In news that surprises absolutely no one with a brain

You CAN prove a killing was with malice (you must in order to prove most forms of murder), but there has to be, y'know, actual evidence of malice. There isn't any here. Other than assigning sinister motives to GZ's actions--motives which are contraindicated by facts--you have nothing to show malice.

The evidence positively supports the claim of self-defense. It isn't merely a plausible claim, it's a claim that's unambiguously consistent with the evidence:
1. Zimmerman is the only one beaten, and trauma to his body is consistent with his claims.
2. A witness saw Martin beating Zimmerman as Zimmerman claimed.
3. Based on the known movements of both men, a confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman where it occurred is highly unlikely unless Martin has chosen to confront.
4. The girlfriend's testimony supports the claim that Martin sought the confrontation.

A non-self-defense scenario also flies in the face of logic:
1. Why does Zimmerman summon the police if he wants a confrontation?
2. Why does Zimmerman stay on the line with the dispatcher for so long if he wants a confrontation?
3. Why does Zimmerman--armed--allow himself to be beaten if his intentions are malicious?
4. Why doesn't Zimmerman confront Martin earlier, when they first encountered each other on the street?

Yes, but what you're missing is that the evidence doesn't just cast doubt on GZ's culpability, it actually supports his innocence.

I'm not sitting here saying "Nyah, nyah! You can't prove anything, you can't prove anything!"

I'm saying "The evidence says he's innocent, that this was an instance of lawful self-defense."

Legally it does in fact. Zimmerman cannot be tried again for the same crime regardless of subsequent events or discovered evidence.

And by the way IIRC "not proven" is a verdict available in Europe, not the United States.

"Europe"?

Must... resist... urge... to merge thread... with Skittles... and tea.

A "not proven" verdict would allow the state to stigmatize a defendant without actually proving his wrongdoing.

I often resurrect threads when there's updated or related breaking news, but some threads are better left dead.

So yeah, you're still buying it.

Be honest, is there anything that would ever make you reconsider your faith position?

Which is why we did away with half a century ago, and last I checked, we're in Europe.

(In the Weimar Republic, they had an even worse version of this: "Dem Angeklagten ist die Tat zuzutrauen." Meaning we can't prove you did it and you're free to go, but we just wanted to take this opportunity to say that we basically think you're the kind of guy who would do this kind of thing. Just for the record. Bye now!)

"Buying" what? The state tried to make a case for wrongdoing and utterly failed.

The evidence does more than merely give GZ reasonable doubt, it supports his story.

PLEASE ANSWER THIS (with something other than gul's lame I'm-just-saying-his-innocence-isn't-proven line): WHAT EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE BELIEF THIS WAS *NOT* SELF-DEFENSE?

Why is my position--which I've supported with facts and evidence--claimed to be the one based on faith? It seems to me your side wants to convict based solely on belief.

But could I change my mind? Sure. If new facts came to light. But they'd have to be pretty amazing facts since what we already have pretty well tells the story.

How about you?

For the third freakin' time. Will you finally answer it? Yes, or no will suffice. You inability to give a straight answer is telling.

So with this pattern of armed confrontation, does anyone really believe that Zimmerman got out of his car and was walking around to try and see a streetsign (apparently lost in his own subdivision.... where he was the self proclaimed Neighborhood Watch Captain)?

But Paladin has evidence and facts (or so he claims), therefore Zimmerman was helpless to do anything other than kill Martin. Basically, the real issue is that the state brought the wrong charge. It wasn't a murder, but it very likely was manslaughter.

Politically undoable. Popular opinion in the black community wouldn't tolerate an "unarmed black kid" being shot to death and the killer being charged with "only manslaughter".

If you want a yes or no answer, ask for one. I think my posts in this thread have been exceedingly clear about my thoughts on the matter.

YES. I've explained REPEATEDLY how the evidence indicates this is EXACTLY what happened. I've REPEATEDLY asked for evidence that this wasn't what happened. And I've gotten no meaningful response.

Your beliefs about Zimmerman's character (even if they're accurate) don't excuse you from dealing with facts.

No. GZ could've allowed himself to be beaten to death.

Manslaughter was an available verdict for the jury, and they did not convict on it.

It's pretty cut-and-dried self-defense.

First of all, second degree murder was the right charge under Florida law. Second of all, manslaughter, as a lesser included charge, was specifically considered by the jury. The difference between the two charges in this case is "depraved indifference" (second degree murder also, unlike manslaughter, requires "any act imminently dangerous to another," but that's not at issue in the case of a shooting), and there certainly was sufficient evidence to support depraved indifference that the charge belonged in front of the jury.

Yes.

We know he couldn't have chased after Martin for 3 main reasons:

#1 Martin initially ran off and broke contact for four minutes with Zimmerman. Martin was on the phone with the girl at the time.

#2 During that four minutes nothing happened. Martin could have continued to go home. But he didn't. He turned around and came back to Zimmerman's location.

#3 The incident took place near Zimmerman's vehicle and behind the townhouse. If Zimmerman had chased after Martin the incident would have taken place closer to Martin's house and further from Zimmerman's car.

What evidence indicates "depraved indifference?"

The key takeaway seems to be "Someone too inept to know his way around the complex where he lives and where he has assigned himself to play Neighborhood Watch is still deemed competent to walk around armed...at least in Florida."

How many place do you know how to get too but you don't know the exact addresses in the area you're traveling?

And a lot of people just landmark drive.

I don't know all the streets where I live. It's not the big deal that you make it out to be.

He wasn't lost; he simply didn't know the street number when the police asked for it. If you drove two blocks from your home and couldn't see street numbers, would you know what they are?

And Neighborhood Watch is not some public office; it's voluntary.

And, barring some compelling reason, a person has the right to walk around armed. When the Peruta v. San Diego decision is finalized, this right will even apply in California.

I think most people will agree that Zimmerman did some foolish things.

But doing dumb things doesn't mean you lose the right to defend yourself.

It's next to the country of Africa.

The jury did.

George Zimmerman won't be prosecuted on aggravated assault and domestic violence charges for an incident involving his girlfriend earlier this month, the Florida State Attorney's Office said Friday. The office said it reviewed reports and statements provided after Zimmerman's arrest on Jan. 9 and determined no formal charges should be filed. State Attorney Phil Archer said in a statement that "the subsequent recantation by the victim of her initial statement along with new documents provided by the victim and her attorney precludes my office from proceeding further."

Police say Zimmerman threw a wine bottle at his girlfriend during the alleged assault at his Lake Mary home. His lawyer told reporters that while the 31-year-old "has not been lucky with the ladies," he has also had a "rough time" since he was acquitted in the shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in 2013.

Zimmerman made bail after his arrest and was scheduled to appear in court in February. Prosecutors said the victim refused to attend a first scheduled meeting after the incident, and that she denied Zimmerman ever threw a bottle at her or that she was fearful of him as police claimed. She also said she didn't want to proceed with the case.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-c...erman-after-aggravated-assault-arrest-n296811

Lotsa victims recant out of fear.

I would put the champaign back on ice, bub.

Fear, and also "But I LOVE him!"

And also, "I was lying being as I am a vengeful woman who hoped I could nail him for something and now that I am on the spot and might have to actually testify in court I have decided to drop all charges lest I be found a liar".

But we all know THAT never happens.

Not nearly as often, no.

But it is possible.

I have a feeling that George Zimmerman has a problem primarily with attracting crazy women.

Think about it. George Zimmerman attracts the kind of women that would be attracted to George Zimmerman.

That should tell you something right off the bat.

That is true.