Trayvon Martin Death Investigation

edge540 wrote:

Looks like George who is 28 years old, has a problem telling the truth.
And now we have this:
Martin attorney: Zimmerman misled court about money
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/27/justice/florida-zimmerman-money/index.html

Oh yeah,huge problem telling the truth...
Zimmerman attorney to tell judge of donated $200,000 in Trayvon case

Quote :

SANFORD -- George Zimmerman declared himself indigent at a bond hearing last week, but now his attorney says he raised more than $200,000 from donations from the public.

Attorney Mark O’Mara told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he will disclose that Friday to Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester.

“Certainly, we’re going to deal with it in a more transparent way,” O’Mara said, admitting that knowledge of the money could have affected Lester’s decision to free Zimmerman on $150,000 bond.

What a guy
George Zimmerman Myspace page: Trayvon Martin shooter called Mexicans ‘wanna be thugs’

Quote :

George Zimmerman's 2005 Myspace page, unearthed by the Miami Herald on Wednesday, suggests Trayvon Martin's shooter had a history of racial profiling.

On Wednesday, Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, confirmed that the page—registered under the username "onlytobekingagain"—was real.

In the "About me" section, Zimmerman—identified as "Joe G."—expressed resentment toward Mexicans living in his former Manassas, Va., community:

Quote :

I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!

In a blog post dated Aug. 24, 2005, Zimmerman downplayed an alleged domestic dispute involving his ex-girlfriend:

Quote :

"Im still free! The ex hoe tried her hardest, but the judge saw through it! Big Mike, reppin the Dverse security makin me look a million bucks, broke her down! Thanks to everyone for checkin up on me!"

In another, on Aug. 30, 2005, he boasted about how a pair of felony charges related to an alleged assault on a police officer were dropped. "2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!!" Zimmerman wrote.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

What a guy
George Zimmerman Myspace page: Trayvon Martin shooter called Mexicans ‘wanna be thugs’

Quote :

George Zimmerman's 2005 Myspace page, unearthed by the Miami Herald on Wednesday, suggests Trayvon Martin's shooter had a history of racial profiling.

On Wednesday, Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, confirmed that the page—registered under the username "onlytobekingagain"—was real.

In the "About me" section, Zimmerman—identified as "Joe G."—expressed resentment toward Mexicans living in his former Manassas, Va., community:

Quote :

I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!

In a blog post dated Aug. 24, 2005, Zimmerman downplayed an alleged domestic dispute involving his ex-girlfriend:

Quote :

"Im still free! The ex hoe tried her hardest, but the judge saw through it! Big Mike, reppin the Dverse security makin me look a million bucks, broke her down! Thanks to everyone for checkin up on me!"

In another, on Aug. 30, 2005, he boasted about how a pair of felony charges related to an alleged assault on a police officer were dropped. "2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!!" Zimmerman wrote.

[b]Racial profiling is perfectly legal.
What is your issue?[]

Not according to the 4th and 14 amendment of the Constitution. Just another nail in Georgie's coffin.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

What a guy
George Zimmerman Myspace page: Trayvon Martin shooter called Mexicans ‘wanna be thugs’

Quote :

George Zimmerman's 2005 Myspace page, unearthed by the Miami Herald on Wednesday, suggests Trayvon Martin's shooter had a history of racial profiling.

On Wednesday, Zimmerman's lawyer, Mark O'Mara, confirmed that the page—registered under the username "onlytobekingagain"—was real.

In the "About me" section, Zimmerman—identified as "Joe G."—expressed resentment toward Mexicans living in his former Manassas, Va., community:

Quote :

I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!

In a blog post dated Aug. 24, 2005, Zimmerman downplayed an alleged domestic dispute involving his ex-girlfriend:

Quote :

"Im still free! The ex hoe tried her hardest, but the judge saw through it! Big Mike, reppin the Dverse security makin me look a million bucks, broke her down! Thanks to everyone for checkin up on me!"

In another, on Aug. 30, 2005, he boasted about how a pair of felony charges related to an alleged assault on a police officer were dropped. "2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!!" Zimmerman wrote.

[b]Racial profiling is perfectly legal.
What is your issue?[]

Not according to the 4th and 14 amendment of the Constitution. Just another nail in Georgie's coffin.

Really?
If a black man walking down a dark and otherwise deserted street sees a pack of white skinheads walking toward him and he decides that it might be prudent to cross to the other side, are you telling me that he is in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and should be subject to legal prosecution?

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

[b]Racial profiling is perfectly legal.
What is your issue?[]

Not according to the 4th and 14 amendment of the Constitution. Just another nail in Georgie's coffin.

Really?
If a black man walking down a dark and otherwise deserted street sees a pack of white skinheads walking toward him and he decides that it might be prudent to cross to the other side, are you telling me that he is in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and should be subject to legal prosecution?

