Zimmerman`s Full Affidavit Filed By Prosecutors

Submitted by: kitteh9lives 5 years ago in
http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

The affidavit filed Wed. by prosecutors to establish probable cause of 2nd-degree murder in the Trayvon Martin case.
There are 93 comments:
Female 584
@Ivran ok. He said he wasn`t going to run but walk fast. He also asked Zimmerman why he was FOLLOWING him. If some stranger was following me I`m going to be prepared to defend myself. What would you do if a strange man was following you at night?
0
Reply
Male 599
@Satkela Initiating a fight and beating someone is illegal. Following someone isn`t necessarily illegal.
0
Reply
Male 599
@Satkela
You left out the part where Martin said "I`m not running".
0
Reply
Female 584
@5cats Zimmerman did approach Martin according to Martin`s friend who was on the phone with him at the time. Martin stated that a strange man was following him and his friend advised him to run. Zimmerman chased Martin down and the scuffle began. I never called Zimmerman racist nor blood thirsty but he was being a vigilante and he took it too far and because he did a young man is dead. Whether Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked or was kicking ass doesn`t matter. He still pursued Martin unprevoked which resulted in Martins death. He should have listened to the police and left it alone.
0
Reply
Male 41,069
@Satkela: There`s two main flaws in your timeline:
1) we do not know if Z approached M or the other way around. We only have Z`s word on that.
2) IF M attacked Z, and his head was getting bashed into the sidewalk, the by golly YES he can, legally, draw his weapon to defend himself!

Both these things are open to question. Claiming to "know" that Z is a "bloodthirsty vigilanti" is pure speculation.

Did you know Zimmerman passed out leaflets calling for justice in the police killing of a black man? How racist is that! Oh wait it`s NOT!

Too bad you`re unlikely to read this, just thought I`d mention it.
0
Reply
Female 584
@ivran So let me get this straight...Zimmerman suspected Martin of being up to no good so he calls the police. The Dispatcher tells him to wait for an officer to investigate but Zimmerman being the outstanding citizen that he is thinks that`s not good enough so he leaves his vehicle and pursues Martin with gun in tow. He follows the boy, Martin notices and runs (because quite frankly if some strange guy was following me I would run as well) a chase ensues and somehow Zimmerman catches Martin. A fight breaks out. Apparently Zimmerman was getting his ass handed to him so he pulls out his gun and shoots Martin. Your argument is that the cause and effect aren`t always evident but it seems pretty cut and dry to me. Zimmerman should have let the police handle it simple as that. But because he wanted to play the role of Captain Vigilante, he got in way over his head and now he should face the consequences of his ill thought out actions.
0
Reply
Male 599
@Satkela
Please read this. Now, if you would like to present a valid argument as to why Z is guilty, then please go ahead. Spewing emotional buzzwords does not constitute an argument nor does it make you look intelligent.
0
Reply
Female 584
Last I checked if you pursued and gunned downed an unarmed person you got arrested and sent to prison. I find it funny that some people are trying to justify Martins death because he looks like a "thug". Zimmerman is no hero. He`s a self serving vigilante who got in way over his head. Whether his motive for chasing down Martin was racially driven or not, the fact still remains he chased down a teen boy, got into a scuffle with him and killed him. Zimmerman deserves some sort of punishment as does ANYONE who kills a otherwise innocent person. Had Martin been breaking into Zimmerman`s house or car and got shot then it would have been something else. But he was coming from the store minding his own damn business!
0
Reply
Male 599
@ivran might need to be*
0
Reply
Male 599
@jamie76 Your silly comment is just another example of emotion over reason. Sure, Florida`s stand your ground laws are flawed, but that doesn`t mean the idea is flawed. The law might not need to be revised, but the purpose isn`t necessarily what is wrong here. Also, we don`t know that Z committed murder. Suggesting a law change on an assumption is dumb.
0
Reply
Male 599
@jamie76
"we have become a society so afraid of crime, terrorist, whatever, that we willingly give up our rights and hand them over in the name of flase security."

