Zimmerman bail revoked, back in Jail

[Horse]

It's best to be prepared to do what ever it takes to stop the threat. If that means shoot once or your entire clip...whatever the need calls for.

[krakenblood]

I agree with Dan on this one. If your life is being threatened, you don't shoot once and see what happens. You shoot to kill, as many times as necessary.

[north ridger]

Professionals advocate shoot to kill.

Professionals advocate shot as many times it takes to eliminate the threat.

Obviously, if a guy is lying on the ground and is no longer a threat, I'd stop shooting.

Not what you said Dan. You said you would pull the trigger until your clip was empty. That's why you want such a big clip - to empty into one guy. Or when you imagine single handed my taking down a riot by yourself.

Professionals have a name for your type, Dan, who wants the most rounds possible for self-defense. That name is felon for when the DA charges them with excessive force, manslaughter, or assault with a deadly weapon. The guy who empties his clip out in public is a menace to society.

[north ridger]

I agree with Dan on this one. If your life is being threatened, you don't shoot once and see what happens. You shoot to kill, as many times as necessary.

The professional advice is shoot two to three times then assess. Shooting until your gun locks is a guarantee some rounds will miss and you become a public menace.

[VirginiaDave]

I agree with Dan on this one. If your life is being threatened, you don't shoot once and see what happens. You shoot to kill, as many times as necessary.

The professional advice is shoot two to three times then assess. Shooting until your gun locks is a guarantee some rounds will miss and you become a public menace.

Not true. You either shoot to kill or you don't shoot. If the danger warrants using the weapon, it warrants completing the job. The rules of engagement vary from situation to situation but the minute you decide to pull the trigger, shooting once or emptying your clip are up to the shooter.

[Horse]

Professionals have a name for your type, Dan, who wants the most rounds possible for self-defense. That name is felon for when the DA charges them with excessive force, manslaughter, or assault with a deadly weapon. The guy who empties his clip out in public is a menace to society.

^Thank you for sharing.

[Horse]

I agree with Dan on this one. If your life is being threatened, you don't shoot once and see what happens. You shoot to kill, as many times as necessary.

The professional advice is shoot two to three times then assess. Shooting until your gun locks is a guarantee some rounds will miss and you become a public menace.

Not true. You either shoot to kill or you don't shoot. If the danger warrants using the weapon, it warrants completing the job. The rules of engagement vary from situation to situation but the minute you decide to pull the trigger, shooting once or emptying your clip are up to the shooter.

You'd better clarify that. The "completing the job" could sometimes be done w/o killing them.
If the threat is over and they're still alive, there's no need to continue to shoot.

[Horse]

The professional advice is shoot two to three times then assess. Shooting until your gun locks is a guarantee some rounds will miss and you become a public menace.

Where did you get that from?

[north ridger]

I agree with Dan on this one. If your life is being threatened, you don't shoot once and see what happens. You shoot to kill, as many times as necessary.

The professional advice is shoot two to three times then assess. Shooting until your gun locks is a guarantee some rounds will miss and you become a public menace.

Not true. You either shoot to kill or you don't shoot. If the danger warrants using the weapon, it warrants completing the job. The rules of engagement vary from situation to situation but the minute you decide to pull the trigger, shooting once or emptying your clip are up to the shooter.

Not true for a civilian in a defensive situation. He/she has to account for every bullet they fire. If a DA could prove an assailant was down and no longer a threat and you kept shooting him anyway you could be charged. If you shot excessively and hit a civilian by mistake you could be charged.

A civilian is entirely at the mercy of the DA when he pulls out his gun in self defense. If the DA thinks you were wreckless you can and will be charged.

The corollary: having a gun and an assailant attacking you does not give you carte Blanche to shoot up the town.

[Horse]

A civilian is entirely at the mercy of the DA when he pulls out his gun in self defense. If the DA thinks you were wreckless you can and will be charged.

The corollary: having a gun and an assailant attacking you does not give you carte Blanche to shoot up the town.

You're just full of wisdom today

[north ridger]

It's called a double tap, you may have heard of it.

It's purpose is two fold. One, two shots to ensure you hit something. But also two, right after those two shots take a sec to assess the situation.

