrest stricken from the books. It was a greater pain for him due to the nature of the charges. Removing a record of a sexual assault charge is tricky, because when guilty people do get away with it it is important that record exists if they are accused again. Due to the Freedom of Information Act there is no legal way to have a record available for only police to see.

Zimmerman's case will be vastly different. He did commit a homicide, and that will always remain on record whether it is declared a criminal act or not.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Its called appeals court. Everyone has access to it and can have their legal costs paid by the government if their case was obviously screwed up.

No. There is a big difference in being found not guilty vs "innocent." The petition to have it expunged can work for some background checks, but definitely not all of them.

And again, thank you for reiterating what I was saying about the vast difference between innocent and not guilty. That was pretty much the point of everything I wrote. As for what you said about being found factually innocent, you're wrong. There's a gigantic difference in being found not guilty, getting it expunged, and then being declared innocent.

There is such a thing as a declaration of factual innocence, he explained to Gonzalez. A judge can grant it. It is exceedingly rare — so rare that many cops and lawyers go a career without seeing one. It means not just that prosecutors couldn't make a case against you, but that you didn't do the crime.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/27/local/la-me-accused-20110628

If anyone here is interested at all in juicy triangles and how the law can really screw someone over, and the loopholes you still have to go through despite being found not guilty, give that a read. It's long, but it's a good story about a guy that broke the most important rule of Man. Don't stick it in Crazy.

 

[JDMKING13]

I went back and listened to the recording again, because I have not seen anything that definitely shows he was actively pursuing Martin after the call. He said, "OK" when they said they didn't need him to follow Martin and the background wind noise seems to quiet down. He then says that Martin is running, but the audio does not indicate that he follows. In fact, he goes on to give his address and discuss where he will meet the police.

You might want to listen to the tape again. When the 911 operator ask Zimmerman to meet the police at the mail box at first he says OK, then all of a sudden he says "can you tell them to call me so I can tell them where I'm at." This indicates to me he had no intention to going back to the mail boxes. Also when they told him to stop pursing him the wind was defiantly still whirling in the phone. From the sounds of it In my opinion it sounded like he was still running.