We haven`t given up anything. The right to bear arms has been here since the beginning. Also, do you really think ONE incident is enough to justify such a controversial law change?
0
Reply
Male 2,344
I think people are losing sight of something here.

it doesn`t matter what caused the shooting that night. what matters is how we got here in the first place...why it is that a person can carry a deadly weapon, use it and then, with no other witnesses to verify the claim, state they were defending themselves.

this is the legalization of murder so long as no one else sees it and can refute the shooters account.

we have become a society so afraid of crime, terrorist, whatever, that we willingly give up our rights and hand them over in the name of flase security.

people, one of the biggest factors in a free society is the concept that you will always have to live with danger in order to preserve your freedom.

you cannot have total security and be truly free at the same time. security is about government control and freedom is about personal control. the two cannot exist together, ever.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
Famous liberal lawyer Alan Dershowitz called this affidavit "irresponsible and unethical" and that the 2nd degree murder charge was "way overcharged and would result in an acquittal". Dershowitz even said, "This affidavit doesn`t even make it to probable cause" and "A good judge will throw this out"
0
Reply
Male 599
@collegebound Well neither am I, honey child, neither am I.
0
Reply
Male 168
Wow, thats full of wild assumptions and unsubstantiated information. Along with a bunch of information that shouldn`t have been included at all.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
ivran: im not arguing at all :)
0
Reply
Male 599
@collegebound Am I arguing with you? Or are you the one arguing with me? Hmmm. Funny how things work out, eh?
0
Reply
Male 3,745
ivran: good to see you are still arguing with me :) trolld.
0
Reply
Male 599
@collegebound Back in my day, if someone wasn`t crying, screaming, or contemplating suicide, they hadn`t been trolled. Now, apparently all trolling amounts to is one douchey comment on facebook or reddit. What has the world come to?
0
Reply
Male 599
@collegebound
Alright, I`m done with ya. I`m never going to be able to convince you kids that acting stupid isn`t actually `trolling`.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
ivran: you fell for it didnt you? trolled.

you aren`t anywhere near the level of 5Cats or CrakrJak in my eyes.
0
Reply
Male 599
@whodat6484 I bet 5cats and Fatninja know a few cats who could whoop your ass, so you be careful what you say around them.
0
Reply
Male 599
@collegebound Ha, no. If you think what you did was trolling then you aren`t a true troll. Instigating 1 comment != trolling. Also, claiming you have `trolled` someone != trolling. I hate the way people throw around that word these days. "I`m not wrong. I`m just trolling! lolz"
0
Reply
Male 3,745
ivran: im not here to be mature good sir. only to troll. which you have been. good day.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@phyrro - That`s right, I clicked the link for the sole purpose of expressing how tired I am of hearing this sh*t. Thank you for noticing!

p.s. I`m not a big fan of cats, they`re arrogant, spiteful and evil little creatures.
0
Reply
Male 3,285
The last paragraph is the most important thing.

However, even if he`s found not guilty under a court of law, youd still get a bunch of vigilante morons thinking they are psychic and know better.
0
Reply
Male 599
@collegebound That`s real mature of you, mate.
0
Reply
Male 40,189

[quote]"That case is weaker than a stillborn kitten." [/quote]
*sigh*

I miss pmarren...
0
Reply
Male 599
@Kalimata Unless the prosecution has more evidence.
0
Reply
Male 661
With the burden of proof being on the prosecution, Zimmerman will walk.
0
Reply
Male 3,745
lololololololololololololololololololol is all i have to say about the comments on this thread...seems like ivran looks up to 5Cats and CrakrJak alot...
0
Reply
Male 7
@Rawrg, Obvious troll is obvious.

@whodat6484, you`re gettin sick of hearing about it...yet you clicked on the link & commented when you could of just ignored it & looked at cat pictures instead.
0
Reply
Male 5,182
"That case is weaker than a stillborn kitten."