If you obsess about just pulling the trigger over and over you not only are likely to miss a lot and do collateral damage. You may also may be so focused on the assailant that you ignore other dangers around you.

[A_Malicous_Duck]

yeah, he'd look like a jack ass when he kills\wounds people who were in the store across the street. Prob find himself locked up with his former wards.

[Horse]

The professional advice is shoot two to three times then assess. Shooting until your gun locks is a guarantee some rounds will miss and you become a public menace.

It's called a double tap, you may have heard of it.

I didn't ask you to define it, what I want to know what professionals did you get this from?
Everything I've read says shoot until the threat is over.

[A_Malicous_Duck]

heh, you'll need more than 18 shots in that case bible boy.

[north ridger]

The professional advice is shoot two to three times then assess. Shooting until your gun locks is a guarantee some rounds will miss and you become a public menace.

It's called a double tap, you may have heard of it.

I didn't ask you to define it, what I want to know what professionals did you get this from?
Everything I've read says shoot until the threat is over.

The person who keeps pulling the trigger "until the threat is over" is the one who misses the threat coming at him from the side or in the background.

[north ridger]

Z's wife arrested yesterday on perjury charges connected to the bail hearing where she lied to the court about money from the website.

The affadavit included more details on who knew what, the extent to which they tried to cover up the money, and what it was used for.

A manager at the credit union talked to George on the phone at one point while money was getting transferred around, indicating that George had full awareness of what was going on. Money was transferred to George's sister's account to try to hide it. And large amounts of money were used to pay of their current debt - George told his wife to pay off all the bills including their credit cards in full.

Prodecutors indicated that perjury is usually hard to prove but that this was a slam dunk case given the testimony of credit union people and records of the transfers and phone conversations.

They say this will have no impact on George's case. However the evidence here makes it plain how far Zimmerman went to deceive the court about the money. I'd say the possibility of him getting a new bond amount set looks much more remote given this info.

[north ridger]

CBS news is now reporting that during the time they were trying to figure out what to do with the money, Mrs. Z did all of the transfers at under $10,000 in size. She transferred $74,000 from her hisband's account to hers - but did it in 8 separate transfers each less than $10,000 in size, ranging from $7,500 to $9,990 in size.

This puts a whole different spin on things and could land the couple in even more hot water. $10,000 is a magic amount. Transactions of $10,000 or greater must be reported to a number of federal agencies. People doing a number of transactions in a short period of time close to but under the $10,000 limit usually do so to launder money or hide money from the IRS and the Feds in general.

Banks have software to detect this plus bank employees are trained to recognize this sort of pattern, and are required to report it to the govt. George and his wife may have broken several statutes in doing this and could face Federal charges as a result.

[A_Malicous_Duck]

pay of the credit cards eh? looks like the donations for his defense fund have been put to good use.

[north ridger]

Six of Zimmerman's jail house phone call recordings have been released. In the tapes Zimmerman clearly lays out a strategy for getting the PayPal money out of his account and spread out to his wife and sister's accounts. He repeatedly keeps telling her to keep the amounts "under ten" (eg under the federal reporting requirements), and tells her to set a phone alarm to remind her to do this every day.

He also talks about her keeping about $10,000 in cash at all times.

In one of the tapes he's heard telling his wife to post a full bail amount if the their cash is under a certain amount. If it goes over that amount he tells her to go for the 10% bond.

It's painfully obvious that Zimmerman was trying to hide this money from everyone. There's also a lot of evidence that as the dollar amounts grew he suddenly started thinking seriously of taking that money and running.

[Laertes607]

Hopefully this will reward him "scumbag" status with any jury, you cannot believe anything he says now and I have a growing feeling (although still small) that Tayvon will get justice

Six of Zimmerman's jail house phone call recordings have been released. In the tapes Zimmerman clearly lays out a strategy for getting the PayPal money out of his account and spread out to his wife and sister's accounts. He repeatedly keeps telling her to keep the amounts "under ten" (eg under the federal reporting requirements), and tells her to set a phone alarm to remind her to do this every day.

He also talks about her keeping about $10,000 in cash at all times.

In one of the tapes he's heard telling his wife to post a full bail amount if the their cash is under a certain amount. If it goes over that amount he tells her to go for the 10% bond.

