ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Posted (1 year 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5340 times:
There's a reason charges weren't filed right away, it would seem, and it took a political backlash for someone un-involved in the case to file poorly backed charges. It was a rush to judgment by politicians while the proper investigators had not completed their own investigation, (or had, and had determined that the evidence supported the initial account).
Coroner's report shows, other than the gunshot wound which ended the encounter, Martin had no defensive injuries nor injuries consistent with being assaulted. Only scraped knuckles, injuries consistent with striking someone.
Zimmerman's medical records from the following morning show clear signs that he was assaulted for a period of time by someone of great strength, including a broken nose, two black eyes, and cuts on the back of his head.
Any wonder the press and president and others have stopped paying attention? They got their "issue" for the election year in a swing state and then moved on once the facts were more clear. What was once front page news before the facts were more clear is now way down the page on CNN, because now a motorist colliding with a moose, the facebook IPO news of the day, and google search being more human are more important.
Whether or not one believes Z had the right to shoot M as a result of getting beat down, the story he told of M doubling back and jumping him and beating the crap out of him seems to be far more likely today. And certainly there was no reason for M to be crying out for help as non-witnesses claim considering the autopsy findings. He wasn't being injured, subdued, held down, beaten, etc. No bruising, lacerations or contusions to support any of that.
Now the question is whether Zimmerman did or didn't continue to follow Martin and attack him (causing no injury), or if he stopped following him as directed and was then jumped, as he claims. But ultimately, the initial planted picture we were given of a smiling, defenseless 13 year old kid isn't what Zimmerman encountered that day. Martin was not defenseless, and seemed strong enough to not sustain any defensive wounds or injuries from the alleged assault he suffered, and was plenty strong to beat up a grown man.
Then the question also becomes, is this self-defense, manslaughter, or the original charge of 2nd degree murder, meaning he intended to assault him so badly that death was a real possibility. Medical evidence doesn't seem to support 2nd degree murder, unless Zimmerman started charging Martin with a gun intent on killing him and telling him he had a gun, and Martin somehow jumped Zimmerman before that happened, beat the crap out of him, and then was still shot (wouldn't more than one shot be fired in that situation?). And what in Zimmerman's history indicates he would be out to shoot someone for sport? Why was a teen unable to outrun a middle-aged man? Who turns around to face a man with a gun when he's not at hand-to-hand distance? And who goes after a man's face if he has a gun out rather than trying to get rid of the gun? M was aware he was being followed. Z didn't have the element of surprise. The family story that M only beat the crap out of Z because he feared for his life doesn't make sense if Z was holding a gun, unless M was on something or out of control.
Manslaughter seems much more likely if it is determined that Z continued to follow M before M turned around and engaged the confrontation, as non-witnesses claim. Self-defense if it is determined M doubled back to find Z after Z stopped following as directed by 911, as he claimed, M threatened to kill Z (not other way around), and Z pulled out a weapon to try to keep him away.
And sadly (not as sad as someone losing a life), at this point, if it is found Z is not the hitler he was made out to be and not convicted, or even if he is able to plead down to some form of manslaughter to make it all go away, there will be riots and innocent people will be harmed, all because irresponsible "leaders" jumped the gun, making a martyr out of someone who maybe wasn't so martyr-worthy.
If only the national leaders and main-stream press would care as much about people shot or beaten to death by police for little or no reason. Occasionally, it is elevated to the Rodney King level (despite him being another non-martyr-worthy fellow), but then here in LA over the last year, we have police beating to death a white homeless man (Kelly Martin) known to them while he begs for his life because he didn't cooperate with the commands given after he was suspected of looking in cars to find somewhere to sleep ("I'm going to F you up" were those commands given, BTW, on tape), shooting a white drunk man to death in broad daylight without warning because he was holding a garden hose nozzle sitting on his front steps, and here in my local city next door to LA, our intrepid police shooting an un-armed black alleged petty thief's lookout on the street because he "reached" for something.
"Reaching for something" or "having something that might have been confused for a weapon by an untrained near-sighted person but certainly not a swarm of cops" seems to the the valid excuse for killing anyone when it comes to the cops (killing a black costumed actor through the window of a Halloween party because he had a toy "weapon" as part of his costume for example), so much so that most of the national press and politicians just move on the next day if they get involved at all, but having your face pummeled on a dark and rainy night isn't good enough for a private citizen to defend himself, or at least to wait for the facts to come out, before everyone with power goes ape poop.
Anyway, rant over. Hope everyone who contributed to the other thread denying all of Z's claims and buying all of the family's claims (despite not being on the scene) takes a minute to think about your own contribution in a rush to judgment. Or you can just claim what M's family is claiming, that the doctor is a liar, falsifying medical reports, and that the truthful and honest family gave that "13 year" picture to the press because it was the only one they could find. Weeks after the event. Couldn't find one recent picture of their completely gentle young child. Or you could believe a doctor who can lose his license and be prosecuted for falsifying records in a criminal proceeding...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5330 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter): Any wonder the press and president and others have stopped paying attention? They got their "issue" for the election year in a swing state and then moved on once the facts were more clear
You forgot that the FBI just announced that Zimmerman is being investigated for a hate crime. To bad they will not investigate Fast and Furious. What a joke.
Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter): all because irresponsible "leaders" jumped the gun, making a martyr out of someone who maybe wasn't so martyr-worthy.
Yep.
Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter): Anyway, rant over. Hope everyone who contributed to the other thread
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5293 times:
Interesting these medical 'reports' indicate he had a broken nose, there is no mention of X-rays. If indeed he had a broken nose and two black eyes why are there no pictures of these injuries.
Even if these injuries are substantiated it did not give Z the right to shoot and kill an UNARMED man.
He should have followed Police instructions and left T alone.
Just being a Wannabe Cop does not give you the authority of a real one.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
QFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2025 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5269 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
Even if these injuries are substantiated it did not give Z the right to shoot and kill an UNARMED man.
Assume Zimmerman isn't lying for a second and then think what you would do in that exact situation. You're a neighbourhood watch, carrying a gun as is completely legal for you. See someone strange walking around at night, tag along behind him, call the cops, the cops tell you not to follow him. You say ok and head back to your truck, while walking the guy you were following jumps you and starts beating you, threatening to kill you. All the while there is no one around to help you, and you both know you have a gun, a gun that if you let the beating continue he could take and shoot you or others. He is standing over you so you draw your gun and shoot him in the largest target area, his chest. having undergone a course to get his concealed carry permit you probably know that a person is unlikely to die from a single bullet to the chest and that if you intended to kill him, a few more would have been required.
Plenty of reasonable people would conclude that assuming Zimmerman was not lying and was obeying relevant laws then it was reasonable for him to shoot. And now this medical evidence is just showing that Zimmerman most likely wasn't lying.
You and I both know that he won't get convicted though, I'm hoping that his trial ends a few weeks before the election, exploding in Obama's face for his flagrant race baiting.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19693 posts, RR: 56 Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5255 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2): This, folks, is why there is something called a "trial."
If you shoot an unarmed person, you should go on trial. If they find out that it was justified, then you're either found not guilty or the charges are dropped, and that's the end of it.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5249 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter): Any wonder the press and president and others have stopped paying attention? They got their "issue" for the election year in a swing state and then moved on once the facts were more clear. What was once front page news before the facts were more clear is now way down the page on CNN, because now a motorist colliding with a moose, the facebook IPO news of the day, and google search being more human are more important.
I love conspiracy theories .
Do you know why this is no longer front page news? Because public interest has waned. Zimmerman & Martin was yesterday's news. If the public craved more of this story, CNN would have no problem dedicating oodles of resources to it (after all, they've slipped behind their own HLN at times as the fourth rated news channel). But people have moved on.
PSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3004 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5201 times:
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 6):
Do you know why this is no longer front page news? Because public interest has waned.
Explanation is very simple.The media wants to bury this story as fast as possible of all the political bias it sided with and not to admit any edited and condensing both video and audio tapes that ABC and NBC did. This case will never go away of the ugliness that it portrayed in the first few days of the case.The media couldn't even get a proper race ID right on Zimmerman.
The media will never admit to guilt.It is too arrogant to admit fault.It's being sweep under the carpet.Even Obama is guilty for that stupid "son" comment.
Only people like and you and I need to remind the media,"We want the truth,to whole truth and nothing but the truth!"
And finally in IMHO,in any other circles,people would be lose their jobs,reputation ruined and be charged with obstruction of justice of the what the media did.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5154 times:
Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4):
Assume Zimmerman isn't lying for a second
Why ?
Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4): what you would do in that exact situation
I do not carry, or have a gun I would not have been in that situation.
Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4): You're a neighbourhood watch, carrying a gun as is completely legal for you
It may be legal but neighborhood watch specifically prohibits guns. He was looking for trouble.
Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4): See someone strange walking around at night, tag along behind him, call the cops, the cops tell you not to follow him
Go home, game over.
Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4): You say ok and head back to your truck, while walking the guy you were following
You were told not to follow him.
Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4): guy you were following jumps you and starts beating you, threatening to kill you.
Pure speculation on your part.
Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4): All the while there is no one around to help you, and you both know you have a gun, a gun that if you let the beating continue he could take and shoot you or others. He is standing over you so you draw your gun and shoot him in the largest target area, his chest. having undergone a course to get his concealed carry permit you probably know that a person is unlikely to die from a single bullet to the chest and that if you intended to kill him, a few more would have been required.
You directly contributed to and created this situation. If this is under the guise of neighborhood watch then why carry a gun ? It is only going to bring the possibilty of a shooting as happened.
This ridiculous 'stand your ground' law gives the armed gun nut more rights than the unarmed citizen.
Z was a wannabe Cop looking for trouble, he made numerous calls to 911 before this tragedy, constantly bothering Police, thinking this would somehow make up for his failed attempt at becoming a real one.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 3): He should have followed Police instructions and left T alone.
Police gave him no such instruction. A dispatcher said they don't need him to follow Martin. The dispatcher's instruction carries no weight in a criminal trial.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 9): You directly contributed to and created this situation.
A meaningless statement. What is relevant is whether a) Zimmerman directly provoked Martin into attacking him or b) the use of deadly force was justified.
Under Florida law, if (a) is found to be not true, than the injuries suffered by Zimmerman and the non-injuries suffered by Martin makes (b) true.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 9): constantly bothering Police,
Because he reported a suspicious person in an area with recent burglaries? Sounds to me like the police weren't too bothered, considering they never filed any charges.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3211 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5093 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter): Zimmerman's medical records from the following morning show clear signs that he was assaulted for a period of time by someone of great strength, including a broken nose, two black eyes, and cuts on the back of his head.
I want to know what the numbers on this kid were (height and weight) I will accept that the media used old photos, but to imply great strength would imply that this kid was of the physique of football player (ex. 6'2, 250lbs).
The last I heard he was 6'0 150-170 lbs. which is pretty skinny. Although great strength may not be determined by simply looking at someone.
What actually might hurt Zimmerman here is that there are no attack or defence wounds on Martin meaning the struggle was entirely one-sided.
Now wouldn't there be an attempt by Zimmerman to fight back before feeling the need to shoot Martin. Zimmerman doesn't look like someone who is a shrimp and he could have fought back to get free and if successful then draw his gun to attempt to neutralize the situation. Also if he couldn't break free how could he get to his gun??
Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter): Then the question also becomes, is this self-defense, manslaughter, or the original charge of 2nd degree murder, meaning he intended to assault him so badly that death was a real possibility.
Look I'm happy the case is seeing a courtroom if he gets off then so be it. If I had to guess the best the DA could get is involuntary manslaughter and if they can prove self-defense then Zimmerman doesn't get any time.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2):
This, folks, is why there is something called a "trial."
Let justice be done.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 9): It may be legal but neighborhood watch specifically prohibits guns. He was looking for trouble.
He was a "Self Appointed" member of the neighbourhood watch and not the head of any community registered neighbourhood watch program. I bet if you asked people in Sanford some might say Zimmerman may have been somewhat of a nuisance.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 10): No offense, but it doesn't take "great strength" to cause any of those injuries. A toddler can give you a black eye if they smack you just right.
If that was on a coroner's report then it is pretty unprofessional.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4966 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 3): Even if these injuries are substantiated it did not give Z the right to shoot and kill an UNARMED man.
Yes it does. And being unarmed does not make it any less a dangerous situation for Zimmerman. It just takes one wrong smach of the head against the ground to kill or leave you brain damaged for the rest of your life.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 3): He should have followed Police instructions and left T alone.
He did.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 8): Quoting windy95 (Reply 1):Fast and Furious.
That was begun under GWB.
Nope.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 9): I do not carry, or have a gun I would not have been in that situation
Most people do not get to pick and choose these situations. You carry for the reason that it may come your way one day.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 9): It may be legal but neighborhood watch specifically prohibits guns. He was looking for trouble.
Source
Quoting Max Q (Reply 9): You were told not to follow him.
And he said OK and stopped. He had already lost Trayvon by that time.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 9): Pure speculation on your part.
Not really. it fit's with what Zimmerman said and what yo hear on the 911 call
Quoting Max Q (Reply 9): If this is under the guise of neighborhood watch then why carry a gun ?
To protect yourself.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 9): This ridiculous 'stand your ground' law gives the armed gun nut more rights than the unarmed citizen.
No it gives every citizen the right to defend themselves.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 11): The very act of carrying a gun into a volatile situation guarantees a tragic outcome
It helps ensure that you are not that tragic outcome.
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1256 posts, RR: 7 Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4939 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter): And what in Zimmerman's history indicates he would be out to shoot someone for sport?
History is the best indicator for future behaviour, but history has to start somewhere. I'm not saying that because I think he's guilty, but it goes for just about anything. I'm gnoring the "for sport" part because that is just a ridiculous thing to say.
Anything said in this thread before the trial starts is a rush to judgment, including your rant. I'm going to wait until the trial starts before deciding who I believe. Right now it's a bit of a toss-up.
Quoting QFA380 (Reply 4): You say ok and head back to your truck, while walking the guy you were following jumps you and starts beating you, threatening to kill you.
That's incredibly speculative.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 13): This is like saying a cop gets into a shooting, therefore he was looking for trouble and got what he was looking for
Umm...isn't it a cop's job to look for trouble? I'm pretty sure they're paid to confront suspicious persons and chase criminals.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 15): Quoting Max Q (Reply 3):
He should have followed Police instructions and left T alone.
He did.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 15): Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
You were told not to follow him.
And he said OK and stopped. He had already lost Trayvon by that time.
More speculation. I don't think we've seen proof for this.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 15): Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
The very act of carrying a gun into a volatile situation guarantees a tragic outcome
It helps ensure that you are not that tragic outcome.
This is what bugs (scares) me. In the US there's this "better him than me" mentality, even if one's life isn't really threatened, that results in disproportionately high gun deaths compared to other Western countries. It seems in certain parts of the country that people will reach for their gun before their common sense.
jbirdav8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4459 posts, RR: 22 Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4937 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16): This is what bugs (scares) me. In the US there's this "better him than me" mentality, even if one's life isn't really threatened, that results in disproportionately high gun deaths compared to other Western countries. It seems in certain parts of the country that people will reach for their gun before their common sense.
That was another, similar operation - the difference was that in that operation, they actually kept track of the guns and made arrests.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16): Umm...isn't it a cop's job to look for trouble? I'm pretty sure they're paid to confront suspicious persons and chase criminals.
That's like saying that if it's not your job, don't do anything. If you see a bad car accident, don't help - firefighters and EMTs are paid for that - just wait for them.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4921 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2): This, folks, is why there is something called a "trial."
Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter): Zimmerman's medical records from the following morning show clear signs that he was assaulted for a period of time
Not true. I believe this is your conjecture. Because as Maverick points out:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 10): Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter):
great strength, including a broken nose, two black eyes, and cuts on the back of his head.