I am really not a fan of your insane partisan rhetoric OldOllie but this made me laugh.
0
Reply
Male 1,218
Is this for real? It reads like something an 8th grader would write.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
I`m really getting sick of hearing about this and can`t wait for it to be over. Sadly, I have a bad feeling that this sh*t is going to drag on & on forever and no matter what the outcome is the majority of the people interested in it will be pissed off. It will probably go something like this:

A) Not Guilty, justifiable homicide = everyone`s racist, blah, blah, blah

B) Guilty of Murder 2nd Degree, life in prison = not enough, he should be hanged, drawn & quartered live on primetime tv

C) Some kind of Plea Bargain or a Mistrial = we`ll never hear the end of it...
0
Reply
Male 934
Look, all I know is that there`s one less darky in the world. What`s wrong with that?
0
Reply
Male 599
@auburnjunky How far is Auburn from Alabama(the elephant university)?
0
Reply
Male 10,338
@Keith: So the rest of us here, cons and libs both, think this is hogwash, and makes the case easier for Z, but you think he`s fuxxed?

Pray tell why?


0
Reply
Male 599
"That case is weaker than a stillborn kitten."
That`s not a very nice phrase to use. We have quite a few kitty cats here with us.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
meh....
0
Reply
Male 2,591
Yeah... Zimmerman is fxxked!
0
Reply
Male 15,832
That case is weaker than a stillborn kitten. Not only will this never even make it to trial, GZ is going to end up owning that idiot prosecutor`s house.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
In my opinion CNN is much worse now. And Fox isn`t as crazy right anymore. Which is a shame, they were the only network making the sensationalized crazy fair and balanced.
The only reporter that I fully trust is John Stossel. I have a huge mancrush on him:
http://www.hulu.com/stossel
0
Reply
Male 599
@5kittens Right, I would hope that these experts are not going to be used as evidence for this trial.
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust123
While they might be better on some issues, they are just as bad as Fox and NBC on others. They are just better at hiding. It also depends on what individual segments of CNN you are watching. Sure, overall, CNN isn`t quite as bad, but there are some issues where they just parody NBC(I was watching CNN today in fact, in a restaurant where I couldn`t change the channel :( They started hating on Romney and his wife without even reporting the exact statement she made. I`m not really a fan of either of them, but it`s kind of unfair to just start hating on stuff without a full report first.
0
Reply
Male 5,182
"being anti-partisan is just as bad..."

I know. I`ll get off my high horse. I just hate partisan media so bad. It tears friends and families apart. It is dividing this great nation like nothing before. Opinion media sucks!
0
Reply
Male 41,069
@markust & @Smutleybutt: Those "experts" are as fake as a 3 dollar bill! They broke EVERY rule in forensic audio analysis, and are selling their gizmo. One bragged about how he `got on TV` to promote the product.

Fake experts = fake results!
0
Reply
Male 5,182
You are winning me back with your last statement. I have to disagree on this, "It`s Fox on the crazy-ass far right and CNN and NBC on the just as crazy left side." Fox and MSNBC are on opposite sides of sensationalism. But CNN is world wide. Unless they have changed dramatically in the last year and a half since I gave up cable news I don`t think you are correct. I`m pretty sure they still try to follow the standards of journalism something MSNBC and Fox News gave up long ago. You`re still suspect for using "MSM" in a statement.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
It`s funny and ironic how they say they can`t argue with some people...then start name calling. lol
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust123 That`s because they are on the same side. It`s Fox on the crazy-ass far right and CNN and NBC on the just as crazy left side. You admitted to not watching televised news, so how would you know anyways? I make a point to not watch it, but I am sometimes in situations where I can`t help it.
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust123 You`re contradicting yourself. You yourself admitted to the televised news media being partisan and sensational, but when I make that claim, it just means I get my information from sensational news sources(Which I don`t. Why would I hate on the news that I watched?)
0
Reply
Male 5,182
"The media, on both sides, have already sold their side. They aren`t going to report something that might make their original argument seem weak."

