Clyde you know me and my arguments well. Watched the whole thing and while I respect Roland Martin's opinion, I side with C.L. Bryant on this one. He is intelligent and calling out the two other Revs is spot on in my opinion.

 

As others have said I don't know why in this case there is such a rush to judgment. Perhaps we all don't have as much faith in our system of justice as we say we do...

 

As to the bolded, I posted this link in another thread but it's appropriate here also: Keller @ Large: Get Facts Straight In Trayvon Martin Murder First « CBS Boston

As to the bolded, I posted this link in another thread but it's appropriate here also: Keller @ Large: Get Facts Straight In Trayvon Martin Murder First « CBS Boston

 

Nice article, but an article based on facts could have done without mentioning that Zimmerman says that Martin attacked him. That is, unfortunately, something we will never know.

Nice article, but an article based on facts could have done without mentioning that Zimmerman says that Martin attacked him. That is, unfortunately, something we will never know.

Why? Isn't Zimmerman's account of what happened part of the evidence? Whether you think he is telling the truth or is for you to decide, but it is still part of the case.

Nice article, but an article based on facts could have done without mentioning that Zimmerman says that Martin attacked him. That is, unfortunately, something we will never know.

 

Zimmerman is the only person involved that can tell us what happened. It might not be a "fact" because we can't prove it, but it's certainly worth mentioning.

Nice article, but an article based on facts could have done without mentioning that Zimmerman says that Martin attacked him. That is, unfortunately, something we will never know.

Not sure I follow: isn't it a fact that Zimmerman has claimed that he was attacked by Martin? I'm pretty sure that such claim by Zimmerman is a fact. The author did not say that Zimmerman was attacked by Martin; just that Zimmerman has stated he was attacked by Martin.

 

And your last sentence is spot on; which is why I, if I was the prosecutor, could not charge Zimmerman unless there were "holes" in Zimmerman's story. Perhaps there are and perhaps Zimmerman will be charged eventually. But absent those "holes" it seems to me that there is no basis to charge Zimmerman with murder or even manslaughter. Here's a link to a Florida lawyer's website that addresses manslaughter: Florida Crimes: Manslaughter

 

If I recall correctly the exerpt of the police report that has been released, Zimmerman told the police officer that first showed up on the scene that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, that Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin in self defense, and the police officer said the back of Zimmerman's shirt was wet and had grass stains on it, which supported Zimmerman's claim. As a former prosecutor myself, I can see a prosecutor determining that, absent conflicting evidence, that there was not sufficient grounds to determine there was probable cause to charge Zimmerman with murder or manslaughter because it was justifiable.

 

There are those out there (and I think some on here) that believe it should be the role of the grand jury to make the call as to whether there was probable cause; not the prosecutor's role. I strongly disagree. I believe that a prosecutor has an ethical duty to only take cases to a grand jury when the prosecutor believes, based on the evidence presented to the prosecutor, that there is probable cause. If the prosecutor did not believe there was probable cause, he or she cannot refer the case to a grand jury.

 

Here is a link to a decent article explaining the criminal prosecution process: Criminal Charges: How Cases Get Started | Nolo.com

 

Here is a link to a great article dealing specifically with Florida law pertaining to prosecution: http://locatethelaw.org/linked/ethics.pdf. While this article deals with the prosecution of sexual assault crimes, the ethical considerations are the same. Specifically note the last sentence of the second paragraph of numbered paragraph 1 (The Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar) which states:

"If you do not feel that you can in good faith go forward with a provable case, you must explain to the victim the ethical implications of your decision not to prosecute."

 

 

Look also at numbered paragraph 2 (quoting the a Florida Code of Conduct rule):"The Prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause. "

A thought just occurred to me. Maybe it's a stretch but didn't a certain Mr. Nifong rush to judgement based on popular opinion in another high profile case? Now maybe, just maybe had he reacted as the authorities have here we wouldn't have had the whole Duke Lacrosse fiasco. If after a thorough investigation it is determined George acted inappropriately against Martin (not sure why some people seem to refer to one party by their first name and the other by their last) then I fully support charges being brought against him and a trial by his peers.