No offense, but it doesn't take "great strength" to cause any of those injuries. A toddler can give you a black eye if they smack you just right.
Furthermore, the fact that Zimmerman was injured does not prove in the slightest that Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Remember, Zimmerman was the guy wielding the gun. If someone points a gun at you, and you don't have one to point back, you're either going to run like bloody hell, or stand your ground (which you are allowed to do in Florida) and do your best to beat the guy senseless.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why people think an injury is proof that the guy was not the instigator.
Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter): Coroner's report shows, other than the gunshot wound which ended the encounter, Martin had no defensive injuries nor injuries consistent with being assaulted. Only scraped knuckles, injuries consistent with striking someone.
Something HUGE you are forgetting to report about the Coroner's Report: Martin was not shot at close range. He was shot at intermediate range. What does that mean? That means that Martin was outside the range to throw a punch when Zimmerman shot him dead. You can gloss over that, but that is a huge piece of evidence, if true.
Quoting ikramerica (Thread starter): Anyway, rant over. Hope everyone who contributed to the other thread denying all of Z's claims and buying all of the family's claims (despite not being on the scene) takes a minute to think about your own contribution in a rush to judgment.
Are you kidding me? The protests and the people on the now closed thread were clamoring for a trial! An unarmed kid is dead at the hands of a gun -- there should be a trial.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 8): Quoting windy95 (Reply 1):
Fast and Furious.
That was begun under GWB.
Both of you: STOP. Your constantly making things political is what's going to get this thread killed.
Unfortunately, the Community Safety Institute and the National Sheriff's Association for some strange reason don't give this information out for free, but there is plenty of evidence that guns are a no-no on the Neighborhood Watch:
http://www.huliq.com/3257/national-n...ns-actions-trayvon-martin-shooting
"In addition, although Zimmerman broke no laws because he has a concealed weapons permit, it's something that Neighborhood Watch strongly discourages. "There's no reason to carry a gun," Tutko said. "You do not carry a weapon during neighborhood watch. If you carry a weapon, you're going to pull it.""
Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office Crime Prevention Deputy Levi Hughes said, "We recommend you do not. As a matter of fact, we tell you, you should not carry firearms.""
http://www.eddystoneboro.com/comubb.htm
"Neighborhood Watch members are restricted to performing eyes and ear surveillance ONLY, reporting their observations immediately to the police. NO weapons and NO direct involvement with a crime situation are permitted. Neighborhood Watch members are NOT authorized to perform in a law enforcement capacity."
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, RR: 43 Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4916 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16): Umm...isn't it a cop's job to look for trouble? I'm pretty sure they're paid to confront suspicious persons and chase criminals.
Depends on how you read the term "looking for trouble". The way it was used above, it goes beyond a literal reading - it implies Mr. Zimmerman was aching to get into trouble, i.e., even if he had to create trouble.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16): This is what bugs (scares) me. In the US there's this "better him than me" mentality, even if one's life isn't really threatened, that results in disproportionately high gun deaths compared to other Western countries. It seems in certain parts of the country that people will reach for their gun before their common sense.
US gun deaths are largely related to belligerent US drug policies.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
But it's not speculative when there's data to support it.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): That's like saying that if it's not your job, don't do anything. If you see a bad car accident, don't help - firefighters and EMTs are paid for that - just wait for them.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I was pointing out that PPVRA used a poor comparison for his point.
Quoting D L X (Reply 19): If someone points a gun at you
I don't think it has been shown whether the gun came out before or after the first punch.
Quoting D L X (Reply 19): Your constantly making things political is what's going to get this thread killed
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 20): Depends on how you read the term "looking for trouble". The way it was used above, it goes beyond a literal reading - it implies Mr. Zimmerman was aching to get into trouble, i.e., even if he had to create trouble
I understand that. I just didn't think it was a great comparison for the point you were trying to make. There is a big legal difference between a neighbourhood "watchman" and a man with a badge.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 20): US gun deaths are largely related to belligerent US drug policies
Sorry for going off-topic, but how are they more belligerent than in Canada?
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9806 posts, RR: 17 Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4896 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21): I don't think it has been shown whether the gun came out before or after the first punch.
Only two people know when this happened. One of them can no longer give his side of the story because he is dead. Zimmerman will, without a doubt, come out of this a hero and be the poster boy for the NRA about how guns are just the greatest ever and Trayvon will be painted as a thug and will forever have his reputation and memory tarneshed. Simply becuase he was shot to death in the name of some insane law.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, RR: 43 Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4888 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21): There is a big legal difference between a neighbourhood "watchman" and a man with a badge.
But there is no moral difference. And the law should reflect this.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21): Sorry for going off-topic, but how are they more belligerent than in Canada?
I am not too familiar with Canada's War on Drugs, though Americans do often say Canada has more lax laws. Not sure to what extent this is true, though.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4884 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 21): Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
If someone points a gun at you
I don't think it has been shown whether the gun came out before or after the first punch.
Completely agree. All I'm saying is that there is no evidence other than Zimmerman's own statement concerning who started the altercation. Zimmerman's injuries do not prove that he was the innocent victim of crime.
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1256 posts, RR: 7 Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4927 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 23): But there is no moral difference. And the law should reflect this.
But that's the thing about morals, just because one is acting with good or just intentions, it does not make it the right thing to do.
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 23): I am not too familiar with Canada's War on Drugs, though Americans do often say Canada has more lax laws. Not sure to what extent this is true, though.
We aren't as strict on marijuana up here, but all the chemical drugs and prescription meds are just as controlled as in the States. I almost never hear about anybody getting shot over a drug deal gone wrong though. But when I'm in the US I hear it on the local news all the time. I don't do drugs, but it still scares the hell out of me when I hear about it.
sbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 793 posts, RR: 5 Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4900 times:
All I see from both sides of the arguments here are people speculating about what happened and reporting it as fact. The only person that is able to know exactly what went on is Zimmerman and he is obviously going to say things to make his case stronger.
Unfortunately the other person that would be able to throw light onto this is dead and unable to do so.
Hopefully the evidence of either guilt or innocence is compelling enough to dispel conspiracy theories from whichever side "loses" the outcome.
Some evidence out so far supports guilty and some appears to support not guilty and people should not only jump on the one that supports their pre conceived ideas of what happened.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4913 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 19): Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 10):Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
neighborhood watch specifically prohibits guns.
Source?
Unfortunately, the Community Safety Institute and the National Sheriff's Association for some strange reason don't give this information out for free, but there is plenty of evidence that guns are a no-no on the Neighborhood Watch:
Was there a point to these? Can you show me where Zimmerman was prohibited from carrying a weapon as a neighborhood watch person?
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16): Quoting windy95 (Reply 15):Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
You were told not to follow him.
And he said OK and stopped. He had already lost Trayvon by that time.
More speculation. I don't think we've seen proof for this.
It is not specualtion. It is on the 911 tape.
Quoting D L X (Reply 19): An unarmed kid is dead at the hands of a gun -- there should be a trial.
Not if it was self defense.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16): It seems in certain parts of the country that people will reach for their gun before their common sense.
Can you show us some proof of that? At what point when you are on the ground getting pummeled is common sense supposed to kick in?
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1256 posts, RR: 7 Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4898 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 27): Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 16):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 15):Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
You were told not to follow him.
And he said OK and stopped. He had already lost Trayvon by that time.
More speculation. I don't think we've seen proof for this.
It is not specualtion. It is on the 911 tape.
"He lost Trayvon by that time." is most certainly speculation. How does the 911 tape tell you otherwise?
Quoting windy95 (Reply 27): Can you show us some proof of that? At what point when you are on the ground getting pummeled is common sense supposed to kick in?
What do you want proof for? I was commenting on my view of gun usage in the US compared to the places I've lived, I wasn't talking about the case directly.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 27): Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
An unarmed kid is dead at the hands of a gun -- there should be a trial.
Not if it was self defense
Why not? Isn't a trial the most accurate way to prove one's innocence?
Regardless of the crime, whether it's petty theft or 1st degree murder, if there is any doubt in one's innocence, there should be a fair trial so that it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they are either innocent or guilty as charged.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4883 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 28): "He lost Trayvon by that time." is most certainly speculation. How does the 911 tape tell you otherwise?
Because Z tells the 911 dispatcher that he lost him. The the Dispatcher says he should not follow him and Z answers OK.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 28): What do you want proof for? I was commenting on my view of gun usage in the US compared to the places I've lived, I wasn't talking about the case directly.
Fair enough. Just thought it was a pretty broad statement. The odds of getting shot by a criminal or someone with an illegal weapon far outweigh that being killed a law abiding citizen who is defending themselves though.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 28): Why not? Isn't a trial the most accurate way to prove one's innocence?
How can you go to trial if there is no charge to be tried on? If you are found by the statute to have used self defense by the Police and DA then there no charge to be tried with.
Quoting D L X (Reply 19): Unfortunately, the Community Safety Institute and the National Sheriff's Association for some strange reason don't give this information out for free, but there is plenty of evidence that guns are a no-no on the Neighborhood Watch:
First of all, he wasn't on any "official" rounds or walking the neighborhood. He happened to be out running errands.So even if their policy is not to be armed while on patrol, he wasn't on patrol.
Sanford neighborhood watch handbook.
1. Neighbors join together to provide information about their households to one another.
2. Participants receive training in techniques and recognition
3. Upon seeing a suspicious activity or a crime, Participants immediately report their observation to the police department
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4862 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 27): Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
An unarmed kid is dead at the hands of a gun -- there should be a trial.
Not if it was self defense.
Wait.
You don't even think there should be a trial when the shooter alleges self-defense?
I just want to make sure we're clear.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 27): Quoting D L X (Reply 19):
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 10):Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
neighborhood watch specifically prohibits guns.
Source?
Unfortunately, the Community Safety Institute and the National Sheriff's Association for some strange reason don't give this information out for free, but there is plenty of evidence that guns are a no-no on the Neighborhood Watch:
Was there a point to these?
Read Maverick's post. My response answers his question which asks for a source that Neighborhood Watches forbid guns.
I can't help but note you do not provide any source that suggests that Neighborhood Watch programs encourage or even allow guns.
flyingclrs727 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 621 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4860 times:
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 28): Why not? Isn't a trial the most accurate way to prove one's innocence?
In my state, a case can't go to trial without a grand jury indictment. For some reason Florida allows some indlctments without going through a grand jury.
You don't even think there should be a trial when the shooter alleges self-defense?
I just want to make sure we're clear.
Did I say just when the shooter alleges self-defense?
Quoting windy95 (Reply 29): If you are found by the statute to have used self defense by the Police and DA then there no charges to be tried with.
I was pretty clear. It happens all the time.
Quoting D L X (Reply 30): can't help but note you do not provide any source that suggests that Neighborhood Watch programs encourage or even allow guns.
I did provide the source above that shows the Sanford Police Dept. makes no mention of weapons in it watch program training.
Quoting D L X (Reply 30): Read Maverick's post. My response answers his question which asks for a source that Neighborhood Watches forbid guns.
No MaxQ said that Neighborhood watches specifically prohibits guns. Your response in no way answers the point. You provided a few recommendations and one subdivision in PA, but no laws that stop them from carrying anything.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4829 times:
Breaking: Autopsy Reveals Trayvon Martin Had Drugs in System
Quote: ABC News reports that Trayvon Martin, the black teenager who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman on Feb. 26, had drugs in his body on the night of his death:
The autopsy report shows traces of the drug THC, which is found in marijuana, in Martin's blood and urine.
The autopsy also shows that Zimmerman shot Martin from a distance of between 1 inch and 18 inches away, bolstering Zimmerman's claim that he shot Martin during a struggle that landed Zimmerman on his back, Martin straddling him and banging Zimmerman's head on the ground.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3211 posts, RR: 9 Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4804 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18): That's like saying that if it's not your job, don't do anything. If you see a bad car accident, don't help - firefighters and EMTs are paid for that - just wait for them.
Those are slightly different examples, but people trying to take the law into their own hands often create a bigger headache for law enforcement.
With Car accidents you can help but if someone is critical and you have no knowledge of dealing with traumatic injuries, then yes you can make it worse.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3211 posts, RR: 9 Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4751 times:
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 36): It is absolutely relevant. It shows that Martin is a criminal. Not the innocent little kid the media would have you believe he was, but clearly isn't
Angel or not he is dead and the evidence of pot use has been suggested before it alone isn't relative to his death (the stuff should be legal but that is another discussion). But does the fact that he smoked a bit of weed probably didn't make him dangerous, from my experiences dealing with potheads it doesn't (possibly paranoia). Aggressive tendencies would have to be there already in his personality.
It does explain the skittles though
Zimmerman had a rapsheet also, and IIRC he has previous assault charges, far more relevant to this case.
Quoting flanker (Reply 35): Right, because we know how much he smoked and also THC has the same effect in ALL people...
It is highly relevant as it is a psychoactive drug.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4758 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 33):
Breaking: Autopsy Reveals Trayvon Martin Had Drugs in System
He had THC in his system. THC is detectable in your system for weeks... so this proves he had some pot some time in the past few weeks, like many a suburban kid. That begs the question: What is your point?
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4746 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 19): Unfortunately, the Community Safety Institute and the National Sheriff's Association for some strange reason don't give this information out for free, but there is plenty of evidence that guns are a no-no on the Neighborhood Watch:
Quoting D L X (Reply 30):
I can't help but note you do not provide any source that suggests that Neighborhood Watch programs encourage or even allow guns.
Discouraging is quite different from prohibiting. Each watch program is free to prohibit them, but the State cannot, and I seriously doubt any LEA would certify a program that encouraged the carrying of weapons, if not the least for liability reasons.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 22): Trayvon will be painted as a thug and will forever have his reputation and memory tarneshed
Reputation? What reputation? There has been almost nothing spoken about what kind of person he was, other than being a jock.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 28): Isn't a trial the most accurate way to prove one's innocence?
Innocent until proven guilty. This is part of the reason why Sanford PD got so much heat for not filing charges: people assume that you have to prove your innocence. Zimmerman did that thing right: you claim self-defense and make the State prove otherwise.
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 36): It shows that Martin is a criminal. Not the innocent little kid the media would have you believe he was, but clearly isn't
It shows that he was not an innocent little kid, but it hardly proves he's a thug. Unless you think 40% of high school kids are criminal scum too.
Overall, it does help Zimmerman's case. Not because it paints Martin as a thug, but because it paints him as a normal person capable of anything a normal person can do.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 4736 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 39): Discouraging is quite different from prohibiting.
So, I'm not sure of your point, because it is quite clear that the Neighborhood Watch program does not want its members carrying weps.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 39): This is part of the reason why Sanford PD got so much heat for not filing charges: people assume that you have to prove your innocence.
I don't think that's correct at all.
YES, you should be put on trial if you kill an unarmed person with a firearm. Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with whether you should be put on trial or not... except possibly in Florida under its poorly thought-out law.
With that said, Zimmerman IS guilty of killing Martin. He has admitted such. Now he has the burden to prove it was self defense. (A Florida lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong about this issue in Florida.)
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 39): Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 36):
It shows that Martin is a criminal. Not the innocent little kid the media would have you believe he was, but clearly isn't
It shows that he was not an innocent little kid, but it hardly proves he's a thug. Unless you think 40% of high school kids are criminal scum too.
It makes me shake my head when windy proudly comes on this thread proclaiming that Martin had THC in his system, as if he had found the golden fleece.
It is another example of how people who have made up their minds will interpret the evidence they see as supporting them, unless it clearly doesn't, in which case they will pretend that evidence simply doesn't exist.
I'm still waiting for someone to comment on the fact that the coroner's report showed that Zimmerman shot Martin from intermediate range, not close range. It's hard to shoot someone unarmed in self-defense from intermediate range.
flymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 6284 posts, RR: 6 Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 days ago) and read 4726 times:
Form what I have seen, and from what I know is neede for a jury to honestly come out with the verdict of guilty of murder no way does Zimmerman get convicted. Way too much doubt. Way too much. Remember has to be beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the case will go to trial but from what I have seen which is of course not everything I just do not see enough for a conviction. Really am curious to see what the EMT reports say.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 days ago) and read 4721 times:
Quoting flymia (Reply 41): Way too much doubt. Way too much. Remember has to be beyond a reasonable doubt.