It's painfully obvious that Zimmerman was trying to hide this money from everyone. There's also a lot of evidence that as the dollar amounts grew he suddenly started thinking seriously of taking that money and running.

[north ridger]

Hopefully this will reward him "scumbag" status with any jury, you cannot believe anything he says now and I have a growing feeling (although still small) that Tayvon will get justice

Six of Zimmerman's jail house phone call recordings have been released. In the tapes Zimmerman clearly lays out a strategy for getting the PayPal money out of his account and spread out to his wife and sister's accounts. He repeatedly keeps telling her to keep the amounts "under ten" (eg under the federal reporting requirements), and tells her to set a phone alarm to remind her to do this every day.

He also talks about her keeping about $10,000 in cash at all times.

In one of the tapes he's heard telling his wife to post a full bail amount if the their cash is under a certain amount. If it goes over that amount he tells her to go for the 10% bond.

It's painfully obvious that Zimmerman was trying to hide this money from everyone. There's also a lot of evidence that as the dollar amounts grew he suddenly started thinking seriously of taking that money and running.

I don't know if this will be admitted in his trial, but as O'Mara has stated, no matter where he's tried a jury will likely have some knowledge of this. So one way or another this will likely hurt him.

Even if he beats the rap in the killing he has other worries now though. I'm willing to be the feds will be coming after Zimmerman, his wife, and the sister with several federal felony charges for when they tried to hide the money transfers. Zimmerman very clearly knew about the $10,000 limits and had his wife take out just under $10,000 each day.

[VirginiaDave]

Hopefully this will reward him "scumbag" status with any jury, you cannot believe anything he says now and I have a growing feeling (although still small) that Tayvon will get justice

Hopefully he will be tried in America where this is not admissible in court because it is irrelevant to the crime he is being tried for.

[VirginiaDave]

Hopefully this will reward him "scumbag" status with any jury, you cannot believe anything he says now and I have a growing feeling (although still small) that Tayvon will get justice

Six of Zimmerman's jail house phone call recordings have been released. In the tapes Zimmerman clearly lays out a strategy for getting the PayPal money out of his account and spread out to his wife and sister's accounts. He repeatedly keeps telling her to keep the amounts "under ten" (eg under the federal reporting requirements), and tells her to set a phone alarm to remind her to do this every day.

He also talks about her keeping about $10,000 in cash at all times.

In one of the tapes he's heard telling his wife to post a full bail amount if the their cash is under a certain amount. If it goes over that amount he tells her to go for the 10% bond.

It's painfully obvious that Zimmerman was trying to hide this money from everyone. There's also a lot of evidence that as the dollar amounts grew he suddenly started thinking seriously of taking that money and running.

I don't know if this will be admitted in his trial, but as O'Mara has stated, no matter where he's tried a jury will likely have some knowledge of this. So one way or another this will likely hurt him.

Even if he beats the rap in the killing he has other worries now though. I'm willing to be the feds will be coming after Zimmerman, his wife, and the sister with several federal felony charges for when they tried to hide the money transfers. Zimmerman very clearly knew about the $10,000 limits and had his wife take out just under $10,000 each day.

He didn't commit a crime when moving that money. The only crime he and his wife committed with regards to it was perjury. If, when they file their taxes next year, they fail to disclose the money, then it would be tax evasion. Attempting to circumvent the reporting process on large deposits is just stupid. Multiple deposits under ten thousand also trigger a report by the receiving bank.

[north ridger]

Hopefully this will reward him "scumbag" status with any jury, you cannot believe anything he says now and I have a growing feeling (although still small) that Tayvon will get justice

Hopefully he will be tried in America where this is not admissible in court because it is irrelevant to the crime he is being tried for.

There are scenarios where it might be possible to get it admitted, but only if O'Mara goofed big time of Zimmerman absolutely insists on taking the stand and accidentally opens the door for it.

But like I said, a big problem is going to be how many potential jurors will have heard about this already. These transcripts paint a really bad picture of Zimmerman.

[north ridger]

Hopefully this will reward him "scumbag" status with any jury, you cannot believe anything he says now and I have a growing feeling (although still small) that Tayvon will get justice

Six of Zimmerman's jail house phone call recordings have been released. In the tapes Zimmerman clearly lays out a strategy for getting the PayPal money out of his account and spread out to his wife and sister's accounts. He repeatedly keeps telling her to keep the amounts "under ten" (eg under the federal reporting requirements), and tells her to set a phone alarm to remind her to do this every day.