You lump in all non-Fox media in with MSNBC as being on the same side. And that is when you lose the argument. Yes Fox News and MSNBC clearly have a side but there are many stations out there that still practice the standards of journalism.
0
Reply
Male 694
markust, being anti-partisan is just as bad...
0
Reply
Male 5,182
"How about, instead of resorting to ad hominem, you address my comments, and explain why they are wrong or why you disagree with them. How has what anything I said partisan? I hated on both sides of the media."

It is imposible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who blames the "MSM". That is the warning sign that the person you are talking to only gets their news from partisan sensational sources.

"Is there an anti-media party now?" If there was I would be a member. I hate cable news and all the partisan BS that goes with it.
0
Reply
Male 599
@DingDingDong I usually `get along` with people I`m arguing with. Why people have to resort to insults and name calling, I don`t know.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
0
Reply
Male 599
@swoop408 Same goes for you about the ad hominem.
It`s a fallacious form of argument
0
Reply
Male 599
@swoop408 When did I say anything about `liberals`?
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust123 How about, instead of resorting to ad hominem, you address my comments, and explain why they are wrong or why you disagree with them. How has what anything I said partisan? I hated on both sides of the media. Is there an anti-media party now?
0
Reply
Male 1,754
@markust -- I`ve stopped arguing with these tools. Cleary, common sense doesn`t come into play with them. Keep blaming MSM and generalizing all liberals fellas.

lol jackasses....
0
Reply
Male 5,182
Ivran, Are you trying to climb to the top of the ladder of the most partisan person on IAB? You have some stiff competition. But your lack of listening and reading skills is a good start.
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust123 The media, on both sides, have already sold their side. They aren`t going to report something that might make their original argument seem weak.
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust123 Yea, he was fired to cover their asses. The point is, they aren`t below falsifying information(that wasn`t the first time they`ve done something like that, it`s just the first time people made a huge deal about it).
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust123 Also, I could survive that drinking game. It doesn`t happen that often. Especially, since "losing an argument" is up to interpretation around these parts. In fact, everyone always thinks they are the one winning the argument anyways.
0
Reply
Male 5,182
That was one news program and the producer was fired.
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust Pretty sure we are talking about two different witnesses. I don`t think the one I`m talking about was a kid. I believe the one you are talking about is now claiming that it was Trayvon under Zimmerman.
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust123 Blaming the MSM in this case is a reasonable argument. Look at what they did with the telephone call. You can`t argue that they aren`t biased. They basically edited the phone call to make Zimmerman out to be racist, when, in reality, there was no racist remarks in the phone call.
0
Reply
Male 5,182
"Right, that`s why the eyewitness identified the two based on the clothes they were wearing and not other physical features."

If you actually read the article it clearly states that the cops were trying to feed this information to the kid. It`s a Foxnews article. It won`t bite.
0
Reply
Male 5,182
I have a new IAB drinking game. Every time someone is loosing an argument and they resort to blaming the MSM you take a shot. Actually taking that many shots would be lethal. How about you take a sip each time.
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust123 Right, that`s why the eyewitness identified the two based on the clothes they were wearing and not other physical features.
0
Reply
Male 5,182
More than one witness has claimed it was too dark to see anything:

"He kept telling them he couldn`t see anything because it was too dark," she said. "He said he couldn`t see the race or anything.
0
Reply
Male 599
@Smutleybutt Yea, and those 2 `experts` worked for the MSM.
0
Reply
Male 599
@markust123 I don`t find that odd. However, I would find it odd if a mother knew it wasn`t her son and told the truth about it.
0
Reply
Male 1,377
@ivran and dingdong Not only does the mother say it was Trayvon screaming but 2 experts agree it was not zimmerman yelling for help Another video was posted on IAB about it, as well as this article
0
Reply
Male 5,182
Experts have also concluded that the screams are not Zimmerman`s. The link is just one of the experts. The court`s will have Zimmerman scream for them. And top sound experts will give the final analysis. I find it odd that you don`t believe a mother can recognize her sons cries for help.
0
Reply
Male 41,069
Well thanks @wake_n_bake! I feel all warm and fuzzy now :-)
0
Reply
Male 41,069
Trayvon`s dad said it was not Trayvon`s voice, but changed his mind after talking with the lawyers. The mom has always said it was Trayvon.
That`s hardly likely to `stand up` in court though.