The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt only that Zimmerman killed Martin.
Done. There is zero doubt, since Zimmerman admitted it.
Now (unless Florida law is an outlier), ZIMMERMAN must prove self-defense, and not the state. Doubt is not enough -- Zimmerman needs to prove that he more likely than not acted in self-defense. Anything up to only 49%, and Zimmerman is guilty of murder.
That's why this medical evidence is important. Does it make it more likely than not that Zimmerman acted in self-defense?
WestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1256 posts, RR: 7 Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 days ago) and read 4709 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 29): Because Z tells the 911 dispatcher that he lost him
I know he said that, but if Z's attorney tries to use his own statement as a defense in court, the prosecution will likely laugh them out of the room. Remember, the defendant's word is usually not held in very high regard.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 29): The odds of getting shot by a criminal or someone with an illegal weapon far outweigh that being killed a law abiding citizen who is defending themselves though
I'm pretty sure you're entirely correct. My issue is that people use guns far too often, no matter what the reason.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 29): How can you go to trial if there is no charge to be tried on? If you are found by the statute to have used self defense by the Police and DA then there no charge to be tried with.
As I mentioned immediately after: if there is ANY doubt as to the exact events, there should be a trial so that all the evidence can be formally presented to 12 of the defendant's peers. If the defendant (I'm talking about in general, not this case specifically) can prove beyond a reasonably doubt that they acted in self-defense as recognized by the law, then there's no harm done to the defendant.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 33): Autopsy Reveals Trayvon Martin Had Drugs in System
Meh...it was only marijuana. If it had turned out that he had cocaine or some sort of amphetamine in his system, then this would be huge for Zimmerman.
For reference, I get drug tested frequently for football, and they always remind us that smoking marijuana just once is detectable in urine for up to a week, and detectable in our hair for several weeks (although testing hair is not as reliable they say). What this story proves is that he could have smoked up earlier that week and the test still would have come back positive. I have a feeling the prosecution will be sure to argue that if the defense brings up the drug test.
randyh3253 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 42 posts, RR: 0 Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 days ago) and read 4701 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 19): Something HUGE you are forgetting to report about the Coroner's Report: Martin was not shot at close range. He was shot at intermediate range. What does that mean? That means that Martin was outside the range to throw a punch when Zimmerman shot him dead. You can gloss over that, but that is a huge piece of evidence, if true.
As someone who lives here in Central Florida its been all over the news. I think your confused on what "intermediate range" means. I personally have a CWP so Im very familiar with gun terms and what not. That range means the gun was within 2 feet of Martin when he was shot. Im fact due to having gun residue on him, the medical examiner believed that he was shot within 2-4 inches from Mr. Zimmerman.
"Intermediate might sound like a considerable distance, but Sheaffer said it has a very specific forensic meaning when used by medical examiners.
“It means that the firearm was within 2 feet of Trayvon Martin but not touching Trayvon Martin when he was shot,” said Sheaffer." http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/...as-inches-away-zimmerman-wh/nN8MZ/
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 days ago) and read 4695 times:
Quoting randyh3253 (Reply 45): "Intermediate might sound like a considerable distance, but Sheaffer said it has a very specific forensic meaning when used by medical examiners.
“It means that the firearm was within 2 feet of Trayvon Martin but not touching Trayvon Martin when he was shot,” said Sheaffer."
If that is true, then I stand corrected on this point. Thanks for the info.
DiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1294 posts, RR: 3 Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4680 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 38): I guess your average college student is a "criminal" in your book as well, given all the underage drinking?
Yes, yes they are. I'm sorry, but why write laws if you are going to blindly ignore select laws? The whole legal system is a joke, enforce the laws on the books or get rid of them. Picking and choosing which ones to ignore and which ones to enforce will be the demise of this country.
itsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2765 posts, RR: 11 Reply 49, posted (1 year 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4666 times:
My prediction: Zimmerman will be found not guilty in criminal court but will have his ass handed to him in civil court when Martin's NOK file a wrongful death suit. If Zimmerman is smart (which, from what I have read and seen, he isn't), he'll start putting anything he owns of value in the name of someone else. And I wouldn't be surprised if the Feds get involved and investigate Zimmerman for civil right's violations. Right to carry law or not, it sure sounds like he hunted Martin down.
randyh3253 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 42 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4618 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 46): Quoting randyh3253 (Reply 45):
"Intermediate might sound like a considerable distance, but Sheaffer said it has a very specific forensic meaning when used by medical examiners.
“It means that the firearm was within 2 feet of Trayvon Martin but not touching Trayvon Martin when he was shot,” said Sheaffer."
If that is true, then I stand corrected on this point. Thanks for the info.
Understandable if your not familiar with the terminology it can be very confusing when you hear the term "intermediate" when you think it should be "close" or "point blank range."
It would be nice if the national media would report it like the local news down here, seems when just mentioning the term it gets everyone regardless of the side they are on all revved up and emotional again...leading to tensions on both sides. I personally see both sides of the story, and I know our justice system will prevail thanks to the legal system of this great country.
I look forward to your valuable insights on this issue.
Nothing valuable here. Another person who is spouting his opinion without looking at any facts.
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 47): The whole legal system is a joke, enforce the laws on the books or get rid of them. Picking and choosing which ones to ignore and which ones to enforce will be the demise of this country.
Quoting D L X (Reply 46): Quoting randyh3253 (Reply 45):"Intermediate might sound like a considerable distance, but Sheaffer said it has a very specific forensic meaning when used by medical examiners.
“It means that the firearm was within 2 feet of Trayvon Martin but not touching Trayvon Martin when he was shot,” said Sheaffer."
If that is true, then I stand corrected on this point. Thanks for the info.
Actually it is 1 to 18 inches.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 43): can prove beyond a reasonably doubt that they acted in self-defense as recognized by the law, then there's no harm done to the defendant.
There is a huge cost to the defendant. The amount of money, time and emotion spent on the trial would be huge for this person. Especially in this case when the media and the race hustlers have all been out condemning Zimmerman. If the Police and the DA clear him then their will be no trial.
Quoting D L X (Reply 38): He had THC in his system. THC is detectable in your system for weeks... so this proves he had some pot some time in the past few weeks, like many a suburban kid. That begs the question: What is your point?
I did not post a point. I just posted the actual headline from ABC news.
Quoting D L X (Reply 40): So, I'm not sure of your point, because it is quite clear that the Neighborhood Watch program does not want its members carrying weps.
It is not clear at all. Look at the Sanford Police Dept Neighborhood watch training that I posted above. Nothing about weapons in it. Second of all Neighborhood watch is not an active patrol and Z was not on any kind of duty that night patrolling the neighborhood. He was on his way to the store and carrying his conceal like every other citizen does. Neighborhood watch is exactly what it says it is. The community working together to watch their neighborhood. A watch Captain is just the person who sets up meetings to go over what is in the police training and to talk about what has been going on in the neighborhood. It is not an active patrol.
Quoting D L X (Reply 40): With that said, Zimmerman IS guilty of killing Martin.
He is guilty of nothing. He took a man's life while defending himself.
Quoting D L X (Reply 40): It makes me shake my head when windy proudly comes on this thread proclaiming that Martin had THC in his system, as if he had found the golden fleece.
What makes me shake my head is that you actually posted this. Once again all I did was post the actual headline form ABC news with nothing added or no embellishments from myself.
Quoting D L X (Reply 40): It is another example of how people who have made up their minds will interpret the evidence they see as supporting them, unless it clearly doesn't, in which case they will pretend that evidence simply doesn't exist.
Look in the mirror please and say this to yourself.
Quoting D L X (Reply 40): I'm still waiting for someone to comment on the fact that the coroner's report showed that Zimmerman shot Martin from intermediate range, not close range
1" to 18" is intermediate so all of your histrionics above about being outside of swing range where for nothing.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4568 times:
Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman's Version of Trayvon Martin Shooting
T
Quote: he reports also note that two witness accounts appear to back up Zimmerman's version of what happened when they describe a man on his back with another person wearing a hoodie straddling him and throwing punches.
The police report states that Trayvon Martin's father told an investigator after listening to 911 tapes that captured a man's voice frantically callling for help that it was not his son calling for help.
"He witnesses a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches 'MMA (mixed martial arts) style,'" the police report of the witness said. "He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass."
A second witness described a person on the ground with another straddling him and throwing punches. The man on the bottom was yelling for help, the witness told police.
The documents state that Zimmerman can be heard yelling for help 14 times on a 911 call recorded during the fight
Quote: The witness, who was looking out the sliding glass door at his home about 30 feet away, said he saw the black male throwing punches “MMA (mixed martial arts) style.”
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7760 posts, RR: 22 Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4531 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 53):
Quote:
he reports also note that two witness accounts appear to back up Zimmerman's version of what happened when they describe a man on his back with another person wearing a hoodie straddling him and throwing punches.
I wonder if we will ever see certain people on this thread admit that in such a situation, the person on the bottom would be justified in fearing for his life and pull his gun - which up to then was in his belt.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3211 posts, RR: 9 Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4512 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 54): I wonder if we will ever see certain people on this thread admit that in such a situation, the person on the bottom would be justified in fearing for his life and pull his gun - which up to then was in his belt.
I will do that when a judge or a jury decides on it, I'm satisfied that it has reached a courtroom.
I am still really confused on how a kid who was 5'11 and 160 lbs (I saw that on the coroner's report) overpowered a guy like Zimmerman so easily. He should have been able to defend himself without drawing his gun. Had he done that there would have been wounds on Martin and outside of his hands there appear to be none.
sbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 793 posts, RR: 5 Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4474 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 52): He took a man's life while defending himself.
Were you there? No? They you cannot be so certain.
I don't know whether ZImmerman shot in self defence or not but I will certainly not only look at the evidence that backs up my preconceived ideas of what happened.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7760 posts, RR: 22 Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4474 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 55): I am still really confused on how a kid who was 5'11 and 160 lbs (I saw that on the coroner's report) overpowered a guy like Zimmerman so easily.
Zimmerman is described as 5'8 and 185 lbs (a bit overweight). Martin was taller, and it would seem much more fit. I have little doubt that a guy Martin's size could wipe the pavement of an older, shorter guy who isn't in shape. Not to mention that his background suggests that he's a street kid, and probably has quite a few fights to his credit. I don't see it as unplausible at all.
Now if he had been 12, 5'2 and 110 lbs, that would have been a whole other story.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4475 times:
Quoting itsjustme (Reply 49): but will have his ass handed to him in civil court
Nope. Under Florida law, one cannot be held civilly liable when invoking "Stand Your Ground".
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 55): I am still really confused on how a kid who was 5'11 and 160 lbs (I saw that on the coroner's report) overpowered a guy like Zimmerman so easily.
You ever been sucker punched? By a football player?
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 59, posted (1 year 22 hours ago) and read 4390 times:
I believe that Z was looking for trouble and found it, but even if T attacked him (which seems very unlikely) fatally shooting him is inexcusable and unforgivable.
An armed individual has no more rights than an unarmed one, maybe that needs to be repeated for you gun lovers, an armed individual has NO more rights than an unarmed one.
Many of you gun nuts are looking for the opportunity to show how brave you think you are by shooting someone in a contrived self righteous situation which I suspect this is.
I say this to you, human life is more important than your love of guns and the senseless violence that goes with it.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9806 posts, RR: 17 Reply 60, posted (1 year 21 hours ago) and read 4376 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57): his background suggests that he's a street kid, and probably has quite a few fights to his credit.
Source??
Quoting D L X (Reply 48): marijuana usage a mitigating factor in a case about a violent crime.
No. Just because someone has THC in their system does not make them prone to violence. When it does happen, there is also other drugs and/or alcohol involved. Or, they are being persued by someone with a gun.
Again I ask: could it be possible that, since Z lost sight of M, there was more than one person in a hoodie in the neighborhood that night? Beyond that: none had anything to do with any crime at all?
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3211 posts, RR: 9 Reply 61, posted (1 year 17 hours ago) and read 4356 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 58): You ever been sucker punched? By a football player?
The last time anyone punched me I was 12 actually. I have about 80-90 lbs on Martin and am taller so people don't like to pick fights with me.
I could see Martin being able to hit him a couple of times but to hold down someone 25 lbs heavier I still find a little unrealistic. If this kid weighed say 210-220 the I would have a different opinion.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 58): Nope. Under Florida law, one cannot be held civilly liable when invoking "Stand Your Ground".
If don't think that stand your ground will stand if Zimmerman gets off, it will have to be justified self-defense which is similar but non identical because he has been charged self defence presents reasonable doubt therefore he gets acquitted.
Therefore I think civil charges could still be made, but I don't see the point he isn't OJ and not loaded. Even if the Martin family takes every cent Zimmerman has it won't be a whole lot.
Quoting seb146 (Reply 60): Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57):
his background suggests that he's a street kid, and probably has quite a few fights to his credit.
Source??
He had been suspended from school for having a bag of weed allegedly but I attribute that to being a teenager, however its still not right. There is evidence that M was looking at colleges and if he had been a bit of a punk before he was trying to better himself.
Zimmerman has a rap sheet for far more aggressive actions ie. prior assault charges.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 57): Zimmerman is described as 5'8 and 185 lbs (a bit overweight). Martin was taller, and it would seem much more fit. I have little doubt that a guy Martin's size could wipe the pavement of an older, shorter guy who isn't in shape. Not to mention that his background suggests that he's a street kid, and probably has quite a few fights to his credit. I don't see it as unplausible at all.
True but you would think Zimmerman would have got a few hits against showing a much more even struggle him and that would have been seen in the autopsy. Perhaps I'm looking at this from my perspective and I am 6'1 and around 240.
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12329 posts, RR: 12 Reply 62, posted (1 year 16 hours ago) and read 4342 times:
As I have said about this case here and elsewhere: There should be a tight gag order on everyone connected to this case one can be put on including Zimmerman, his family, Martin's family, all lawyers, the police, state prosecutors among them, to assure fairness for Zimmerman and Martin. We keep getting conflicting stories, too much information that is very private or probably not relevant as well as possibly violating medical privacy laws.
This case has become far too much about politics by people on both 'sides', race, questions about gun control, the unevenly used 'stand your ground' law and not about how an apparently unarmed person is killed by someone with a gun in an unfortunate set of circumstances.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 63, posted (1 year 10 hours ago) and read 4298 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 60): Quoting D L X (Reply 48):
marijuana usage a mitigating factor in a case about a violent crime.
No. Just because someone has THC in their system does not make them prone to violence.
I think you have misinterpreted what I said.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61): If don't think that stand your ground will stand if Zimmerman gets off, it will have to be justified self-defense which is similar but non identical because he has been charged self defence presents reasonable doubt therefore he gets acquitted.
I agree. Stand Your Ground will get a very very serious second look. My guess is at least the immunity clause is toast.
Now all that needs to happen is for Al Sharpton to stay the f out of it. Because let's face it: the reason why certain people on this thread (for example) can't rally to defend the killing of an unarmed minor is because they see it as a political thing.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7760 posts, RR: 22 Reply 64, posted (1 year 8 hours ago) and read 4265 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 63):
I agree. Stand Your Ground will get a very very serious second look. My guess is at least the immunity clause is toast.
Why? In spite of the media's bleating about "stand your ground", I don't see it as having anything to do with the case. I see it as a case of (most likely) someone who chose to dress in a way that tells people around him, "thug", who drew the attention of a member of the neighborhood watch, and instead of simply heading home, he doubled back, challenged and then attacked the guy following him. Unfortunately for him he chose to attack someone with a license to carry.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9806 posts, RR: 17 Reply 65, posted (1 year 8 hours ago) and read 4255 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64): someone who chose to dress in a way that tells people around him, "thug",
Wearing a hoodie when it is cold and raining means "thug"? I have been a thug for a long LOOONG time!