He also talks about her keeping about $10,000 in cash at all times.

In one of the tapes he's heard telling his wife to post a full bail amount if the their cash is under a certain amount. If it goes over that amount he tells her to go for the 10% bond.

It's painfully obvious that Zimmerman was trying to hide this money from everyone. There's also a lot of evidence that as the dollar amounts grew he suddenly started thinking seriously of taking that money and running.

I don't know if this will be admitted in his trial, but as O'Mara has stated, no matter where he's tried a jury will likely have some knowledge of this. So one way or another this will likely hurt him.

Even if he beats the rap in the killing he has other worries now though. I'm willing to be the feds will be coming after Zimmerman, his wife, and the sister with several federal felony charges for when they tried to hide the money transfers. Zimmerman very clearly knew about the $10,000 limits and had his wife take out just under $10,000 each day.

He didn't commit a crime when moving that money. The only crime he and his wife committed with regards to it was perjury. If, when they file their taxes next year, they fail to disclose the money, then it would be tax evasion. Attempting to circumvent the reporting process on large deposits is just stupid. Multiple deposits under ten thousand also trigger a report by the receiving bank.

Actually it's illegal to structure transactions specifically to hide them from the federal government. They could be charged today for it. However, the fact that O'Mara forced them to reveal the cash may be enough for the Feds to give them a bye on this. Maybe.

[north ridger]

Found the reference, look up the anti-structuring law added to the BSA in 1987, which was upheld and strengthened h the case U.S. vs MacPherson. Structuring transactions to hide them from the govt is illegal and subject to up to a $250,000 fine and five years in jail and forfeiture of all the money involved. The court case indicated that nothing else criminal needs to apply to trigger this law - moving legitimate funds just to avoid reporting them even in the short term violates the law. The case involved a cop hiding money from a legal action against him and didn't involve tax evasion.

The Feds only have to prove the accused purposefully structured the transactions to be under $10,000 a day and that's it. Zimmerman is very clearly guilty of that.

[VirginiaDave]

Found the reference, look up the anti-structuring law added to the BSA in 1987, which was upheld and strengthened h the case U.S. vs MacPherson. Structuring transactions to hide them from the govt is illegal and subject to up to a $250,000 fine and five years in jail and forfeiture of all the money involved. The court case indicated that nothing else criminal needs to apply to trigger this law - moving legitimate funds just to avoid reporting them even in the short term violates the law. The case involved a cop hiding money from a legal action against him and didn't involve tax evasion.

The Feds only have to prove the accused purposefully structured the transactions to be under $10,000 a day and that's it. Zimmerman is very clearly guilty of that.

They have to prove it was moved like that to avoid taxes, not to avoid a new bond hearing. That would be hard to prove now.

[VirginiaDave]

Hopefully this will reward him "scumbag" status with any jury, you cannot believe anything he says now and I have a growing feeling (although still small) that Tayvon will get justice

Hopefully he will be tried in America where this is not admissible in court because it is irrelevant to the crime he is being tried for.

There are scenarios where it might be possible to get it admitted, but only if O'Mara goofed big time of Zimmerman absolutely insists on taking the stand and accidentally opens the door for it.

But like I said, a big problem is going to be how many potential jurors will have heard about this already. These transcripts paint a really bad picture of Zimmerman.

There is one scenario where it would be brought up in court and that would be by the defense. That won't happen.

[observ]

Wrong. It's not just about taxes.

[north ridger]

Found the reference, look up the anti-structuring law added to the BSA in 1987, which was upheld and strengthened h the case U.S. vs MacPherson. Structuring transactions to hide them from the govt is illegal and subject to up to a $250,000 fine and five years in jail and forfeiture of all the money involved. The court case indicated that nothing else criminal needs to apply to trigger this law - moving legitimate funds just to avoid reporting them even in the short term violates the law. The case involved a cop hiding money from a legal action against him and didn't involve tax evasion.

The Feds only have to prove the accused purposefully structured the transactions to be under $10,000 a day and that's it. Zimmerman is very clearly guilty of that.