That's not even close to what happened in Zimmerman's case. Maybe you should have read the 4th and 14 amendment of the Constitution before putting your foot in your mouth.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

[b]Racial profiling is perfectly legal.
What is your issue?[]

Not according to the 4th and 14 amendment of the Constitution. Just another nail in Georgie's coffin.

Really?
If a black man walking down a dark and otherwise deserted street sees a pack of white skinheads walking toward him and he decides that it might be prudent to cross to the other side, are you telling me that he is in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments to the Constitution and should be subject to legal prosecution?

That's not even close to what happened in Zimmerman's case. Maybe you should have read the 4th and 14 amendment of the Constitution before putting your foot in your mouth.

Please explain how Zimmerman, by profiling Mexicans on a MySpace page, broke the law based upon these amendments - that is, if you can get your foot out your mouth, or your head out of your .... well, use your imagination.




4th

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

14th

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

happy jack wrote:

Please explain how Zimmerman, by profiling Mexicans on a MySpace page, broke the law based upon these amendments - that is, if you can get your foot out your mouth, or your head out of your .... well, use your imagination.

I never said he broke the law by profiling Mexicans on a MySpace page. What it showed is that he has a history of it.

You claimed racial profiling is legal and once again you end up dead wrong.
Court date set for Arpaio's racial profiling case

Quote :

PHOENIX - The case in which Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is accused of racially profiling Latinos will go to trial July 19.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Murray Snow told attorneys they will have to make their arguments in seven days in the Melendres vs. Arpaio bench trial.

During the pretrial hearing, Snow also denied Arpaio’s lawyers a request that certain evidence be withheld.

The evidence is what Melendres’ attorneys argue shows a racially charged atmosphere at Maricopa County Sheriffs Office.

"We have a lot of documentary evidence from the sheriff's office itself where the sheriff has written in his own handwriting evidence that we believe supports our racial profiling case,” said Stanley Young of Covington & Burling, the law firm representing the plaintiffs.

"The sheriff and his subordinates are relying on letters that talk about people simply speaking Spanish or people having dark skin and making decisions on enforcement based on those types of attitudes,” he added.

During the hearing, Snow showed concern over the already ongoing Department of Justice investigation that has similar claims about Arpaio.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

I never said he broke the law by profiling Mexicans on a MySpace page. What it showed is that he has a history of it.
You claimed racial profiling is legal and once again you end up dead wrong.

[b]The so-called racial profiling you pointed out in the case of Zimmerman is perfectly legal.

Yeah,but that's not what you said ,is it? You made the following broad statement which as I pointed out is totally wrong.

Quote :

Racial profiling is perfectly legal.

Quote :

If he has a history of profiling Mexicans on a MySpace page, how in the world does that impact the Trayvon Martin case?

The Prosecutor in her probable cause affidavit stated that Zimmerman profiled Martin. www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Zimmerman_Probable_Cause_Document.pdf This latest revelation clearly shows that he has a history of it and therefore likely profiled Martin.

Quote :

it is not illegal

but it is relative

Quote :

Motive
An idea, belief, or emotion that impels a person to act in accordance with that state of mind.

Motive is usually used in connection with Criminal Law to explain why a person acted or refused to act in a certain way—for example, to support the prosecution's assertion that the accused committed the crime. If a person accused of murder was the beneficiary of a life insurance policy on the deceased, the prosecution might argue that greed was the motive for the killing.

Proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution. In determining the guilt of a criminal defendant, courts are generally not concerned with why the defendant committed the alleged crime, but whether the defendant committed the crime. However, a defendant's motive is important in other stages of a criminal case, such as police investigation and sentencing. Law enforcement personnel often consider potential motives in detecting perpetrators. Judges may consider the motives of a convicted defendant at sentencing and either increase a sentence based on avaricious motives or decrease the sentence if the defendant's motives were honorable—for example, if the accused acted in defense of a family member.

In criminal law, motive is distinct from intent. Criminal intent refers to the mental state of mind possessed by a defendant in committing a crime. With few exceptions the prosecution in a criminal case must prove that the defendant intended to commit the illegal act. The prosecution need not prove the defendant's motive. Nevertheless, prosecutors and defense attorneys alike may make an issue of motive in connection with the case.

For example, if a defendant denies commission of the crime, he may produce evidence showing that he had no motive to commit the crime and argue that the lack of motive supports the proposition that he did not commit the crime. By the same token, the prosecution may produce evidence that the defendant did have the motive to commit the crime and argue that the motive supports the proposition that the defendant committed the crime. Proof of motive, without more evidence tying a defendant to the alleged crime, is insufficient to support a conviction.