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64): who drew the attention of a member of the neighborhood watch,
Because one man saw one person walking.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64): instead of simply heading home, he doubled back, challenged and then attacked the guy following him
I still assert there were at least two people out that night and when Z lost sight of the first person, Trayvon ended up the victim because "he was wearing a hoodie" just like the other guy.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7433 posts, RR: 2 Reply 66, posted (1 year 7 hours ago) and read 4240 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 63): Because let's face it: the reason why certain people on this thread (for example) can't rally to defend the killing of an unarmed minor is because they see it as a political thing.
To some extent, in our daily lives, we want to know what the law is. The law involves all of us.
This case is pretty confusing because it has 2 guys who did stuff wrong. The homicide was not justifiable really but also not unjustifiable. You don't have to lie down and let some guy kill you. Yet, stand your ground law (as I imagine it) allows any scuffle to progress into a legal, quick-draw homicide case. So I think Martin would have been pretty well justified in shooting Zimmerman, too (evidently, as Zimmerman is on trial for his homicide). So that's all very confusing to the public.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 hours ago) and read 4205 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61): The last time anyone punched me I was 12 actually.
Thank you.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61):
I could see Martin being able to hit him a couple of times but to hold down someone 25 lbs heavier I still find a little unrealistic
Why? Cops do it every single day. I'm 180 pounds and I routinely move around 300+lb objects. It's not all about weight.
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 62): as well as possibly violating medical privacy laws.
In a public trial, any evidence used must be a part of public record. I can see the case for a temporary gag order, but in order for a trial to be fair it must eventually open up to public scrutiny. It can suck, but it's necessary.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 69, posted (1 year 4 hours ago) and read 4197 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 63): Because let's face it: the reason why certain people on this thread (for example) can't rally to defend the killing of an unarmed minor is because they see it as a political thing.
There are plenty of "unarmed" minors who could kill me or seriously damage me. The reason why certain people on this thread (for example) can't rally to defend their fellow citizen for legally defending themselves because they see it as a racial/political/anti-gun thing.
Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19693 posts, RR: 56 Reply 70, posted (1 year 4 hours ago) and read 4182 times:
Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 36):
It is absolutely relevant. It shows that Martin is a criminal.
Which means it's okay to shoot him? Whether he was on drugs or not has absolutely nothing to do with whether Zimmerman was justified in what he did. If Martin really was attacking Zimmerman in a manner that could be construed as life-threatening, then Zimmerman had justification for shooting him, whether Martin was on drugs or not. If Martin wasn't attacking Zimmerman, then Zimmerman didn't have justification, again whether Martin was on drugs or not.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 52): There is a huge cost to the defendant. The amount of money, time and emotion spent on the trial would be huge for this person.
On the other hand, you can't just let people shoot other people, claim it was in self-defense, and then immunize them from prosecution. The whole point of the trial is to figure out whether it really was in self-defense.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 hours ago) and read 4160 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 70): On the other hand, you can't just let people shoot other people, claim it was in self-defense, and then immunize them from prosecution. The whole point of the trial is to figure out whether it really was in self-defense.
It is the job of the DA and the Police to determine if there is a trail. If they do not prosecute you because it is proven self defense then ther is no trial. You do not have a trial just for the hell of it if you did not break the law.
bhmbaglock From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5 Reply 72, posted (1 year 1 hour ago) and read 4155 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 3): He should have followed Police instructions and left T alone.
911 operator(not sworn Officer) suggestions are not "Police instructions". If a sworn officer was on the scene and based on his/her judgement of the situation as seen in person gave such an instruction then it would be a completely different matter.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 2): This, folks, is why there is something called a "trial."
Yes, but there are two very good reasons why this should not go to trial; at least not at this time. First, there is no way in hell that there will be a conviction based on the evidence and this is so obvious that pursuing this case much farther at this time will build a better case of prosecutorial misconduct than murder. Second, let's assume that Martin is guilty as charged; it is possible after all. If so, then prosecuting the case now when acquittal is certain is irresponsible. Much better to patiently continue investigating and hope for breakthrough evidence that will make a conviction possible.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 11): The very act of carrying a gun into a volatile situation guarantees a tragic outcome.
Absolutely not, potentially it can be a tool towards resolving such a situation and in fact this occurs regularly.
Quoting D L X (Reply 40): With that said, Zimmerman IS guilty of killing Martin. He has admitted such. Now he has the burden to prove it was self defense. (A Florida lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong about this issue in Florida.)
As a defendant, he has no need to prove anything. The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 59): An armed individual has no more rights than an unarmed one, maybe that needs to be repeated for you gun lovers, an armed individual has NO more rights than an unarmed one.
You seem to be forgetting that an armed individual has no LESS rights than an unarmed one as well. Shall I repeat or will you get it the first time?
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4946 posts, RR: 15 Reply 73, posted (12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4134 times:
Let me jump right in here, and let me tell you why sometimes living in this country makes me want to vomit.
1) the media OVERBLEW THIS ONE BIG TIME and Nobody at all should be surprised. The only one of the big media offices who reported on this originally was Fox, and they were livid that the other media sources didn't do anything about this. Independent news sites which I've read brought out about various media sources that what they reported was doctored and WAS ACTUALLY USED IN WHAT SHOULD BE A FAIR AND UNBIASED TRIAL.
2) The wounds Mr. Z suffered proved that he was in an altercation. A DNA test could possibly reveal traces of Mr. M in his wounds.
3) THE STAND YOUR GROUND ACT IS ULTIMATELY VALID HERE.
4) BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S, PROSECUTOR'S, AND MEDIA'S ABUSE OF THE COVERAGE, this trial is not fair, and should be thrown out. In all seriousness, Zimmerman should be considered innocent based on the grounds of self defense.
I'm done ranting now. I'm gonna go book a ticket to japan.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 74, posted (12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4110 times:
Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 72): Quoting D L X (Reply 40):
With that said, Zimmerman IS guilty of killing Martin. He has admitted such. Now he has the burden to prove it was self defense. (A Florida lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong about this issue in Florida.)
As a defendant, he has no need to prove anything.
This is a common misbelief.
In an affirmative defense, such as self-defense, it is the defendant that has to prove that he is entitled to the defense.
The terminology they use is pretty misleading. I had made the same assumption as DLX. Thanks for the clarification.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 58): You ever been sucker punched? By a football player?
Yup, several times, by guys bigger than Martin. I continue below...
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61): True but you would think Zimmerman would have got a few hits against showing a much more even struggle him and that would have been seen in the autopsy. Perhaps I'm looking at this from my perspective and I am 6'1 and around 240.
I'm looking at this as a guy closer to Zimmerman's size. I'm 5'9'' and 170lbs, albeit in much better shape than Z, but still similar in size. I've taken sucker punches to face many times, none of which have knocked me off my feet. I find it hard to believe that there's no way that he could have gotten a punch in on M. The way I picture it is that there was probably some shoving (which wouldn't cause any injuries), one had wrestled the other down to the ground (causing the scrapes on M's hands), M (likely being quicker than the overweight Z) got the upper hand and began punching Z. This scenario would make it extremely difficult to figure out who instigated the physical part of the altercation. This is how I imagine it anyway.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 64): I see it as a case of (most likely) someone who chose to dress in a way that tells people around him, "thug"
I don't think that one's choice of dress has anything to do with the story. I wear a hoodie whenever I take my dog for a walk (everyday), should I be confronted because of it?
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 73): BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S, PROSECUTOR'S, AND MEDIA'S ABUSE OF THE COVERAGE, this trial is not fair, and should be thrown out. In all seriousness, Zimmerman should be considered innocent based on the grounds of self defense
Please, explain how the Attorney General and Prosecutor owe the public any degree of "coverage"? The only thing they need to make public is whether they choose to prosecute or not, everything else is done behind closed doors for a reason. Throwing out a case simply because the popular belief among the general public is self-defense would be a miscarriage of justice. Twelve of Mr. Zimmerman's peers will decide that based on the evidence presented to them in court. The judicial system exists for this very purpose. If they decide he's innocent, then he's innocent. If they decide he's guilty, then he's guilty.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 76, posted (12 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4079 times:
Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 72):
Absolutely not, potentially it can be a tool towards resolving such a situation and in fact this occurs regularly.
Really, show me a situation like this one where the presence of a gun improved the outcome ?
You seem to be forgetting that an armed individual has no LESS rights than an unarmed one as well. Shall I repeat or will you get it the first time?[/quote]
No need to repeat it and you miss the point. The ludicrous 'stand your ground' law gives the gun lover / nut preapproved licence to shoot someone on the slimmest pretence of their feeling 'threatened' this has to change.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9806 posts, RR: 17 Reply 77, posted (12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4059 times:
Some people here are envoking "Stand Your Ground" as Zimmerman's defense. What about this scenario:
Zimmerman saw a man in a hoodie, persued him, and lost sight of him. He spotted Trayvon a minute later and pursued. A completely different person, but in Zimmerman's mind at the time, it was the only other person around and dressed the same as before. Trayvon felt threatened because he did not know what was going on. He was "Standing His Ground." Why is that not a possibility?
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 78, posted (12 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4055 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 77): Zimmerman saw a man in a hoodie, persued him, and lost sight of him. He spotted Trayvon a minute later and pursued. A completely different person
Seb, there really is just no evident at all that there were two people. Yes, it is possible. But just as we rail on Zimmerman supporters for their wild speculation, I have to call you out for doing the same. Work within the known facts.
With that said, other than your two people theory, I absolutely concur that Martin had just as much right to stand his ground as did Zimmerman, except that Martin was not told to leave Zimmerman alone for the cops to deal with it.
itsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2765 posts, RR: 11 Reply 79, posted (12 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4042 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 58): Nope. Under Florida law, one cannot be held civilly liable when invoking "Stand Your Ground".
Admittedly, I am not an expert on FL criminal/civil law. However, I was under the impression Zimmerman is claiming self defense as his justification for shooting/killing Martin. If that is true, then regardless of the outcome in criminal court, I would think Martin's next of kin would have civil recourse. Or is the ruling of the criminal court binding on the civil side as well?
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7442 posts, RR: 5 Reply 80, posted (12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4031 times:
We might as well have some major judgements in this trial as "open carry" is the current plaything of the conservative politicians. (Oklahoma has a female governor who is all for open carry and I can see hot shots like Zimmerman strutting around with a gun in plain view. Maybe we can have an OK Corral for shootouts. Or maybe we will simply have them at the Mall.)
The Zimmerman case for me in now about a hot shot with a gun. And his testicles are larger than his brain. A guy with a gun shooting a guy without one.
Zimmerman probably won't go to prison, but he will spend the rest of his life knowing that there will be plenty of blacks out there who hate him. And maybe more than a few with a gun of their own.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 81, posted (12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4031 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80): and I can see hot shots like Zimmerman strutting around with a gun in plain view
How do you know he is a hot shot?
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80): The Zimmerman case for me in now about a hot shot with a gun
Once again how do you know this? You know nothing of the man.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80): And his testicles are larger than his brain
You really must of known him well to know this.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80): A guy with a gun shooting a guy without one.
So you are saying that people are not allowed to protect themselves. When it comes to self preservation you use any means of force at your disposal.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80): but he will spend the rest of his life knowing that there will be plenty of blacks out there who hate him
As usual the left making it about race. Can you please come up with something new.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80): And maybe more than a few with a gun of their own.
Here is hoping we have revenge killings across the country. Great job...
Quoting Max Q (Reply 76): You seem to be forgetting that an armed individual has no LESS rights than an unarmed one as well.
And you should remember that all citizens have the right to defend themselves. Armed or unarmed. If a man breaks into Grandpas house and grandpa wastes the intruder with his .44 Super-mag does it matter if the intruder was armed? No.
And you should remember that all citizens have the right to defend themselves. Armed or unarmed. If a man breaks into Grandpas house and grandpa wastes the intruder with his .44 Super-mag does it matter if the intruder was armed? No.
Not what happened here and irrelevant anyway.
Your obvious love of guns is a big part of this whole problem.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7760 posts, RR: 22 Reply 83, posted (12 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3998 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 82): Not what happened here and irrelevant anyway.
What is relevant is what might have happened to Zimmerman if he did not have a gun. He might be dead or brain damaged from getting his head pounded into the pavement, or otherwise seriously injured. I suppose you would have a problem with, right? If that had happened, you would want Martin in jail for assault and battery, right?
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 84, posted (12 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3989 times:
Quoting itsjustme (Reply 79): However, I was under the impression Zimmerman is claiming self defense as his justification for shooting/killing Martin.
He has specifically invoked the Stand-Your-Ground law. Whether the judge will allow an acquittal based on that remains to be seen.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 82):
Your obvious love of guns is a big part of this whole problem.
Cute. Let's completely slam a right that's been around since, well, there was such a concept (self-defense) and one that's been around since 1789 (2nd Amendment), and then call anyone who doesn't share your views a gun nut. It borders on flamebaiting.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 85, posted (12 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3990 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 82): Your obvious love of guns is a big part of this whole problem.
Yes you have me here. I love my constitutional right to have and love my guns. Also love my right to defend my family and myself with whatever force is necessary to keep us from harm. Being unarmed does not mean someone cannot kill or maim with their bare hands. Whether the are armed or unarmed is irrelevant. It is their intent to do harm that is.
Also the Stand your ground law has nothing to say about how you defend yourself. Remeber when seconds count the police are only minutes away. You should not have to wait to see how much of a victim you're going to be.
Quoting itsjustme (Reply 79): Or is the ruling of the criminal court binding on the civil side as well?
A person defending themselves with Florida's stand your ground statute is immune from both criminal and civil prosecution. Which is why some lawyers hate this. Loss of potential revenue.
bhmbaglock From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5 Reply 86, posted (12 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3954 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 74): This is a common misbelief.
In an affirmative defense, such as self-defense, it is the defendant that has to prove that he is entitled to the defense.
You are victim of the common misbelief. The Florida law(and others) was deliberately written so that once the defense is asserted, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. Otherwise it would be a hollow and worthless law.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 84): He has specifically invoked the Stand-Your-Ground law. Whether the judge will allow an acquittal based on that remains to be seen.
You think the judge should be able to override a jury?
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 80): We might as well have some major judgements in this trial as "open carry" is the current plaything of the conservative politicians. (Oklahoma has a female governor who is all for open carry and I can see hot shots like Zimmerman strutting around with a gun in plain view. Maybe we can have an OK Corral for shootouts. Or maybe we will simply have them at the Mall.)
What does open carry have to do with this case? btw, outside of the cities it was very common in parts of FL in the early 70s and there was also a lot less crime back then.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 76): Really, show me a situation like this one where the presence of a gun improved the outcome ?
About 15 seconds with google turned up this link with a few examples:
Some of the statistics seem a bit overly optimistic but it's still some good info particularly the specfic examples.
I'll give you another concrete one from my personal experience. In the late 90s I lived in Burlington County, NJ which is probably the most/only gun friendly county in the state. It's a very short distance to PHL, Camden, and Atlantic City - which all have major crime problems. The criminals know that most houses in Burlington have guns and guess what? They leave the place alone. We never locked our doors, no need whatsoever there. Criminals should be afraid of being shot when they violate our rights.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3289 posts, RR: 19 Reply 87, posted (12 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3929 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 84):
Cute. Let's completely slam a right that's been around since, well, there was such a concept (self-defense) and one that's been around since 1789 (2nd Amendment)
It was never intended to be a right that allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to have as many guns as they desired. Gun ownership was intended to be a part of a 'well regulated Militia'
If you think guns in this country are only used in justified self defense you are kidding yourself and simply parroting the nonsense of the NRA.