They have to prove it was moved like that to avoid taxes, not to avoid a new bond hearing. That would be hard to prove now.

No, restructuring for any reason violates the law. In the case I cited the cop was hiding money from some one in a civil lawsuit and had nothing to do with the federal government or taxes. Once his suit was over he moved all his money back. He never hid the money for tax reasons. He was still found guilty.

[Leon.Anus]

wow, i'm really surprised in the direction this has gone.

[VirginiaDave]

They moved the money in one direction and were trying to hide it from the court. Unless they moved it back or another motive could be proven, there is no reason for the Feds to get involved. There has to be another crime or an actual crime really.

[north ridger]

They moved the money in one direction and were trying to hide it from the court. Unless they moved it back or another motive could be proven, there is no reason for the Feds to get involved. There has to be another crime or an actual crime really.

See the court case I referenced Dave. There was nothing Federal about the defendant's money movements. He moved money around to hide it from a civil action. A bank noted the pattern and reported it to the Feds. The Feds charged him with structuring and he was found guilty.

The parallels to Zimmerman are striking. Both moved funds purposefully in under $10,000 increments to try to hide the money from a non-federal court. Both involved completely legal monies. Neither had anything to do with the Feds except for the illegal structuring themselves. In both cases the money was only hidden temporarily. Neither had anything to do with taxes.

The Feds attack these cases very aggressively. Not so much for the defendants but to send the message to banks that they have to stay vigilant against any suspicios financial activity.

[north ridger]

Here's the link to the MacPherson case:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1205988.html

The most relevant part that relates to Zimmerman is here:

In a final attempt to avoid application of Nersesian to this case, MacPherson argues that, in Nersesian and many of the other cases just cited, the cash at issue was criminally derived, which is not a contention in his case.   Certainly, the criminal origin of structured funds, to the extent it provides a motive for concealment from government authorities, may constitute an additional circumstance from which a jury can infer a defendant's knowledge of and intent to avoid CTR filings.   But proof of criminal derivation was not necessary to secure a § 371 conviction in Nersesian, and this court did not reference this fact in concluding that the pattern of defendant's structured transactions was sufficient to support a jury inference of guilty knowledge and intent.   Thus, we decline MacPherson's invitation to limit Nersesian 's reasoning to cases involving criminal proceeds.   The anti-structuring law may well have been intended to prevent criminals from concealing their illicit profits, but that is not the limit of its reach.   Section 5324 makes no reference to the source of the monies at issue or to the reason why a person seeks to avoid CTR filing.   Its singular focus is on the method employed to evade that filing requirement, i.e., structuring.   See generally United States v. Gibbons, 968 F.2d at 645 (rejecting as immaterial defendant's argument that his motive for structuring was to conceal the source of money from his ex-wife rather than the government);  cf.  Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 499-500, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985) (concluding that RICO liability is not confined to businesses infiltrated by organized crime);  United States v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504, 511 (2d Cir.1991) (holding that, although law criminalizing unauthorized access of certain federal computers was “aimed” at particular defendants, coverage was not limited to them);  United States v. Romano, 684 F.2d 1057, 1063-64 (2d Cir.1982) (recognizing that the prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. § 1954 extend beyond the “kickbacks” that prompted the statute's enactment).   If a defendant structures cash transactions knowing that the financial institution involved is obligated to report transactions exceeding $10,000 and intending to evade that requirement, he is guilty of structuring without regard to whether the cash at issue represents criminal or lawful proceeds.   More to the point, whether or not a § 5324 prosecution relates to criminal proceeds, a jury may properly consider the pattern of structuring activities and draw reasonable inferences therefrom as to whether the defendant possessed the requisite mens rea.

...and this...

2.  MacPherson argues that, with the settlement of the tort case, any interest he may have had in sheltering his cash assets ended, leaving him without any motive to avoid federal reporting requirements.   We will not speculate as to what may have prompted MacPherson to engage in the charged structuring.   Motive is not an element of the crime, and, thus, the lack of evidence on this point does not, as a matter of law, preclude conviction.   We recognize, of course, that evidence of motive, or the lack thereof, is a factor that a jury may weigh in considering whether the totality of the circumstances permits it to infer guilty knowledge and intent beyond a reasonable doubt.   See United States v. Simon, 425 F.2d 796, 808 (2d Cir.1969) (Friendly, J.);   see also 1 Leonard B. Sand et al., Modern Federal Jury Instructions:  Criminal, Instruction 6-18 (2004).   For the reasons discussed herein, however, we conclude that the evidence in this case was sufficient, even without proof of motive, to support a jury finding that MacPherson structured the charged cash transactions with the knowledge and intent required to support conviction.