Not sure I follow: isn't it a fact that Zimmerman has claimed that he was attacked by Martin? I'm pretty sure that such claim by Zimmerman is a fact. The author did not say that Zimmerman was attacked by Martin; just that Zimmerman has stated he was attacked by Martin.

 

And your last sentence is spot on; which is why I, if I was the prosecutor, could not charge Zimmerman unless there were "holes" in Zimmerman's story. Perhaps there are and perhaps Zimmerman will be charged eventually. But absent those "holes" it seems to me that there is no basis to charge Zimmerman with murder or even manslaughter. Here's a link to a Florida lawyer's website that addresses manslaughter: Florida Crimes: Manslaughter

 

If I recall correctly the exerpt of the police report that has been released, Zimmerman told the police officer that first showed up on the scene that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, that Zimmerman claimed he shot Martin in self defense, and the police officer said the back of Zimmerman's shirt was wet and had grass stains on it, which supported Zimmerman's claim. As a former prosecutor myself, I can see a prosecutor determining that, absent conflicting evidence, that there was not sufficient grounds to determine there was probable cause to charge Zimmerman with murder or manslaughter because it was justifiable.

 

There are those out there (and I think some on here) that believe it should be the role of the grand jury to make the call as to whether there was probable cause; not the prosecutor's role. I strongly disagree. I believe that a prosecutor has an ethical duty to only take cases to a grand jury when the prosecutor believes, based on the evidence presented to the prosecutor, that there is probable cause. If the prosecutor did not believe there was probable cause, he or she cannot refer the case to a grand jury.

 

Here is a link to a decent article explaining the criminal prosecution process: Criminal Charges: How Cases Get Started | Nolo.com

 

Here is a link to a great article dealing specifically with Florida law pertaining to prosecution: http://locatethelaw.org/linked/ethics.pdf. While this article deals with the prosecution of sexual assault crimes, the ethical considerations are the same. Specifically note the last sentence of the second paragraph of numbered paragraph 1 (The Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar) which states:

"If you do not feel that you can in good faith go forward with a provable case, you must explain to the victim the ethical implications of your decision not to prosecute."

 

 

Look also at numbered paragraph 2 (quoting the a Florida Code of Conduct rule):"The Prosecutor in a criminal case shall: (a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause. "

 

Unfortunately, Martin isn't around to give his account. Since Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed kid, I'd hold most of what he said to be suspect. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. We know for a fact that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, despite being told by a police dispatcher not to follow Martin. From all that has been reported, we do know that there was a physical confrontation and, except for the bullet wound, that Zimmerman got the worst end of the altercation. We do not know what was said or who instigated contact. There are about a thousand scenarios in my head that would make Zimmerman the aggressor, yet still come out with the short end of the stick in the fight. Add in the fact that Zimmerman had a gun, which makes some a little braver, and the dispatch recordings and I feel that it is more than likely that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Zimmerman has never said that he actually caught Martin doing anything wrong...just that he was suspicious.

 

Even with all of that said, I agree with you that unfortunately there is not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman with murder or manslaughter. I'm not really sure about a lesser charge. Regardless, his stupid actions led to Martin's death and in my eyes, he is morally responsible.

A thought just occurred to me. Maybe it's a stretch but didn't a certain Mr. Nifong rush to judgement based on popular opinion in another high profile case? Now maybe, just maybe had he reacted as the authorities have here we wouldn't have had the whole Duke Lacrosse fiasco. If after a thorough investigation it is determined George acted inappropriately against Martin (not sure why some people seem to refer to one party by their first name and the other by their last) then I fully support charges being brought against him and a trial by his peers.

 

I don't think that you are referring to me, but I do try to always use last names in this and similar cases.