Thousands of fatal shootings every year prove you wrong without a doubt.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 89, posted (12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3898 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 87): It was never intended to be a right that allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to have as many guns as they desired. Gun ownership was intended to be a part of a 'well regulated Militia'
bhmbaglock From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5 Reply 90, posted (12 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3884 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 88): Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 86):
You think the judge should be able to override a jury?
A judge is generally allowed to specify to the jury which laws apply.
Correct, but it is the job of the jury to decide the facts. Any judge who tries to deliberately influence the jury to a particular conclusion is guilty of misconduct in the extreme.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 91, posted (12 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3880 times:
Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 86): The Florida law(and others) was deliberately written so that once the defense is asserted, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution.
That's not what Florida courts have said.
From Peterson v. State:
Quote:
The court further determined that a defendant raising the immunity would have the burden of establishing the factual prerequisites to the immunity claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 980. The court imposed the same burden of proof as it would in motions for postconviction relief or motions to suppress. Id.
Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 90): Correct, but it is the job of the jury to decide the facts. Any judge who tries to deliberately influence the jury to a particular conclusion is guilty of misconduct in the extreme.
ACTUALLY... one of the jobs of the judge is to determine which facts the jury is allowed to even see. It's not about influencing the jury to reach a conclusion, it's about guiding the jury to reach the correct conclusion based on the correct facts, not being swayed by powerful, yet irrelevant, evidence.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 92, posted (12 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3860 times:
Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 86): The Florida law(and others) was deliberately written so that once the defense is asserted, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution.
In 2010, the Florida Supreme Court held that in criminal cases, a judge, not a jury, should determine whether the defendant's conduct was justified under "Stand Your Ground," and the defendant has the burden of proving his entitlement to immunity by a preponderance of the evidence
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 84): Quoting itsjustme (Reply 79):
However, I was under the impression Zimmerman is claiming self defense as his justification for shooting/killing Martin.
He has specifically invoked the Stand-Your-Ground law. Whether the judge will allow an acquittal based on that remains to be seen.
Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law does not just provide an affirmative defense it provides immunity. The person need only convince the judge by a "preponderance of the evidence".
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 93, posted (12 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3857 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 92): The person need only convince the judge by a "preponderance of the evidence".
Right. You correctly stated that it is the defendant's burden to prove this. For anyone wondering what a preponderance of the evidence is, it is "51%," or basically, "more likely than not." So, in this case, Zimmerman has to show that it was more likely than not that he acted in self defense, and did not start the altercation.
His medical evidence (being injured) certainly speaks to that. Does it rise to 51%? Maybe, maybe not, because the prosecution gets to knock down the evidence as much as it can.
There are a fair number of moving parts in this story. My tally so far is:
FOR Zimmerman:
Zimmerman suffered injuries (Martin suffered relatively few)
Witness alleges that Martin was on top and Zimmerman on bottom
Zimmerman's own statement that he was being attacked
AGAINST Zimmerman
Witness changing his story about who it was screaming for help*
Martin's girlfriend alleging that Martin complained that he was being followed
911 tapes
* This changing witness actually really sucks for Zimmerman as now he is directly open to a credibility challenge.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9806 posts, RR: 17 Reply 94, posted (12 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3853 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 89): Quoting Max Q (Reply 87):It was never intended to be a right that allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to have as many guns as they desired. Gun ownership was intended to be a part of a 'well regulated Militia'
Source?
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 95, posted (12 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3846 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 94): Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Was the intention of the Second Amendment for every Tom, Dick, Harry, Louise, Jamel, Tayshaun, Rodriguez and Ruben walking the streets of Compton, Detroit, etc. to own assault weapons? When our country was founded, did we have problems with enormous factions who cared more about getting high than somebody else's life?
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 96, posted (12 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3819 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 94): Quoting windy95 (Reply 89):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 87):It was never intended to be a right that allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to have as many guns as they desired. Gun ownership was intended to be a part of a 'well regulated Militia'
Source?
Second Amendment of the United States Constitution
Where in the second amendment does it say that it was never inteneded for every Tom, Dick and Harry to have as many guns as they desired. And what was the "Militia"?
Quoting D L X (Reply 93): Right. You correctly stated that it is the defendant's burden to prove this. For anyone wondering what a preponderance of the evidence is, it is "51%," or basically, "more likely than not." So, in this case, Zimmerman has to show that it was more likely than not that he acted in self defense, and did not start the altercation
I am not sure if this standard across the country but from what I have read in Florida the preponderance of evidence is the lowest standard that they use.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 97, posted (12 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3815 times:
Quoting bhmbaglock (Reply 90): Any judge who tries to deliberately influence the jury to a particular conclusion is guilty of misconduct in the extreme.
Well then I guarantee you over 90% of judges that have sat on a jury trial are guilty of such an offense.
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 95): Was the intention of the Second Amendment for every Tom, Dick, Harry, Louise, Jamel, Tayshaun, Rodriguez and Ruben walking the streets of Compton, Detroit, etc. to own assault weapons?
Irrelevant. "Assault" weapons were not around at the time.
Quoting CompensateMe (Reply 95): When our country was founded, did we have problems with enormous factions who cared more about getting high than somebody else's life?
The closest thing we have to a 18th-century militia today is the National Guard, and it really isn't that close. Most people who try to discredit the 2nd Amendment with the "well-regulated militia" clause probably don't even know what was meant by that phrase.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 99, posted (12 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3800 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 96): I am not sure if this standard across the country but from what I have read in Florida the preponderance of evidence is the lowest standard that they use.
There are basically 3 levels of proof required in every court in the nation
Low - Preponderance of the evidence (Person with burden needs to prove "more likely than not," or "51%")
Middle - Clear and convincing evidence (Person with burden needs to prove with evidence that is usually correct. A reasonable doubt will be ignored. Sometimes called "67%")
High - Beyond a reasonable doubt (Person with burden needs to prove that the facts happened his way, and no reasonable person could introduce a what-if that would negate it. It's true "99.99999%" of the time.)
A reasonable doubt could be something like "I'm not convinced that he saw a horse and not a deer." An unreasonable doubt could be something like "I'm not convinced that he saw a horse because it could have been a unicorn."
CompensateMe From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 870 posts, RR: 0 Reply 100, posted (12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3743 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 97): Irrelevant. "Assault" weapons were not around at the time.
It is relevant, and you're sharing my viewpoint. Assault weapons did not exist when the Constitution was drafted, thus it is reasonable to assume it's impossible to prove the intentions of the Second Amendment on such weapons.
The Whiskey Rebellion does not compare to the cold, senseless, random violent acts that occur today. When I was 17, I felt the gun barrel placed against the back of my head. It's an experience that still affects me to this date.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 101, posted (12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3722 times:
Can we get off of whether the Constitution's drafters imagined current day gun laws? I have my thoughts, but they really aren't appropriate for a thread about medical evidence in the Zimmerman case.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7433 posts, RR: 2 Reply 102, posted (12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3755 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 87): It was never intended to be a right that allowed every Tom, Dick and Harry to have as many guns as they desired. Gun ownership was intended to be a part of a 'well regulated Militia'
Exactly. Or if it were to protect against federal encroachment... that's even better... our government until recently had 40 kt warheads that could be deployed on a Howitzer and shot from a gun. That's double what Hirosmina got, and our govt had guns that would shoot those. Going to defend against the govt... Oh. Okay.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7760 posts, RR: 22 Reply 103, posted (12 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3729 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105): No, what is relevant is what would have happened if Zimmerman had done as he was told by 911 and not follow Martin.
What would have happened? Nothing.
You can't get away from the fact that Zimmerman created the
How might that convince a jury to hand down a “guilty” verdict to Murder Two charges? How does that “stay in your car” principle work? Do you have to stay in your car when you see anyone acting suspiciously in your neighborhood, or do the age, sex, and racial background of the subject matter? Does everyone have to stay in their cars, or only members of certain age, sex, and racial groups? Should getting out of your car be a misdemeanor or a felony?
There is not one shred of evidence to support contention that Zimmerman provoked the encounter. Neighborhood Watch patrols are legal. Getting out of your car is legal. There is no evidence that Zimmerman shouted any “fighting words” at Martin. Zimmerman certainly wouldn't have thrown the first punch - why allow yourself to get that close and to get into a fistfight when you have a gun? Zimmerman would have done everything he could to keep his distance.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105): I don't believe there is a chance in hell that a Judge would toss the case because of stand your ground.
He won't. There are plenty of other reasons to throw it out. "Stand your ground" does not factor into this case. If Zimmerman was on the ground getting beaten to a pulp, withdrawal from the encounter was physically impossible for him. A defendant loses his "stand your ground" defense if he provoked the encounter, but he retains traditional rights of self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.
It is more likely the judge to find that beating someone into the ground and administering an MMA-style thrashing is wrong, even if they looked at you funny.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 105): Judging from his "injuries" I'd bet that Martin felt he was being followed for some illegal reason and addressed Zimmerman before he could find out where Martin lived.
That does not justify assaulting the person who may (or may not) have been following you. From the maps we have seen, when the fight occurred, Zimmerman had already broken off his tailing activities and was heading back to his car, and Martin had doubled back, probably knowing that he had lost his tail but wanted to get back at him.
We now learn that Martin was involved in some sort of underground Fight Club, so that fits to reports on how he was wailing on Zimmerman.
The autopsy report shows that he had "1.5 ng/ML of THC, a drug commonly found in marijuana. There was about 7.3ng/mL of THC carboxy, the by-product of the body’s metabolism of THC". THC carboxy is the stuff that stays in your blood for days and weeks, so that's not telling of anything. But THC itself stays in the system only 4 hours at the most, so he was most likely high at the time. Personally I don't think the pot had anything to do with the case, (apart from explaining his need to go find some Skittles), but it does not speak well of a kid who plays within the rules.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7442 posts, RR: 5 Reply 104, posted (12 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3707 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106): How might that convince a jury to hand down a “guilty” verdict to Murder Two charges?
Let's be honest, what happens to Zimmerman in court probably won't make a lot of difference to the guy.
Where is he going to go? Who would hire him?
The guy goes to prison and makes sure he stays away from those who want to see him dead. He doesn't get convicted and he still will need to be afraid of every black he sees for the rest of his life. But, hey, he will have his gun, won't he?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106): How does that “stay in your car” principle work?
You report the "situation" to 911 and do what they say. Obviously those manning the 911 lines have far more judgement behind them than Zimmerman has.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106): Should getting out of your car be a misdemeanor or a felony?
Getting out of the car isn't a crime, but it sure as hell will be right in front of any jury. And those juries will be talking about it in deliberations. Deliberations about Zimmerman's killing a young man when he should have stayed away and let the pros do their job.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106): Zimmerman certainly wouldn't have thrown the first punch - why allow yourself to get that close and to get into a fistfight when you have a gun?
He might have tried & failed. its of bad things can happen when you do dumb things, like following a kid who has every tight to walk where he's walking.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106): Zimmerman would have done everything he could to keep his distance.
If that was true he would have stayed in his car. It's really that simple.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106): There are plenty of other reasons to throw it out.
And there are reasons to go to trial - including one dead kid.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106): That does not justify assaulting the person who may (or may not) have been following you.
So it's fine for the vigilante to go out and go after kids in the neighborhood, but it's not OK to stop the bum following you?
itsjustme From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2765 posts, RR: 11 Reply 105, posted (12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3699 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 102): Can we get off of whether the Constitution's drafters imagined current day gun laws
Agreed and I have suggested deletion of the irrelevant posts.
That being said, the prosecution has it's work cut out for them. There is no way a murder 2 conviction will be handed down. Hopefully, when this case gets to trial (and it will), the jury will have the ability to come back with a guilty verdict on a lesser charge. It's unfortunate that, looney tune whack job in possession of a firearm isn't against the law in FL.
WITNESS TWO said there were two men running, now says just one man running.
If it were two men running, that suggests pursuit - bad for Zimmerman.
If it was one man running (given that Zimmerman had a car), that suggests that Martin was trying to escape (if it were Martin running) or that Zimmerman was trying to regain a visual on him (if it were Zimmerman running). Bad for Zimmerman.
The only way that is good for Zimmerman is if there were two men running, and Martin was chasing Zimmerman. Zimmerman has not said that was the case.
Zimmerman's defense: credibility + vision problem.
WITNESS TWELVE said one man was on top of the other, but she couldn't see who. Now she says having seen Zimmerman on TV, she can confirm that it was Zimmerman on top because she remembers his size.
Zimmerman's defense: credibility.
WITNESS SIX said Trayvon was beating Zimmerman up, "MMA-style" and that Zimmerman was screaming for help. Now he says that he is not sure that it was Zimmerman screaming, and is not sure that Trayvon was even throwing punches, but rather just trying to keep Zimmerman pinned down.
Zimmerman's defense: WITNESS SIX is certain that "the black guy was on top."
State's offense: credibility; Martin standing his ground; Martin self-defense
WITNESS THIRTEEN said he spoke with Zimmerman, who told him that Martin was beating him up, so he had to shoot him. Now he adds that Zimmerman's demeanor (which is evidence) was that to him, it was no big deal.
Zimmerman's defense: credibility; maybe hearsay.
It should be noted that there are at least THIRTEEN witnesses. The posters on this thread that have relied exclusively on WITNESS SIX need to consider that there are at least 12 other witnesses, and that Witness SIX has added more detail to his story, and expressed some doubt in his own story. If you don't think Zimmerman has a tough road to hoe, think again.
falstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 5671 posts, RR: 29 Reply 107, posted (12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3652 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 61): There is evidence that M was looking at colleges and if he had been a bit of a punk before he was trying to better himself.
That means nothing.... I work with teenagers everyday and there are some of them that are just trouble and will grow up to be more trouble. I have heard that "I'm turning my life around" bit too many times and most of the time it is just a line. In my 11 years of teaching I have seen a lot of troubled youth who are "looking at colleges" but will never get in or stay if they do. I rarely see a kid turn his life around in school once he hits 17 or 18, but a lot after they leave school. I do see a lot of 14-16 year olds that change for the better in high school
Some kids are just bad and that is the way it is. I had a student who broke into cars and was caught. According to his mother he turned his life around. Seven months later he was caught with a bag of E and he went to rehab and "got his life turned around" Five years later he brutally murdered a young woman and is now serving life in prison. His mother is also serving time for threatening jury members and witnesses, with death. I guess her son wasn't turning his life around after all.
I don't put a lot of stock in what family members say about their dead kids. It seems that with great regularity a young thug who is gunned down in the streets of Detroit (usually drug/gang related) has a mother who comes on TV and says how he was turning his life around and was planning to go to college. Likewise the mothers of murderers come on TV and say how their sons could never do such a thing and how they were honor students and really caring people.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): He doesn't get convicted and he still will need to be afraid of every black he sees for the rest of his life
I doubt it. People have short memories. I bet in a few years people won't remember what he looks like. On the other hand I doubt a lot of people would forget his name. I feel bad for anyone else who is named George Zimmerman.
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 12): I want to know what the numbers on this kid were (height and weight) I will accept that the media used old photos, but to imply great strength would imply that this kid was of the physique of football player (ex. 6'2, 250lbs).
The last I heard he was 6'0 150-170 lbs. which is pretty skinny. Although great strength may not be determined by simply looking at someone.
There are a lot of 17 year olds that could kick my ass. I bet that any number of my students who are over 6 feet tall and weigh in 170 pounds could whip me in a fight. I may be bigger than they are, but they are faster and in better shape than me.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 108, posted (12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3649 times:
Quoting falstaff (Reply 107): It seems that with great regularity a young thug who is gunned down in the streets of Detroit (usually drug/gang related) has a mother who comes on TV and says how he was turning his life around and was planning to go to college. Likewise the mothers of murderers come on TV and say how their sons could never do such a thing and how they were honor students and really caring people.