[VirginiaDave]

Yes, structuring is illegal but I disagree that the Feds go after it unless there are other crimes involved. The case you cited even appears to be some vendetta against the guy. If the Feds are so bored, they can go after him for structuring. It would probably make the torch and pitchfork crowd happy.

[north ridger]

Yes, structuring is illegal but I disagree that the Feds go after it unless there are other crimes involved. The case you cited even appears to be some vendetta against the guy. If the Feds are so bored, they can go after him for structuring. It would probably make the torch and pitchfork crowd happy.

The case I cited is a landmark case that helped establish case law in this situation.

It is by no means rare. I've worked for financial institutions for decades now, and since 9/11 and the melt down of 2007 regulations around money laundering are extraordinarily tight and rigidly enforced when they find a violation. I take anti money laundering compliance courses multiple times a year so this stuff really gets drilled into employee's heads. Part of the course are tons of real world examples. And not just hard core criminals laundering millions of dollars or pulling off huge financial scams. Regular people who seemingly aren't doing anything illegal violate a technicality of AML or Know Your Customer rules or something similar and they get nailed by the Feds for it.

In the MacPhearson case the guy did something north of 30 transactions to avoid the reporting requirements. Zimmerman appears to have done 10 or more in total. The feds might look the other way for one or two but for that number they're going to much more tempted to prosecute. Particularly since this is high profile - it sends a message to the public that if you try to skirt the reporting laws you will get caught and prosecuted for it. So don't do it.

[VirginiaDave]

So this part didn't matter?:

Nevertheless, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sterling Johnson, Jr., Judge ) set aside the verdict and entered a judgment of acquittal, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c), ruling that the trial evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite mens rea elements of the charged offense, specifically, MacPherson's knowledge of and intent to avoid federal currency reporting requirements for cash transactions exceeding $10,000.

[north ridger]

So this part didn't matter?:

Nevertheless, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Sterling Johnson, Jr., Judge ) set aside the verdict and entered a judgment of acquittal, see Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(c), ruling that the trial evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite mens rea elements of the charged offense, specifically, MacPherson's knowledge of and intent to avoid federal currency reporting requirements for cash transactions exceeding $10,000.

The part about the original trial was interesting, I read it in detail over lunch.

In a nutshell the original jury found him guilty, then the judge decided to over rule the jury and said the evidence was far too thin to support the case. The judge who did this used somewhat flimsy language in doing so and said that he could be overruled on appeal.

On appeal that's exactly what happened. It was shown that the idea that MacPhearson knew nothing at all about the $10,000 reporting rule would require an absurd leap of faith. He made 32 individual transactions all under $10,000 and knew that larger amounts required ID and forms to be filled out. The appeals court ruled there was more than sufficient evidence to prove that MacPhearson almost certainly knew about the limits and structured his transactions to avoid them.

[Horse]

George Zimmerman Reenacts Struggle, Shooting

[Leon.Anus]

he was all like...

"rat-a-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat - I pulled out my piece and put that nigga on his back, bitches best recognize that when you step to the Z I be dropping fools straight up like an OG."

[north ridger]

They also released Zimmerman's written statement.

As the evidence comes out you can see why the initial officer wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. His written statement doesn't match his walk through and neither of them matches the 911 call, and the position of the body and ejected cartridge doesn't support what Zimmerman claims.

On top of that his narrative reads like a bad western novel.

The videos of Zimmerman at the police department and Zimmerman re-enacting the scene show his "wounds" were incredibly trivial. He's walking around normally and there's no bruising and he appears to not be in any pain at all. He has huge bandages to make it appear like he was injured, but notice that there's no bruising to speak of anywhere. A person with a broken nose (even a closed break) looks like they were run over by a truck. Zimmerman's face looks normal.

[Horse]

They also released Zimmerman's written statement.