No not you and not even necessarily people here but I know in many outlets (the CJ for one) the deceased is almost always referred to as Trayvon and the shooter as Zimmerman.

No not you and not even necessarily people here but I know in many outlets (the CJ for one) the deceased is almost always referred to as Trayvon and the shooter as Zimmerman.

 

Standard news style is that adults, on second reference, are called by their last name. Minors are generally referred to by their first name in subsequent references after the initial one in light-hearted feature-type stories. However, news outlets sometimes play fast and loose with this rule, and will refer to minors by their last name in each reference after the first if they have been charged with a crime, and will go first-name only in cases where they are trying to generate sympathy. Seems like we have a little of both going on in this case.

 

Unfortunately, Martin isn't around to give his account. Since Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed kid, I'd hold most of what he said to be suspect. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. We know for a fact that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, despite being told by a police dispatcher not to follow Martin. From all that has been reported, we do know that there was a physical confrontation and, except for the bullet wound, that Zimmerman got the worst end of the altercation. We do not know what was said or who instigated contact. There are about a thousand scenarios in my head that would make Zimmerman the aggressor, yet still come out with the short end of the stick in the fight. Add in the fact that Zimmerman had a gun, which makes some a little braver, and the dispatch recordings and I feel that it is more than likely that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Zimmerman has never said that he actually caught Martin doing anything wrong...just that he was suspicious.

 

Even with all of that said, I agree with you that unfortunately there is not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman with murder or manslaughter. I'm not really sure about a lesser charge. Regardless, his stupid actions led to Martin's death and in my eyes, he is morally responsible.

 

The fact that Zimmerman got out of his truck after being told to stop following Martin by the dispatcher is not really evidence against Zimmerman. He broke no laws in doing that. He was over zealous but not criminal.

 

As for who attacked who? Most think it's bull that Zimmerman couldn't handle himself against Martin considering he out weighed him by so much. To me that means it is possible that Martin attacked Zimmerman which caught Zimmerman off guard. I believe Zimmerman said Martin attacked him as well. That is purely speculation though.

 

And IMO there's not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman with any crimes right now. However that is just based on what we know. Im sure the investigators responsible have a little more information than we do.

 

Zimmerman is definitely guilty in the court of public opinion though.

The fact that Zimmerman got out of his truck after being told to stop following Martin by the dispatcher is not really evidence against Zimmerman. He broke no laws in doing that. He was over zealous but not criminal.

 

As for who attacked who? Most think it's bull that Zimmerman couldn't handle himself against Martin considering he out weighed him by so much. To me that means it is possible that Martin attacked Zimmerman which caught Zimmerman off guard. I believe Zimmerman said Martin attacked him as well. That is purely speculation though.

 

And IMO there's not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman with any crimes right now. He'd definitely guilty in the court of public opinion though.

 

Yep. Because regardless of who attacked who first Martin was still armed with a bag of skittles and an ice tea. if Zimmerman had time to reach his gun he had time to whip Martin also.

No not you and not even necessarily people here but I know in many outlets (the CJ for one) the deceased is almost always referred to as Trayvon and the shooter as Zimmerman.

Probably the same reason why they insist on using 5 year old photos of both instead of recent ones.

 

Yep. Because regardless of who attacked who first Martin was still armed with a bag of skittles and an ice tea. if Zimmerman had time to reach his gun he had time to whip Martin also.

 

That is not true at all. If someone is on top of you smashing your head against pavement and punching you in the nose, unless you have some training you probably don't know what to do.

 

And you honestly believe who attacked who doesn't matter?

The fact that Zimmerman got out of his truck after being told to stop following Martin by the dispatcher is not really evidence against Zimmerman. He broke no laws in doing that. He was over zealous but not criminal.

 

Just as Martin was breaking no laws walking through a neighborhood weaponless. You keep mentioning that Zimmerman broke no laws. Neither did Martin, yet he got targeted and ended up dead.