Both true, that's why I put ZERO weight on what Zimmerman and Martin's families say.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 109, posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3581 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): You report the "situation" to 911 and do what they say.
That's not what the law says.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): Obviously those manning the 911 lines have far more judgement behind them
Still carries no legal weight.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): Getting out of the car isn't a crime, but it sure as hell will be
So it is, or it isn't? Juries aren't allowed to make up their own rules. Heck, why don't we just skip the trial and lynch Zimmerman?
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 104): Deliberations about Zimmerman's killing a young man when he should have stayed away and let the pros do their job.
Except when the pesky little fact comes up that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
Quoting D L X (Reply 106): Now he adds that Zimmerman's demeanor (which is evidence) was that to him, it was no big deal.
It's weak evidence. Ever been in shock? Ever seen anyone in shock? Ever seen anyone in shock while you're staring at a still-warm body that the person in shock just shot? Is there a certain demeanor one is required to have when they shoot someone?
Not necessarily. It will be interesting to see how that particular bit plays out.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 109): Except when the pesky little fact comes up that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
The only witness currently saying that Martin attacked Zimmerman is Zimmerman himself. Discount all self-serving statements by Zimmerman, his family, or Martin's family. They are inherently self-serving.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 111, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3497 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 110): The only witness currently saying that Martin attacked Zimmerman is Zimmerman himself.
And nobody is saying that Zimmerman attacked Martin either. So, really the only evidence is injuries. Martin had non-defensive knuckle scrapes and a bullet hole; Zimmerman had a broken nose and head lacerations. Unless another witness comes forward in court, any speculation as to who threw the first punch is just that: speculation, and not nearly strong enough to escape reasonable doubt.
kpitrrat From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 133 posts, RR: 0 Reply 112, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3487 times:
From what I understand about this mess, not a case a mess, we have at least 3 witnesses who have changed their story. Right there I would say they are unreliable as witnesses. So throw the witnesses out and what do you have? Physical evidence. The injuries to Zimmerman and a fatal gun wound. Now I can not believe they could even find a jury in cambodia that has not heard about this case. (Yes I may have exaggerated) but if you take a jury from Florida you are going to have to consider that they heard about the new witness testimony.
I say that he gets charges with some sort of Manslaughter and gets about 10-15 yrs.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 113, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3457 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 111): And nobody is saying that Zimmerman attacked Martin either.
That is not the case. It is the default that Zimmerman attacked Martin, because he admits that he killed him.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 111): Unless another witness comes forward in court, any speculation as to who threw the first punch is just that: speculation, and not nearly strong enough to escape reasonable doubt.
I have to had mentioned it at least 5 times already. Reasonable doubt only comes into play in the proof that the killing was committed and by whom. Reasonable doubt does NOT apply to the defense.
That's why you don't see people getting off because "maybe it was self-defense." No, the person claiming self-defense has to prove it.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 114, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3422 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 113): That is not the case. It is the default that Zimmerman attacked Martin, because he admits that he killed him.
It may be the "default", but that doesn't overrule any other facts that come out.
Quoting D L X (Reply 113): That's why you don't see people getting off because "maybe it was self-defense." No, the person claiming self-defense has to prove it.
Under what standard of proof? You make it sound like there has to be multiple credible witnesses to an event to corroborate someone's story, which is simply not the case.
For example, say I'm walking home one night, all alone on a street with no CCTV cameras or anyone around, except for some guy that comes up behind me, presses on my back, and threatens to shoot me if I don't hand over my wallet. Let's say that I spin around on him and punch him in the face. He turns around and reaches for his waistband; I pull my gun and shoot him because I fear he's reaching for a weapon. Turns out he doesn't.
Using your standard, I should be convicted of 2nd Degree Murder, because I can't "prove" that's what happened, and you'd use the fact that I have no defensive injuries and he has no offensive injuries as "proof" that I was the one causing trouble and killing in cold blood.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 115, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3412 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 114): Quoting D L X (Reply 113):
That is not the case. It is the default that Zimmerman attacked Martin, because he admits that he killed him.
It may be the "default", but that doesn't overrule any other facts that come out.
I never said it did. What I did say was that in the absence of additional evidence (Z started it, M started it) the default is that Z does not get self-defense because it is his burden to prove it.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 114): Quoting D L X (Reply 113):
That's why you don't see people getting off because "maybe it was self-defense." No, the person claiming self-defense has to prove it.
Under what standard of proof?
The standard of proof is "preponderance of the evidence." Under that standard, the party with the burden must prove that his case is more likely than not. So, unlike the reasonable doubt standard, where the defendant must only prove that it's possible, under the preponderance of the evidence standard, the defendant has to prove that it is more likely than not. That is a key distinction.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 114): You make it sound like there has to be multiple credible witnesses to an event to corroborate someone's story, which is simply not the case.
No, that's not what I am saying. I am saying that Z has to prove his defense case. He can present evidence, and the state can present arguments to negate his evidence, if they have any. Similarly, the state can present counterevidence, and Z can present arguments to negate the state's evidence. We both know they will, so it's just a matter that at the end of the day, does the jury believe that it was more likely than not that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. That means he didn't start the altercation, didn't escalate the altercation, and didn't provoke the altercation.
With that said, (and I apologize for the length of the next part) if the only one who is saying the defendant did not start the fight is the defendant himself, that is usually very weak evidence. Get ready for character evidence to shoot down Z's character. He has a rap sheet. Some people have called him a racist. Some people have called him a hothead. One person has said that he didn't seem fazed that he killed someone. The police dispatcher on 911 told him not to follow, but he did. Zimmerman did not stay in his vehicle. All this ish is going to be put on the stand in an attempt to show that Z was itchin' for a fight, found one, and offed this kid -- or at least, given that there was a fight, Zimmerman most likely started it.
And then you're going to see evidence from Z's friends (especially his black friend) talk up about how he loved black people, how he wouldn't hurt a fly, etc. etc., to rehabilitate his credibility when he says he didn't start it. This is all about Z trying to prove that it is most likely that Zimmerman didn't start it.
You're also going to see Z's camp try to present evidence that MARTIN was a violent kid, prone to crime, carried around criminal paraphernalia, and was likely to jump someone he didn't like. IN response, you'll see evidence that Martin was an honor student, applying for college, never had any legal run-ins, never jumped someone, and all sorts of other fluff to bolster the position that it was UNLIKELY that Martin would start an altercation like this.
Then you'll have evidence presented discussing whether Zimmerman should have had a reasonable belief that he was gonna be killed or seriously hurt if he didn't kill Martin first. Things like Zimmerman weighed 50 pounds more than Martin, but Martin was a high school athlete in good shape. Then things like Martin was unarmed. The credibility of Witness Six is key for Zimmerman, in that he used to say that Martin was beating Zimmerman up MMA style, but has recanted this. (So you'll also get evidence of whether Martin knew any MMA moves.)
It all adds up to this - if the jury finds that it is more likely than not that Martin started the fight, Zimmerman will be found IMMUNE, and released. Otherwise, Z's going to be in jail for a long time.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 114): For example, say I'm walking home one night, all alone on a street with no CCTV cameras or anyone around, except for some guy that comes up behind me, presses on my back, and threatens to shoot me if I don't hand over my wallet. Let's say that I spin around on him and punch him in the face. He turns around and reaches for his waistband; I pull my gun and shoot him because I fear he's reaching for a weapon. Turns out he doesn't.
Using your standard, I should be convicted of 2nd Degree Murder, because I can't "prove" that's what happened, and you'd use the fact that I have no defensive injuries and he has no offensive injuries as "proof" that I was the one causing trouble and killing in cold blood.
I think this is where you have me mistaken. All the evidence you can present should be admissible (other than hearsay). BUT (and I think this is where you mistook me), just because you present evidence does not mean you have passed the preponderance of the evidence standard. It doesn't mean that you have shown that it was more likely than not that your story is actually what happened.
Remember, it's not reasonable doubt. If it were, the person claiming self-defense would win every time, because "it's possible." Reasonable doubt only comes into play when the jury is not sure who actually did the act of killing the deceased.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 116, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3392 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 115): and I apologize for the length of the next part
Not at all. It was very informative.
I think where we got caught up was me using the common definition of "proof" being an absolute, as opposed to "preponderance of evidence", which is the standard used in Florida.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 119, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3174 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 118): So what does this mean? Are they not buying the medical evidence or what?
He lied about how much money he had. He and his wife were claiming they were indigent (his wife under oath), but they wound up having over 100K in cash (probably from the website he had set up).
usflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 1785 posts, RR: 0 Reply 122, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3104 times:
Zimmerman is so dumb. When you call someone from jail there is a recording that plays about every five minutes that tells you that you are being recorded and it can be used against you in court.
I think the passport issue is what is really going to damage him the most. He is eligible for Peruvian citizenship through his mother so he could flee the country and Peru could refuse to extradite him back. Thanks to his lying about the passport, I think he is now un-bondable.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7760 posts, RR: 22 Reply 123, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2997 times:
Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 122): I think the passport issue is what is really going to damage him the most. He is eligible for Peruvian citizenship through his mother so he could flee the country and Peru could refuse to extradite him back. Thanks to his lying about the passport, I think he is now un-bondable.
At the same time he twice had the opportunity to do exactly that, and has never indicated that he would 'do a bolter' if given the chance.
George Zimmerman is back in police custody; Twitter mob hopes for rape, death
CALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 1575 posts, RR: 22 Reply 126, posted (11 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2655 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 19): Something HUGE you are forgetting to report about the Coroner's Report: Martin was not shot at close range. He was shot at intermediate range. What does that mean? That means that Martin was outside the range to throw a punch when Zimmerman shot him dead. You can gloss over that, but that is a huge piece of evidence, if true.
Quoting D L X (Reply 19): Both of you: STOP. Your constantly making things political is what's going to get this thread killed.
"Details from Trayvon Martin's autopsy show the bullet entered the left side of his chest, and shattered the ventrical, one of his heart's two large chambers but the round did not leave his body.
The reports also noted the fatal wound's surrounded by a two-by-two inch pattern called stippling, caused by gunpower burns. It suggests Zimmerman fired inches away from the teenager."
CALTECH From Poland, joined May 2007, 1575 posts, RR: 22 Reply 127, posted (11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2674 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 110): The only witness currently saying that Martin attacked Zimmerman is Zimmerman himself. Discount all self-serving statements by Zimmerman, his family, or Martin's family. They are inherently self-serving.
"A new witness to the Trayvon Martin shooting has come forward, claiming the Florida teen did in fact attack neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, according to media reports."
On May 25, I posted a report saying that the witness that had claimed that Martin attacked Zimmerman has now recanted his story.
So, why do you post an article dated March 24 to support your claim that this witness says that Martin attacked Zimmerman? Do you not see that this is the same guy that has recanted his story?
The only point you make by posting outdated news is that you plan to ignore current, more relevant news because it doesn't fit your story.
kpitrrat From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 133 posts, RR: 0 Reply 129, posted (11 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2461 times:
In the words of David Ferrie played by Joe Pesci in the movie JFK.
"It's a mystery! It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma!"
This case has long gone past the characterization of circus. That being said, with the way things have been going for relatively high profile cases in the last couple years..
Casey Anthony.
Barry Bonds (3 charges result in Mistrial)
John Edwards.
Roger Clemens.
Maybe the Sandusky case will get the the justice system back in line...
With all of the murky physical evidence and even murkier eyewitness reports this is simply a mess. It seems to me that either side will have a difficult time finding credible witnesses. At this point it appears that Zimmerman can only hurt himself, which he (and his wife) are apparently trying to do.
Should Zimmerman's jailhouse phone records be permitted as evidence towards his credibility?
The DA overcharged here as their wasn't enough evidence to support Murder one beyond a reasonable doubt, she was acquitted on the lesser charges likely because the DA focused on pre-meditation over an accidental death.
Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 129): Barry Bonds (3 charges result in Mistrial)
John Edwards.
Those were mistrials so they can be tried again if more evidence comes to light and with different juries.
This just happened but I assume they could not prove he lied to congress, probably because his trainer was not very credible.
Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 129): Maybe the Sandusky case will get the the justice system back in line...
One can hope but a lot of those jurors have Penn State connections, but I think he is going away.
Quoting kpitrrat (Reply 129):
With all of the murky physical evidence and even murkier eyewitness reports this is simply a mess. It seems to me that either side will have a difficult time finding credible witnesses. At this point it appears that Zimmerman can only hurt himself, which he (and his wife) are apparently trying to do.
Should Zimmerman's jailhouse phone records be permitted as evidence towards his credibility?
There are no credible witnesses but Zimmerman's credibility has been hurt and his wife will face charges also. I would assume the phone records will be public knowledge as a judge can subpoena them. They have been released public ally also.
Saying that I don't think that he committed murder two but it was voluntary manslaughter, this is because I feel and (I know some disagree) that Zimmerman was looking for trouble and had no reason to enter the situation and killed Martin out of a struggle. With the lack of witness and defendant credibility it is harder to use self-defense as a defense.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman had intent to kill Martin before the struggle began.
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 776 posts, RR: 3 Reply 134, posted (11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2288 times:
Here we go again......
Seems from reading the above that everybody knows what went on that night, which should make the trial easy, right?
Ask yourself this- if there hadn't been public outrage about this, would there have ever been a trial? Would any of this information have come out? Even if you're CONVINCED Zimmerman was within his rights and that nothing could persuade you that it was anything other than 100% Martin's fault and 0% Zimmerman's fault, isn't it better to go to trial and find out exactly what happened than just sweep it all under the carpet?
Far too many people here seem to be fighting some kind of weird tribal war and forgetting what our legal system is supposed to be for.
If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
TheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2346 posts, RR: 7 Reply 135, posted (11 months 2 days ago) and read 2269 times:
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 134): Far too many people here seem to be fighting some kind of weird tribal war and forgetting what our legal system is supposed to be for.
And now a video of the episode posted by Zimmermans defense attorneys ....
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3211 posts, RR: 9 Reply 137, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2211 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 136): This has gone on too long -__- the whole case should be thrown out because of the biased media and protests. Pathetic excuse for due process.
Using that logic many cases in the US should have been thrown out due to media hype also a lot of the time also the jury goes against the "Court of Public opinion". To list a few: Rodney King (well the cops who beat him), OJ, Casey Anthony, Robert Blake etc. All were though to be guilty by the media and all of them walked.
Due process will be done regardless and nothing the NRA or Al Sharpton says is going to change that, the jury sees the evidence presented to them and will rule on it. If the case gets thrown out then the judge doesn't believe the evidence.
A lot of the this has been about Zimmerman killing his own credibility, having his wife get arrested also. The media didn't cause that, incompetence did.
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 134): Ask yourself this- if there hadn't been public outrage about this, would there have ever been a trial? Would any of this information have come out? Even if you're CONVINCED Zimmerman was within his rights and that nothing could persuade you that it was anything other than 100% Martin's fault and 0% Zimmerman's fault, isn't it better to go to trial and find out exactly what happened than just sweep it all under the carpet?
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7760 posts, RR: 22 Reply 138, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2189 times:
Quoting zckls04 (Reply 134): Ask yourself this- if there hadn't been public outrage about this, would there have ever been a trial? Would any of this information have come out? Even if you're CONVINCED Zimmerman was within his rights and that nothing could persuade you that it was anything other than 100% Martin's fault and 0% Zimmerman's fault, isn't it better to go to trial and find out exactly what happened than just sweep it all under the carpet?
Let's remember that putting someone on trial is not without its cost. I haven't checked, but I know that Zimmerman was employed at an insurance company and was taking college courses before the shooting, and as a result of of all this bruhaha, I'm sure he's lost his job and his career track is in a state of disaster. He and his family will end up spending every cent they have (and then go into debt) to pay for all his legal fees. People should not be brought to trial, or even threatened with it, unless there is a pretty damned good case, I think.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 139, posted (11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2186 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 138): I haven't checked, but I know that Zimmerman was employed at an insurance company and was taking college courses before the shooting, and as a result of of all this bruhaha, I'm sure he's lost his job and his career track is in a state of disaster.