As the evidence comes out you can see why the initial officer wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. His written statement doesn't match his walk through and neither of them matches the 911 call, and the position of the body and ejected cartridge doesn't support what Zimmerman claims.

Here is a copy of Zimmerman's written statement to the police.
http://blackhistory360.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/3572/

Show me the inconsistencies?

On top of that his narrative reads like a bad western novel.

The videos of Zimmerman at the police department and Zimmerman re-enacting the scene show his "wounds" were incredibly trivial. He's walking around normally and there's no bruising and he appears to not be in any pain at all. He has huge bandages to make it appear like he was injured, but notice that there's no bruising to speak of anywhere. A person with a broken nose (even a closed break) looks like they were run over by a truck. Zimmerman's face looks normal.

Martin is sitting on top of Z (backed up by witnesses)Martin is repeatedly banging Z head into the ground,(back up by cuts on the back of Z's head). Z yells for help. Martin then covers Z's mouth and nose to prevent Z from breathing. Martin sees Z has a gun and goes to grab it, and says, you're going to die tonight. At this point, Z has every reason to believe his life is in danger. Z has reason to use deadly force to protect himself.

The State now has to prove and convince 12 jurors that Martin didn't go for Z's gun, and then tell him he's going to die tonight.

The only way that happens is if they get 12 jurors who are as eager as you to find Z guilty no matter the evidence telling us he was justified to use deadly force to protect his own life.

[observ]

The only way that happens is if they get 12 jurors who are as eager as you to find Z guilty no matter the evidence telling us he was justified to use deadly force to protect his own life.

No, Dan. And perhaps someday you'll learn what "evidence" is.

[Horse]

Perhaps one day you'll you'll know what you're talking about.

[Horse]

No, Dan. And perhaps someday you'll learn what "evidence" is.

Here's your evidence, right OB?

[observ]

Perhaps one day you'll you'll know what you're talking about.

You're lying and faking it, as always.

What is evidence, Dan? Is it truth or proof? Have you cited the only evidence available? Does all physical evidence support claims? What/who is the source for details re: calling for help, seeing gun, grabbing for gun, covering nose, Trayvon's statement? Have those details, and all witness statements, been consistent and noncontradictory? What will be offered or admissible, anyway?

[observ]

No, Dan. And perhaps someday you'll learn what "evidence" is.

Here's your evidence, right OB?

To you it is ... which explains why your life is as it is.

[north ridger]

The locations don't match Zimmerman's narrative. The location of Martin's body is no where near the concrete. Zimmerman alternates between saying his head felt like it was exploding because of his head being forcibly slammed into the pavement in his written statement, but then became exploding from the punches Martin was inflicting.

Zimmerman's face is unblemished except for a single small cut on the nose. The day after he had zero bruising. The cuts on his head were superficial and showed no swelling.

Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was unable to defend himself. Yet suddenly he was able to pull out his gun, take off the safety, aim, and shoot Martin perfectly in the chest. Be did this without Martin making a move to stop him and managed to get no blood on himself at all.

Despite supposedly having multiple blows to the head and having his mouth and nose covered so he couldn't breathe, within seconds after shooting Martin Zimmerman talks to people in a calm, clear manner with no sign of confusion or disorientation at all. He says he was near passing out and 30 seconds later he is perfectly fine.

[Horse]

What is evidence, Dan? Is it truth or proof?

At a crime scene it can be...and it also may not be.

Have you cited the only evidence available?

Of course. What sort of stupid question is that? How could I cite evidence that not available?

Does all physical evidence support claims?

I don't see any inconsistencies, but, of course you do, but rather keep them to yourself.
The last thing you're going to do is agree with me!

What/who is the source for details re: calling for help, seeing gun, grabbing for gun, covering nose,

This all came from Z. There isn't any evidence that contradicts what he said. Unless you're like NR with a very huge imagination.

Trayvon's statement?

He's dead. The State now represent him. They have to prove to 12 reasonable people beyond a reasonable doubt that Z version of events is a bunch of hogwash.

Have those details, and all witness statements, been consistent and noncontradictory?

Some of the witness statements have contradicted each other, particularly the yelling for help.

[/quote] What will be offered or admissible, anyway?[/quote]

Do you have any reason to believe the evidence that has been given to the media will not be admissible?

[observ]

What is evidence, Dan?