A Hate Crime is one crime that requires proof of a certain motive. Generally, a hate crime is motivated by the defendant's belief regarding a protected status of the victim, such as the victim's religion, sex, disability, customs, or national origin. In states that prosecute hate crimes, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was motivated by animosity toward a protected status of the victim. Hate-crime laws are exceptions to the general rule that proof of motive is not required in a criminal prosecution.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

This latest revelation clearly shows that he has a history of it and therefore likely profiled Martin.

[b]Even if he did, it is not illegal. So, again, what is your point?[]

Are you really that dense? It's evidence of a pattern and makes it a whole lot more difficult for Zimmerman to deny he wasn't profiling Martin that night.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

It's evidence of a pattern and makes it a whole lot more difficult for Zimmerman to deny he wasn't profiling Martin that night.

[b]One more time - why should he have to deny that he was profiling Martin? Profiling, in this case, is not illegal.[]

Then explain why the prosecutor made a point to include it in her affidavit of probable cause?

[quote="happy jack"]

Artie60438 wrote:

Yeah,but that's not what you said ,is it? You made the following broad statement which as I pointed out is totally wrong.

[b]Considering you posted the below, I assumed that we were both talking about Zimmerman. I also thought you would have been able to figure that out, but I apparently overestimated your intelligence. Sorry, won’t happen again. (Actually, it probably will, since it’s impossible to underestimate.)

Artie60438 wrote:

That's not even close to what happened in Zimmerman's case. Maybe you should have read the 4th and 14 amendment of the Constitution before putting your foot in your mouth.

Sorry Jacko but you're deliberately distorting the timeline in order to try and save face. That quote of mine came way after you wrongly claimed that racial profiling is legal. Here's how it actually goes...I posted the article George Zimmerman Myspace page: Trayvon Martin shooter called Mexicans ‘wanna be thugs’
You then replied

Quote :

Racial profiling is perfectly legal.
What is your issue?

So to sum it up,you were dead wrong once again. Unable to admit that you were totally wrong you then made matters worse by deliberately distorting the timeline of comments. Thanks for not only showcasing your ignorance,but your flat-out dishonesty as well.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

It's evidence of a pattern and makes it a whole lot more difficult for Zimmerman to deny he wasn't profiling Martin that night.

[b]One more time - why should he have to deny that he was profiling Martin? Profiling, in this case, is not illegal.[]

Then explain why the prosecutor made a point to include it in her affidavit of probable cause?

I don't know - enlighten me.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

It's evidence of a pattern and makes it a whole lot more difficult for Zimmerman to deny he wasn't profiling Martin that night.

[b]One more time - why should he have to deny that he was profiling Martin? Profiling, in this case, is not illegal.[]

Then explain why the prosecutor made a point to include it in her affidavit of probable cause?

I don't know - enlighten me.

IMO,it may be used to negate any attempt by Zimmerman to claim innocence by using the "stand your ground" law.

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

It's evidence of a pattern and makes it a whole lot more difficult for Zimmerman to deny he wasn't profiling Martin that night.

[b]One more time - why should he have to deny that he was profiling Martin? Profiling, in this case, is not illegal.[]

Then explain why the prosecutor made a point to include it in her affidavit of probable cause?

I don't know - enlighten me.

IMO,it may be used to negate any attempt by Zimmerman to claim innocence by using the "stand your ground" law.

It may possibly be used to make the case as to why Zimmerman followed Martin (still legal, by the way), but it does nothing to establish who initiated the violence, or whether Zimmerman has a legitimate defense under the Stand Your Ground law.

happy jack wrote:

It may possibly be used to make the case as to why Zimmerman followed Martin (still legal, by the way), but it does nothing to establish who initiated the violence, or whether Zimmerman has a legitimate defense under the Stand Your Ground law.

How does it make the case? Zimmerman had no knowledge of who he was or what he was up to. Then there's that inconvenient fact that the police told him not to follow him. IMO,it's pretty hard to make a case of 'stand your ground" when you're the person who initiates the pursuit based on profiling someone and nothing more.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/8/house-vote-trayvon-amendment/

House to vote on Trayvon amendment

By Stephen Dinan

May 8, 2012, 04:37PM

House Democrats said Tuesday they will offer an amendment to push to overturn stand-your-ground self-defense laws in states like Florida.
………
"'Shoot-first' laws have already cost too many lives. In Florida alone, deaths due to self-defense have tripled since the law was enacted. … “


If “deaths due to self-defense have tripled”, then what that means is that the number of citizens refusing to remain helpless victims of violent crime has tripled.
That sounds like a pretty good argument in favor of the law, not against it.

happy jack wrote:

If “deaths due to self-defense have tripled”, then what that means is that the number of citizens refusing to remain helpless victims of violent crime has tripled.

Really? That's a bold statement. Got any data that backs that contention?