Charles, have you forgotten that a teenaged kid is dead?
Your priorities are in the wrong place if you're putting this guy's job over somebody's life.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 138): People should not be brought to trial, or even threatened with it, unless there is a pretty damned good case, I think.
Fortunately, this is not how it works. Accountability is way more important to ordered society than worrying about the temporary effect on someone's job. If Zimmerman is found not guilty, I doubt he will have much trouble at all getting his life back in order.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7760 posts, RR: 22 Reply 140, posted (11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2182 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 139): Fortunately, this is not how it works. Accountability is way more important to ordered society than worrying about the temporary effect on someone's job. If Zimmerman is found not guilty, I doubt he will have much trouble at all getting his life back in order.
Oh, I'm sure you would not have a problem digging your way out of a debt several times what you earn per year (and you don't even have an asset at the end, like a house). Sure, no problem...
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 141, posted (11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2174 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 140): Oh, I'm sure you would not have a problem digging your way out of a debt several times what you earn per year (and you don't even have an asset at the end, like a house). Sure, no problem...
Charles,
when you kill someone,
IT IS NOT ABOUT YOU ANYMORE.
I find it amazing that you are so worried about the comfort of the defendant in a homicide trial, as if merely bringing charges is some barbaric, unjust act. I mean, do you actually believe this, or are you just being argumentative?
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7760 posts, RR: 22 Reply 142, posted (11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2168 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 141):
I find it amazing that you are so worried about the comfort of the defendant in a homicide trial, as if merely bringing charges is some barbaric, unjust act. I mean, do you actually believe this, or are you just being argumentative?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Don't you get that?
Yeah, someone died. But would you not agree that some people have it coming? Never mind this particular case - let's say one of Ted Bundy's victims had gotten hold of a weapon and killed Bundy before getting killed himself. Do you think it would be fair to put that person on trial?
zckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 776 posts, RR: 3 Reply 144, posted (11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2135 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 138): Let's remember that putting someone on trial is not without its cost. I haven't checked, but I know that Zimmerman was employed at an insurance company and was taking college courses before the shooting, and as a result of of all this bruhaha, I'm sure he's lost his job and his career track is in a state of disaster. He and his family will end up spending every cent they have (and then go into debt) to pay for all his legal fees. People should not be brought to trial, or even threatened with it, unless there is a pretty damned good case, I think.
I see your point, but I think it's worth the money. Zimmerman may well end up the financial loser (unlikely, given the media attention), but unfortunately that's just his bad luck in this case. Had he been immediately prosecuted I think the media would have been less interested (murderer going to trial is less exciting than murderer getting away with it), and his name would not be known nationally- or if it was it would be a flash in the pan.
The other thing to remember is that this law needs to be tested because it's so appallingly badly written. If somebody had broken into Zimmerman's house and Zimmerman defended himself then perhaps a trial would be superfluous (although it would probably be pretty short if things were clear cut). But in this case the lines are vague and nobody really knows whether it will hold up. Justice is sometimes expensive, but the alternative costs much more.
If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 147, posted (11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2099 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 145):
Quoting D L X (Reply 143):
It is not a wrong to try someone when they kill someone.
It is if it was self defense.
No sir. It is not wrong.
I'd be with you if the trial was just for harrassment. But clearly it is not. You and Charles must not just sweep the fact that there is a dead high school kid under the rug. THIS IS SERIOUS. Stop treating it like it's not.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7760 posts, RR: 22 Reply 148, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2086 times:
Quoting JJJ (Reply 146): How else do you prove that if there is no trial?
Preponderance of evidence. Before a case comes to trial, a number of people have to be sufficiently convinced of the accused' probable (not just possible) guilt. The police investigator, the judge who signs the arrest warrant, the members of the grand jury, the prosecutor. In this particular case, it appears that the prosecutor did get swayed by public opinion, which is a big no-no.
Quoting D L X (Reply 147): I'd be with you if the trial was just for harrassment. But clearly it is not. You and Charles must not just sweep the fact that there is a dead high school kid under the rug. THIS IS SERIOUS. Stop treating it like it's not.
You are the one treating what Zimmerman is going through as not serious. His life is a wreck. And just because the "high school kid" is dead does not mean that he should automatically be assumed to be the victim. Have you seen the tape of Zimmerman re-enacting the event? I think his story sounds believable - particularly little things, like the way he describes Martin's sitting up reaction after the shot went off. Sounds like someone who had actually been there and seen it, rather than made up. Have you seen Martin's Twitter account? The kid was a drug-dealing thug.
Zimmerman's life is a wreck? HE KILLED SOMEONE! Do you think he'd like to trade places with the person he put in the ground?
Which of those two people would you rather be: the dead guy or the guy on trial?
I do not understand why this is hard. Actually, I do know. You have said before that Martin's life was not worth protecting, and snuffing him out should be lauded, not prosecuted.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 148): And just because the "high school kid" is dead does not mean that he should automatically be assumed to be the victim.
That is what trial is for. You don't get to skip that step.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 148): Have you seen the tape of Zimmerman re-enacting the event? I think his story sounds believable - particularly little things, like the way he describes Martin's sitting up reaction after the shot went off.
Then put it up as trial evidence, and let the prosecution cross-examine him. Being able to make a believable story is hardly a good reason to avoid prosecution.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 148): Have you seen Martin's Twitter account? The kid was a drug-dealing thug.
Twitter? Really?
Please show us all the law that says things said in a twitter account can justify killing.
I'll ask again: do you actually believe what you are saying, or are you just being a troll?
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7433 posts, RR: 2 Reply 151, posted (11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2071 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 148): You are the one treating what Zimmerman is going through as not serious. His life is a wreck.
I believe Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin both acted idiotically and made huge mistakes on that day. I believe Zimmerman was racist and wrong to harass Martin. However, I can also believe that Martin began physically assaulting Zimmerman, an armed man. As a result of this horrible pair of decisions, Martin ended up dead and Zimmerman is suffering huge consequences.
No winners. In society, when you do dumb things, sometimes there is a punishment. Sometimes your life is ruined or you die.
Please show us all the law that says things said in a twitter account can justify killing.
Not in a judicial sense, but if it is true that he was a drug dealing little punk, which all the evidence seems to point to, then I think the world is better off without him in it.
Quoting D L X (Reply 150): I'll ask again: do you actually believe what you are saying, or are you just being a troll?
Quoting Flighty (Reply 151): I believe Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin both acted idiotically and made huge mistakes on that day. I believe Zimmerman was racist and wrong to harass Martin. However, I can also believe that Martin began physically assaulting Zimmerman, an armed man. As a result of this horrible pair of decisions, Martin ended up dead and Zimmerman is suffering huge consequences.
Following someone can legally get you a tongue-lashing, and at worst a restraining order. Not assault. Physically assaulting somebody can legally get you killed in self defense.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4946 posts, RR: 15 Reply 154, posted (11 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2049 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 153): Show of hands please - when you read the caption on the picture in post 152, how many of you thought it with a Mexican accent?
me
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 152): Not in a judicial sense, but if it is true that he was a drug dealing little punk, which all the evidence seems to point to, then I think the world is better off without him in it.
Sort-of a harsh way to put it, but yes, I agree, we need to get more tough on today's youth.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3211 posts, RR: 9 Reply 155, posted (11 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2038 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 139): Fortunately, this is not how it works. Accountability is way more important to ordered society than worrying about the temporary effect on someone's job. If Zimmerman is found not guilty, I doubt he will have much trouble at all getting his life back in order.
Million dollar book deal coming after.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 138): Let's remember that putting someone on trial is not without its cost. I haven't checked, but I know that Zimmerman was employed at an insurance company and was taking college courses before the shooting, and as a result of of all this bruhaha, I'm sure he's lost his job and his career track is in a state of disaster. He and his family will end up spending every cent they have (and then go into debt) to pay for all his legal fees. People should not be brought to trial, or even threatened with it, unless there is a pretty damned good case, I think.
Do you feel the same about OJ, he got off on his charges. I'm a judge deems to feel that this warrants a trial it will be done. He was charged with a crime and has to be tried in a court of law. As for getting in massive debt I doubt it, this will be a high profile case where is attorney is going to get famous regardless of the verdict so its most cost him as much. Also Zimmerman has a bunch of supporters who donated to his legal fund which is now why his wife is in jail for lying about having that $$.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 154): Sort-of a harsh way to put it, but yes, I agree, we need to get more tough on today's youth.
He is dead, I think that is the ultimate price.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 152): Not in a judicial sense, but if it is true that he was a drug dealing little punk, which all the evidence seems to point to, then I think the world is better off without him in it.
Yeah but he was 17 many people aren't angels as teenagers and turn out fine, had I been a little more bada** as a teen then I probably would be more confident 10 years later. People of your age bracket tend to forget what being a teen is like which is why I have growing contempt for seniors who assume millennials are automatically entitled punks who have no respect.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 156, posted (11 months 13 hours ago) and read 1980 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 150): Zimmerman's life is a wreck? HE KILLED SOMEONE!
Who had attacked him and severely beat him.
Quoting D L X (Reply 150): I do not understand why this is hard.
Maybe it's because you don't believe in self-defense?
Quoting D L X (Reply 150):
That is what trial is for. You don't get to skip that step.
Sorry, but it is you who is skipping steps. By your logic, the 14 year-old who shot an intruder yesterday in Phoenix should be arrested and put on trial.
Quoting D L X (Reply 150): Then put it up as trial evidence, and let the prosecution cross-examine him. Being able to make a believable story is hardly a good reason to avoid prosecution.
If you think that Zimmerman avoided prosecution based solely on his account, you would be dead wrong.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 157, posted (11 months 11 hours ago) and read 1955 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 156): Quoting D L X (Reply 150):
Zimmerman's life is a wreck? HE KILLED SOMEONE!
Who had attacked him and severely beat him.
A trial will determine that. Don't put the cart before the horse.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 156): Quoting D L X (Reply 150):
I do not understand why this is hard.
Maybe it's because you don't believe in self-defense?
Hogwash. Self-defense is proven at trial, with the benefit of cross-examination. You don't get self-defense just because you say you defended yourself. This is not new, this has been our Anglo-American system for probably 1000 years or more.
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4946 posts, RR: 15 Reply 158, posted (11 months 9 hours ago) and read 1930 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 157): Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 156):
Quoting D L X (Reply 150):
Zimmerman's life is a wreck? HE KILLED SOMEONE!
Who had attacked him and severely beat him.
A trial will determine that. Don't put the cart before the horse.
Why would a trial determine what is already evidence? It's the media, the police failing to release the evidence, and the whole sensationalist feelings behind this whole wackjob of a trial. If this guy killed another latino, i HIGHLY doubt this wouldn't be a huge sensationalist story.
REMEMBER this is NOT race based, so people who are saying that can shut it..
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 159, posted (11 months 4 hours ago) and read 1903 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 157): A trial will determine that. Don't put the cart before the horse
You are putting the cart before the horse. If the evidence shows that it was self defense according to the statutes then we have no trial. Do we have trials for people when the evidence does not fit the statutes or laws?
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 160, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1837 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 158): Why would a trial determine what is already evidence?
NOTHING has been admitted as evidence yet. That is the purpose of the trial. A judge determines what evidence is admissible, the parties present their arguments explaining why the admissible evidence should be given greater or less weight (cross-examination), these arguments are held in front of the jury, who at the end decide what they think of the evidence.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 159): Quoting D L X (Reply 157):
A trial will determine that. Don't put the cart before the horse
You are putting the cart before the horse.
No, I am not. Putting the cart before the horse is deciding that because YOU think you know what the answer is, you're going to skip the test. Trial is the test.
Evidence is presented and tested at court, not in the DA's office, and not in the media. Of course, the DA's office will review the evidence and make an educated guess as to how the court will receive it. If the DA's office (or its equivalent) does not believe they can make the case, they won't bring the case. That is not the case here. Here, Angela Corey has decided that she believes she CAN make the case with the evidence they have, and so charges were brought.
I am a litigator. This is the purpose of trial - to test the evidence the parties present.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 161, posted (10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1709 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 160): Evidence is presented and tested at court, not in the DA's office
But then you say:
Quoting D L X (Reply 160): Of course, the DA's office will review the evidence and make an educated guess as to how the court will receive it. If the DA's office (or its equivalent) does not believe they can make the case, they won't bring the case.
So, clearly, the DA and the police have the power to not bring charges. A trial is not automatic when a potential crime has been committed.
Quoting D L X (Reply 160): Here, Angela Corey has decided that she believes she CAN make the case with the evidence they have
Not sure if I should use the or the
At best, based on the evidence we have seen so far, the most Zimmerman can be convicted of is voluntary manslaughter. 2nd degree murder requires intent to kill, which not one single person can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's pretty clear to everyone that she is using this case as nothing more than a vehicle for publicity, as they couldn't even get a regular prosecutor to file charges (certain interests went fishing until they found one that would). Just like in the Caylee Anthony case, the prosecution has filed charges that have absolutely no evidence behind them.
JJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1617 posts, RR: 2 Reply 162, posted (10 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1711 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 149): If the evidence show it then the Police and DA do not file charges. Also here in Florida the Judge usually makes the decision before it goes to trial.
Shooting an unarmed man will get you on trial 99 times out of 100.
In most other countries, self-defence would not have applied, either.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3211 posts, RR: 9 Reply 163, posted (10 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1694 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 165): Quoting D L X (Reply 160):
Of course, the DA's office will review the evidence and make an educated guess as to how the court will receive it. If the DA's office (or its equivalent) does not believe they can make the case, they won't bring the case.
So, clearly, the DA and the police have the power to not bring charges. A trial is not automatic when a potential crime has been committed.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 165): At best, based on the evidence we have seen so far, the most Zimmerman can be convicted of is voluntary manslaughter. 2nd degree murder requires intent to kill, which not one single person can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's pretty clear to everyone that she is using this case as nothing more than a vehicle for publicity, as they couldn't even get a regular prosecutor to file charges (certain interests went fishing until they found one that would). Just like in the Caylee Anthony case, the prosecution has filed charges that have absolutely no evidence behind them.
That I agree 100% (that its an overcharge) unless they have evidence that hasn't been released publicly.
Zimmerman doesn't seem too bright to begin with so I don't put it past him that he may have said something in an interrogation that implicates him further, that the public may not know about.
Also this is the same DA that sentenced a woman to 20 years for what I think is a much more proper use of the law and no one was even hurt in that case, so I'm not surprised.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 164, posted (10 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1677 times:
Quoting JJJ (Reply 166): Shooting an unarmed man will get you on trial 99 times out of 100.
In most other countries, self-defence would not have applied, either
Good thing we do not live in other countries. So in most countries it is okay to let someone bash your head in without a response?
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 167): Also this is the same DA that sentenced a woman to 20 years for what I think is a much more proper use of the law and no one was even hurt in that case, so I'm not surprised.
She is also well known here in Florida for charging kids with adult crimes and sending them away for a long time. I will have to look up the link later but she has a a case now where she is trying to put a 12 yr old away in the big boy house. There is a large petition on line to have her removed from office for this.
JJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1617 posts, RR: 2 Reply 165, posted (10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1630 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 168): Good thing we do not live in other countries. So in most countries it is okay to let someone bash your head in without a response?
Most countries have this proportional use of force thing. So it's self defence shooting someone who has a gun or who, say, has a knife and is about to stab someone.
If you're into a fistfight (and very especially one you started by following someone) you're expected to exclusively use your fists before you get into trouble. If the other guy is substantially stronger than you or has some form of martial art training, using some kind of blunt weapon is also ok for self defence.
There are basically 4 layers of deadly force: fists - blunt - blades - firearms.
