Alan Dershowitz: Drop George Zimmerman’s murder charge

LOL, strange as it may seem to someone like you that claim to know all things, it is against the law to withhold evidence of a crime.

You have not been keeping up with current events, or even with what your buds are posting. The evidence posted so far shows the police trying to get into the cell phone, first it was wet and not working and later when working, it was password protected, so they went to Mr. Martin for the password but he refused to cooperate until he talked to his lawyer, you know the rest of the story, Crump the ambulance chaser went to the media instead of the police.

 

According to MSNBC -- In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program. Contemporaneous accounts indicate he shoved an officer who was questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking at an Orange County bar.

Margot... I'd hardly call shoving a police officer a violent crime.

 

GZ was in a bar when the DEA arrested GZ's underage friend.. and GZ physically tried to stop him.

Don't read media.. read the arrest report and the charges.

 

I have.

BTW, FWIW... It's Florida Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The DEA is the Drug Enforcement Administration - a Federal (U.S. Dept. of Justice) agency.

Nevertheless, the point stilll remains - shoving a police officer is not what a reasonable person would consider a violent crime.

 

Her parents called the SPD and offered to drive her to SPD to be interviewed.. They weren't interested.

Martin's father didn't have Trayvon's password.

The SPD returned the phone to Tracy Martin on March 2.. and they had not gotten the phone records .. their excuse being that they would have had to get warrant.

Real Keystone Cops cr*p.

 

Oh. My. Goodness. You are the one clearly not privy to the facts. Let me help you out:

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/249584-z-discovery-evidence-pdf-file.html

Everything I said is in the PDF file. Once you familiarize yourself with the facts you say are not yet available, try responding again.

 

Shoving anyone is a violent crime. Wtf is wrong with you?

 

Do you realize that when T ran away he was not running from someone chasing him on foot? Do you want us to believe T thought he could outrun a truck??????

 

I would love to be able to ask each participant three questions to see if they gave their opinion based on the actual facts or, like you and others, based on false and distorted info from the media?

Even after the actual files have been made available the media and others are relying not on the facts from the actual documents, but straight up wrong info.

 

We have evidence Z, his dad, his wife, and his lawyer have all been dishonest yet you take everything they say as gold God fact. There is absolutely no evidence D ever lied but you accuse her of lying. What's worse, your camp is saying she cannot be trusted while at the same time trying to use her testimony to claim T doubled back. It's like one big lame joke and it is not an accident you guys generally fall into the far right nationalist political spectrums. Your hypocritical standards, active ignorance of facts, distortion of events, and outright creating items out of thin air are how you guys operate, regardless of the issue.

 

God Bless you for having the patience to respond.

Do you think this would be a good example of exploring why Z supporters are not complaining about the outright false and inaccurate info from the media?

 

Correction:

Trayvon was 6'3" and weighed 150...........

 

The FBI defines four "violent crimes" in their Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) statistics - Murder, Forcible Rape, Robbery, and Aggrevated Assault.

And before you go off the deep end -- "The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines aggravated assault as an unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. The UCR Program further specifies that this type of assault is usually accompanied by the use of a weapon or by other means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Attempted aggravated assault that involves the display of—or threat to use—a gun, knife, or other weapon is included in this crime category because serious personal injury would likely result if the assault were completed. When aggravated assault and larceny-theft occur together, the offense falls under the category of robbery."

If there was anything to this incident, Zimmerman wouldn't have been allowed to plead to a lesser offense and undergo alcohol counseling and anger-management classes.

Shoving a police officer is a violent crime... you're funny there, Juror #3!

 

I haven't based my opinion on anything, for unlike you, I haven't come to a conclusion as to Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

My only comment is that I think that Zimmerman will be acquitted based upon a presumption of reasonable doubt - there's too much room for doubt.

In other words, Juror #3 - this is not by any means an open and shut case.

 

Then you simply have not learned the facts of the case. Z doesn't have much backing up his claims.

 

Who said this is endemic to the FBI's glossary???? Once again, shoving anyone is a violent crime. If you don't believe me, then go to the store, push someone, and see if your charge will be considered nonviolent.

Z shouldn't have been able to participate in the pre Trial diversion but he obviously had an advantage over most others in his shoes.

 

Facts? The facts are this - the medical reports neither exonerate nor condemn Zimmerman, while they don't conclusively verify his version of events, they also don't conclusively prove he's lying. The witness testimony is - as usual - all over the board. Some witnesses tend to corroborate Zimmerman's story, other witnesses tend to cast doubt on his statements.

What you're doing is cherry-picking facts to prove Zimmerman is guilty, because you WANT Zimmerman to be guilty. Anything that casts doubt on his guilt is dismissed by you, because you so desperately WANT Zimmerman to be guilty.

The difference between you and I is that I'm remaining impartial, you're already measuring Zimmerman for a rope necktie. All I can say is "Thank God you won't be on the jury that decides this case."

That's why the prisons are filled with violent shovers - aggrevated shoving is such a violent crime...