An eye-witness (some reports say more than one) SAW Trayvon on top of Zimmerman.
SO: we are supposed to believe that M was on top of Z, pounding on his face while also screaming for help? And that Z silently endured his head getting bashed? Hummm...

Also this Affidavit claims Z confronted M, but there`s no witness to that at all! At least not yet. As I keep pointing out, the GF on the phone said M spoke to Z first.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
@ivran I agree with you. This is how I feel:


And the reason I`m confused by this post is because it reads "Zimmerman`s Full Affidavit Filed By Prosecutors." There`s nothing here. Nothing new, and it even conflicts with prior police reports. Weird.
0
Reply
Male 663
and I don`t mean that condescendingly, I really do want to hug the man
0
Reply
Male 663
I wanna give 5 cats a hug
0
Reply
Male 599
@DingDingDong Right, I understand the possibility of the situation, but none of those things you said are hard evidence. The mother`s testimony is almost assuredly unreliable. Making a claim like that without having hard, infallible evidence seems like a risky move to me, especially with a possible eyewitness to go against that claim.
0
Reply
Male 1,510

Travon`s mother says it`s her son`s voice in the background of a noisy 911 call.

OR

A police officer in the initial report states that he overheard Zimmerman telling the EMTs that he was screaming for help and no one would help him.
So Zimmerman must have been lying when talking to the EMTs about that? Or the officer made it up?
0
Reply
Male 599
Can someone explain how they are obtaining the evidence that it was T-thugz crying for help? I don`t really see how they would be able to tell that without a witness.
0
Reply
Male 40,189

A saw nothing new, nothing we didn`t already know.
0
Reply
Male 16
He`s gonna be acquitted if it ever goes to trial.
0
Reply
Male 5,182
Holy crap 5Cats you got through two comments without using the word Liberal or MSM. If I was wearing a hat I would tip it to you my good man.
0
Reply
Male 41,069
0
Reply
Male 41,069
While it`s true that (afaik) the DA doesn`t need to list all the evidence in the affidavit, they usually show SOME evidence!

This is a very poor start for the prosecution, flimsy evidence which might not even be allowed in the courtroom!

But it`s just for politics: truth or justice need not apply.
0
Reply
Male 1,510
@Altaru Yeah, I know, that`s why I echoed that.
I`m just saying I`m disappointed that it didn`t have new facts, or more facts, or all of the known facts. It`s just an affidavit to prove the prosecution`s case.
0
Reply
Male 3,482
[quote]Not a comprehensive list of facts and evidence and witness statements.[/quote]
It pretty much says that in the last sentence.

Derp...
0
Reply
Male 1,510

I`m so confused by this, it seems so one sided. Like what about the initial police report of Zimmerman`s injuries. And the dispatcher didn`t "instruct" him not to follow, he said they "didn`t need him to." I was really hoping for a more comprehensive case description. What about the witness that stated Zimmerman was being punched on the ground?

I guess this is more like the attorney`s opening arguments to prove her case. Not a comprehensive list of facts and evidence and witness statements.
0
Reply
Male 2,737
Wow, they forgot to mention that George Zimmerman was foaming at the mouth, from smoking PCP laced Salvia all afternoon, and killing puppies with bricks.
0
Reply
Female 8,043
Link: Zimmerman`s Full Affidavit Filed By Prosecutors [Rate Link] - The affidavit filed Wed. by prosecutors to establish probable cause of 2nd-degree murder in the Trayvon Martin case.
0
Reply