Of course, this does not apply to the US, but shooting an unarmed man anywhere should raise enough red flags to warrant a thorough investigation and trial.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 166, posted (10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1622 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 169): Are you saying the DA is illegitimate?
Yes. They never should of appointed a special prosecutor. They did it to appease the mob.
Quoting D L X (Reply 169): why are you fighting me when I say that the Court has to address this?
I am saying that a trial by jury in most cases will not happen or be warranted under this law. The court being the judge will make most determinations of this kind. If I was misunderstanding you then I apologize
Quoting JJJ (Reply 171): If the other guy is substantially stronger than you or has some form of martial art training, using some kind of blunt weapon is also ok for self defence
So I could beat him to death with my Pistol to defend myself ? And that would be okay then?
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 167, posted (10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1622 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 170): Obviously you forget other witnesses and the physical evidence, not least of which are Zimmerman's own injuries.
No. The other witness has recanted. See Reply 106.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 170): To get a jury instruction on self defense, all Zimmerman must produce is some evidence, no matter how flimsy, even if it’s just his own version of events.
No one is saying that Z cannot get a jury instruction on self-defense. The argument is whether Z can even be tried at all. (Windy says he cannot, and you say he should not.) So your jury instruction issue actually supports my argument.
A jury instruction does not mean that the jury is instructed to find a certain way. It is just guidance so the jury can decide whether self-defense actually occurred or not. (But I'm glad you are FINALLY citing actual law. It's past time. Now we just need to work on correct interpretation of it.)
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 170): An aggressor is someone who initially provokes the use of physical force. Provoking fear does not apply.
That is not what the law you cite says.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 170): Even if they were able to show Zimmerman did something that justified TM’s reaction of punching him in the nose and beating his head, Zimmerman should still prevail on self-defense unless he had some other, lesser means to stop Trayvon’s assault or reaching for his gun.
That is the exact opposite of what the law you cite says.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 170): Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof. The state must disprove self-defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Again, this is your conjecture, and it is incorrect. As I pointed out above, Florida Courts have already said that ZIMMERMAN must prove by preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self-defense:
Quote:
The court further determined that a defendant raising the immunity would have the burden of establishing the factual prerequisites to the immunity claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 980. The court imposed the same burden of proof as it would in motions for postconviction relief or motions to suppress. Id.
Even though I have no idea what the qualifications of this"Jeralyn" person are, your talkleft cite agrees with me:
Quote:
A hearing is held before trial. The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that stand your ground immunity applies.
The judge weighs the facts. If the judge agrees the defendant has shown stand your ground immunity applies by a preponderance of evidence, the charges are dismissed. The defendant can't be prosecuted.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 169, posted (10 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1604 times:
Let me correct something that I have said earlier.
Apparently, Florida law is a mess. On the one hand, is the Peterson case, which says that the defendant has to prove with a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to self-defense immunity.
But then there is also the Martinez case, 981 So. 2d 449 (also in 2008) which states this wholly contradictory rule:
Quote:
As noted by the majority, when a defendant presents a claim of self-defense, he admits that he committed the criminal act with which he has been charged but contends that the act was justifiable. See Hopson, 168 So. at 811. A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a theory of defense if there is any evidence to support that theory, regardless of how the trial judge views the strength of the evidence. See Goode v. State, 856 So.2d 1101, 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Thus, where conflicting evidence is offered, self-defense is an issue for the jury to determine. See Stewart v. State, 672 So.2d 865, 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Once a defendant produces evidence in support of a self-defense claim, the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions were not taken in self-defense. See Fowler v. State, 921 So.2d 708, 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); S.D.G. v. State, 919 So.2d 704, 705 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Sneed v. State, 580 So.2d 169, 170 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
So, in short, Peterson says that the defendant has to prove he was entitled to self defense (by preponderance), but Martinez says that the state has to prove that the defendant was NOT entitled to self defense (without a reasonable doubt). All the Stand Your Ground cases follow Peterson, but the Florida Jury Instructions follow Martinez.
I'm glad I don't practice in Florida, as it is pretty hard to reconcile these two cases.
But let's look back to this exchange:
Quoting D L X (Reply 173): Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 170):
To get a jury instruction on self defense, all Zimmerman must produce is some evidence, no matter how flimsy, even if it’s just his own version of events.
No one is saying that Z cannot get a jury instruction on self-defense. The argument is whether Z can even be tried at all.
This argument still holds. However, once Z gets his jury instruction, if the jury believes there remains reasonable doubt that Z acted in self defense, the jury is required to find him not guilty. How this is not invoked in 100% of cases is beyond me.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3211 posts, RR: 9 Reply 170, posted (10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1554 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 163): Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 165):
Quoting D L X (Reply 160):
Of course, the DA's office will review the evidence and make an educated guess as to how the court will receive it. If the DA's office (or its equivalent) does not believe they can make the case, they won't bring the case.
So, clearly, the DA and the police have the power to not bring charges. A trial is not automatic when a potential crime has been committed.
I forgot to respond to this in reply 163.
Of course they have the power to not bring charges, this DA feels she has a case.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 164): She is also well known here in Florida for charging kids with adult crimes and sending them away for a long time. I will have to look up the link later but she has a a case now where she is trying to put a 12 yr old away in the big boy house. There is a large petition on line to have her removed from office for this.
Fair point, I think she overcharged here and Z will get off on the Murder 2 charge.
Post the link about the 12 year old whenever you can because I'm intriged by these cases
Quoting D L X (Reply 169): This argument still holds. However, once Z gets his jury instruction, if the jury believes there remains reasonable doubt that Z acted in self defense, the jury is required to find him not guilty. How this is not invoked in 100% of cases is beyond me.
Since you are the attorney her, can you make multiple charges towards Z??
They did with Casey Anthony where they charged her with Murder one through to involuntary manslaugter IIRC. Can they do the same here where the state has a much better chance of getting a conviction on lesser manslaughter charges.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 171, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1518 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 170): Since you are the attorney her, can you make multiple charges towards Z??
Sure can.
In this case, it appears that the prosecutors only charged Z with Murder in the Second Degree, however, they can (under most conditions) amend their pleading to add Manslaughter. It is possible that they charge high so as to get a plea agreement for a lower charge.
starbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 590 posts, RR: 5 Reply 172, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1509 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 170): Post the link about the 12 year old whenever you can because I'm intriged by these cases
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 173, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1511 times:
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 170): Post the link about the 12 year old whenever you can because I'm intriged by these cases
CristianGernandez was charged with first-degree murder in adult court. As a result of this charge, Cristian faces life in prison. He had hit his two yr old brother who ended up passing away.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 174, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1504 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 173): As a result of this charge, Cristian faces life in prison.
Actually, it would be as a result of his TRIAL, not the charge, that he would face life in prison. Like as in all cases, a judge and jury will determine what sentence, if any, this defendant gets.
windy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2554 posts, RR: 5 Reply 175, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1480 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 174): Quoting windy95 (Reply 173):As a result of this charge, Cristian faces life in prison.
Actually, it would be as a result of his TRIAL, not the charge, that he would face life in prison. Like as in all cases, a judge and jury will determine what sentence, if any, this defendant gets.
Is there a point to this post? Other than to to nitpick?
Quoting windy95 (Reply 173): As a result of this charge, Cristian faces life in prison
As a result of any charge a person faces the possibility of time of prison. Yes they need a trial but with the charge being made you at that time face the possibility of going to jail. It did not say as a result of the charge he WILL be going away for life but that he FACES life in prison.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 176, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1469 times:
Quoting windy95 (Reply 175): Is there a point to this post? Other than to to nitpick?
Yes. You and others are trying to place the ultimate blame on Angela Corey if someone gets a sentence. But this leaves out the fact that a judge and a jury made it happen, and that Corey just presented the request.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 177, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1444 times:
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3251 posts, RR: 1 Reply 178, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1440 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 177): More police evidence against Zimmerman.
It is just more discussions. My takeaway is still this.
Had Zimmerman not gotten out of the car , this wouldn't have happened.
From all the indciations of the report. Martin was walking back to his house. Zimmerman who some would call a bit of an over the top reporter of young black males in his neighborhood decided to follow him. Bad things happened, and Zimmerman claims self defense.
At a mimimum he initiated unnecessary contact.
There is no proof beyond that mainly due to the fact that the only reliable witness is now dead.
Zimmerman should not get self defense in this case. He should get at least an involuntary manslaughter.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 4744 posts, RR: 6 Reply 179, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1367 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 178):
Had Zimmerman not gotten out of the car , this wouldn't have happened.
Following someone in a car or on foot are the same thing: you are following someone. You cannot say that it's ok to watch someone from a car, but it's not ok to get out of said car.
Unnecessary =/= illegal or wrong. Also, he did not initiate contact: Martin approached him.
No crime was committed until someone threw a punch. It's possible, but unlikely given the evidence, that Zimmerman made an aggressive move towards Martin. As it stands, Martin had exactly zero defensive wounds, other than a bullet hole.
Martin would have been just a reliable a "witness" as Zimmerman. For the record, parties involved in a confrontation are not "witnesses", they are "subjects".
Quoting casinterest (Reply 178): Zimmerman who some would call a bit of an over the top reporter of young black males in his neighborhood
Straw man, and completely unsupported by any real evidence.
Quoting casinterest (Reply 178):
Zimmerman should not get self defense in this case. He should get at least an involuntary manslaughter.
Except that's not an allowable verdict given the evidence. At the very least, if convicted, it will be voluntary manslaughter. In fact, that would be the ONLY allowable verdict based on the evidence presented thus far. 2nd degree murder in Florida requires intent to kill and depravity towards human life.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 180, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1335 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 179): Also, he did not initiate contact: Martin approached him.
You keep saying that OVER AND OVER but you have no evidence to support that other than Zimmerman saying it.
Why do you keep repeating this when you know that it is fact that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin?
Zimmerman should not get self defense in this case. He should get at least an involuntary manslaughter.
Except that's not an allowable verdict given the evidence. At the very least, if convicted, it will be voluntary manslaughter.
There is no "Voluntary Manslaughter" charge in Florida. It is just "Manslaughter."
And to be sure, for casinterest and others, "involuntary manslaughter" is given when you kill someone by doing something when you are not in control of your faculties, like drunk driving or under the influence of a hallucinogenic narcotic. Accidental killing is not involuntary just because you didn't mean to do it.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 179): 2nd degree murder in Florida requires intent to kill and depravity towards human life.
Not so fast. He clearly had intent to kill because he pulled out a gun and shot him. The intent part is the easy part to prove. Depravity towards human life is harder to prove. But in Florida, here's how you prove it:
Quote:
An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
Number 1 is easy - you pull a gun on someone and pull the trigger, and you are reasonably certain that you will kill.
Number 3 is easy for the same reason.
Number 2 is hard. BUT those 911 tapes where Zimmerman calls him various spiteful names can be used to prove this element.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7760 posts, RR: 22 Reply 181, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1328 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 180): Number 1 is easy - you pull a gun on someone and pull the trigger, and you are reasonably certain that you will kill.
Number 3 is easy for the same reason.
Number 2 is hard. BUT those 911 tapes where Zimmerman calls him various spiteful names can be used to prove this element.
Number 3 is not easy. You are simply ASSuming that anyone who pulls a gun does so out of "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent".
Here are the results of the lie detector test Zimmerman took the day after the shooting. The examiner's judgement was "No Deception Indicated".
Note the 6th question.
That blows your manslaughter charge out of the water, as Florida law says that the State needs to prove beyond a doubt that Zimmerman had no reason to fear for his life.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3251 posts, RR: 1 Reply 182, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1320 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 179): Following someone in a car or on foot are the same thing: you are following someone. You cannot say that it's ok to watch someone from a car, but it's not ok to get out of said car.
you may call it something else, but I call it stalking.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 179): Unnecessary =/= illegal or wrong. Also, he did not initiate contact: Martin approached him.
He followed him and stalked him. Had someone stalked you , would you not turn around? It's called fight or flight, and it occurs during fear. You also at this point only have Zimmerman side since the fake policeman decided to carry a gun.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 179): No crime was committed until someone threw a punch. It's possible, but unlikely given the evidence, that Zimmerman made an aggressive move towards Martin. As it stands, Martin had exactly zero defensive wounds, other than a bullet hole.
One again one sided,
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 179): Straw man, and completely unsupported by any real evidence.
How about all the police reports and 911 calls. That is a straw man with sticks and mud.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 181): That blows your manslaughter charge out of the water, as Florida law says that the State needs to prove beyond a doubt that Zimmerman had no reason to fear for his life.
But from above Martin feared for his life. He was the one being followed. And Zimmerman is less than truthful just based on how he and his wife treat money and guns.
Either way it comes out, I would not want a person like Zimmerman in my neighborhood.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3211 posts, RR: 9 Reply 183, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1317 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 180): You keep saying that OVER AND OVER but you have no evidence to support that other than Zimmerman saying it.
Why do you keep repeating this when you know that it is fact that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin?
Also with the damage that his credibility has taken from the whole bail issue and the DA will bring that up in examination.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 181): Here are the results of the lie detector test Zimmerman took the day after the shooting. The examiner's judgement was "No Deception Indicated".
Lie detector tests can give probable cause but they do not hold of in court as concrete evidence. Similar to how a breathalyser can give probable cause to make an arrest for a DUI but a blood test has to be administered to be credible in court.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 181): That blows your manslaughter charge out of the water, as Florida law says that the State needs to prove beyond a doubt that Zimmerman had no reason to fear for his life.
Which the state will try to do unless the judge says that there isn't enough credible evidence or a jury will in a trial. A simple polygraph test is not enough legally.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 184, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1312 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 181): You are simply ASSuming that anyone who pulls a gun does so out of "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent".
You misread what I wrote.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 181): Florida law says that the State needs to prove beyond a doubt that Zimmerman had no reason to fear for his life.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7760 posts, RR: 22 Reply 185, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1299 times:
Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof. The state must disprove self-defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
From Stieh v. State, 67 So. 3d 275, 279 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2011):
It was the State’s burden to overcome Stieh’s theory of self-defense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stieh was not acting lawfully when he stabbed the victim. See Behanna, 985 So. 2d at 555. As noted by this court in Jenkins, HN7″self-defense cases are intensely fact-specific.” 942 So. 2d at 916. But where the evidence ” ‘leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, at least one of which is consistent with the defendant’s hypothesis of innocence, [it] is not legally sufficient to make a case for the jury.’ ” Fowler, 921 So. 2d at 712 (quoting Fowler v. State, 492 So. 2d 1344, 1348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)).
Defendant [is] not required to prove self-defense claim beyond reasonable doubt or by preponderance of evidence; rather, self-defense evidence needed merely leave jury with reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force)… The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including the burden of proving that the defendant did not act in self-defense, ever shifts from the State to the defendant
Montijo v. State, 61 So. 3d 424, 427 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2011)
When a defendant claims self-defense, the State maintains the burden of proving the defendant committed the crime and did not act in self-defense. See id.; Mosansky v. State, 33 So. 3d 756, 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). The burden never shifts to the defendant to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, he must simply present enough evidence to support giving the instruction.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10554 posts, RR: 53 Reply 186, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1295 times:
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7760 posts, RR: 22 Reply 187, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1274 times:
Quoting D L X (Reply 186): We've already discussed your talkleft.com cite and why it does not support your argument.
You cite precedent which is older than the precedent cited in talkleft.com. The later decisions should trump.
Sidenote: this is why I hate our English common law legal system, where past decisions become binding. Why can't they write laws that say what they mean and be done with it?
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2025 posts, 
If you shoot an unarmed person, you should go on trial. If they find out that it was justified, then you're either found not guilty or the charges are dropped, and that's the end of it. 
.
From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3211 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 793 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4946 posts, 
From Poland, joined May 2007, 1575 posts, 
From Spain, joined May 2006, 1617 posts, 
or the 
Printer friendly format 