 

Huh? He was struck in the face, suffered a broken nose, black eyes, abrasions on his forehead, lacerations to the back of his head, and had grass stains on his back. An eyewitness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, hitting him in the face. There was a cut on the back of Martins hand which is consistent with striking someone in the face. And there were no marks of being physically assaulted anywhere on Martins body. This is a classic prerequisite for the use of a firearm in self defense. And Zimmerman can be heard on tape calling for help a number of times before having to use his firearm to stop the assault upon his person by the guy who was on top of him. And you say that Zimmerman doesn't have much to back up his claims?! Heck, he has everything.

 

I've been accused of cherry picking before and I always give the same response: please show what evidence exists that I have not addressed. Maybe you won't be like the others and will be able to back up your allegation-chances are not good though because there is no evidence Iam aware of that I have not addressed. When you fail to back up your charge, just pretend you didn't make the accusation.

There are different degrees of violent crimes and I wrongly assumed others possessed the requisite intelligence for comprehension of such an elementary observation. One act of violence being more severe than another act of violence doesn't negate the violent nature of the lesser action.

 

Wow. Do you think it would be a good idea for you to learn the actual facts before making such an embarrassing post. As usual, Z supporters have to be tutored so dialogue can happen.

It is unknown if T punched Z. The physical evidence can go either way.

There isn't a single witness claiming T was punching Z.

Two experts said it was not Z screaming on the tape. At least two witnesses said they believed it was T screaming. The FDLE had Z lay down on the ground and told him scream as he claimed to be screaming that night, and guess what? They couldn't make a positive match from Z's screams to the screams on the 911 call. An FBI analyst said his results were inconclusive.

One eyewitness saw T on top of Z but after that, two different eyewitnesses saw one person on the ground by himself BEFORE the gunshot.

There was no damage to any of T's knuckles and there wasn't a single mark on his right hand.

There was no DNA or blood from Z on T's hands, cuffs, or lower sleeves.

There is much more but let's see how well you do in learning the correct information.

 

Then explain Zimmerman's contusion to the back of his head and his broken nose. Explain the grass stains and wetness on Zimmerman's clothing.

Some of the physical evidence tends to back Zimmerman's story, some of it doesn't. Some of the witnesses corroborate Zimmerman's story, others don't.

Reasonable doubt, boyo. Reasonable doubt.

BTW - This so-called "violent" crime of Zimmerman's, is not much different than what Justin Bieber is accused of doing to a paparazzi photographer in Los Angeles yesterday. I'd hardly consider Bieber to be "violent". You might, but I wouldn't.

 

There is no actual evidence he had a broken nose. He and his doctor speculated it was broken but there is no actual proof and this is important because it mitigates the claimed seriousness of his injuries.

He never once sought medical treatment for pain due to his injuries. He also didn't go to a doctor until about 10 hours after being released from the cops. The autopsy was being done on T before Z went to see his doctor.

There were no grass stains on him at all. When EMS attended to Z while sitting in the back of a cop car it was noted Z was warm and DRY. The arresting officer said his back looked wet but it obviously wasn't that wet since he was dry when EMS arrived ten minutes after the shooting.

Z's bald head means his scalp is more open to injury than normal yet neither laceration required stitches or bandages the night of the shooting. EMS cleared him in about ten minutes.

The absence of blood and DNA from Z on T's hands, cuffs, and sleeves proves T had no contact with Z's head after the injuries. The lack of any marks on T's knuckles shows he was not beating on Z. The small abrasion on T's left fourth finger below the knuckle is not conclusive of anything. It could mean T punched him or it could mean he scraped it during the wrestling like Z scraped his forehead.

I'm aware of no blood samples being collected from the sidewalk, but I do know blood samples were recovered from the grassy area between two buildings. The actual struggle last for almost a full minute so there are several possibilities on how Z got the head injuries.

Here is the problem, let's say T did punch him and knock him down. That does not justify Z shooting him. The lack of marks on Z's hands show he didn't try to fight back very much and responded with a gun. The lack of marks on T's hands (except for the one minor one) shows he was not repeatedly hitting Z or bashing his head onto concrete.

When cops arrived they noticed keys and other metal objects on the ground near the fight. Why couldn't Z have gotten injured from those while the two were wrestling on the ground?

 

Exactly what is Zimmerman's story?

 

You don't think it's possible to break someone's nose, blacken their eyes, and slam their head into the ground without either getting blood on themselves, or leaving marks on their hands?

Supposing someone punches you, knocks you to the ground, and begins pounding on you. At what point do you decide that lethal force is justified? Please cite applicable Florida SYG law in your reply.

One more comment...

Has it ever occurred to you, that maybe, just maybe, that Sanford PD Investigator Chris Serino might have had a little animosity against George Zimmerman for his testimony the year before in the Justin Collison affair? Maybe just a little? Or is Chris Serino absolutely, positively, 110% above reproach?

Due process and reasonable doubt.

 

That he was headed back to his truck a street away when Trayvon came up behind him..

He claims that Trayvon "doubled back"...

He claims Trayvon punched him, knocked him down and was bashing his head against the sidewalk... also putting a hand over his mouth.

I wonder if GZ knew that Trayvon was on the phone.. since the headset was under the hoodies.

Here's a short thing from a forensics expert.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...n-how-crucial-is-trayvon-martins-autopsy.html