My response: And I initially gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. It doesn’t add up to me either. IMO, everything I needed to know came from his mouth in the police interviews.
Other poster: Out of curiosity, if Zimmerman didn’t shoot Trayvon Martin in self-defense, what was his motivation? Just for kicks? Or did he cover his extreme hatred of black people by mentoring them, going into business with them, and protesting on their behalf? Or are you one of those moon-bats that is convinced he was some kind of sadist?
Sure. But the jury will be told, “It’s not enough to think ‘He might be lying,’ or even ‘He’s probably lying.’ You must find that he is lying beyond a reasonable doubt – that means that you must eliminate every other reasonable hypothesis except guilt.”
if the jury deliberates and finds that they have two alternative possibilities on ‘what actually happened,’ even if they think one is much more likely than the other – they still must acquit if the less likely one is one of innocence.
Yes, like your excluding the part where I asked you:
No false dilemmas. A simple question. Your claim is that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. Bricker is not saying that, which is why he is able to give a nuanced, gray answer. You, however, believe that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense (i.e. murder). So if he was not acting in self-defense, then why did he kill Trayvon?
You can answer that question any way that you would like to. You’ve chosen instead to avoid answering the question. Like you, red Herrings (to me) are a sign of people lying or hiding something. I don’t think you have a good answer or you would have given it. That’s my take anyway.
Something? Of course. If he had decided to boycott Skittles that day, none of this would have happened.
But he had every right to walk to the store and buy Skittles. So what I suspect you’re asking is: did Martin do something of legal significance?
Obviously, I don’t know. I suspect that Martin struck Zimmerman in the nose. Whether this was unprompted, prompted by some legal act of Zimmerman’s which alarmed Martin, or prompted by some illegal act of Zimmerman’s which caused Martin to defend himself, I can only speculate.
But since Martin is not on trial, this is only speculation. From a trial perspective, the question is: what can the state prove?
Zimmerman is charged with second degree murder. In Florida, this charge does not require an intent to kill on the part of the accused. So when Betenoire suggests that Zimmerman murdered Martin, you (emeraldia) seem to suggest that there must have been some reason that Zimmerman wanted Martin dead, and are asking betenoire to provide it.
But the charge merely alleges (inter alia) that Zimmerman killed Martin, not that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin.
The lack of bruising is a bit curious and certainly calls for closer scrutiny of the rest of his “story” to the know evidence. But, it isn’t unheard of to fracture your nose and not have bruising. I experienced such. I took a blow to the face sever enough to fracture my nose in several places and require surgical repair. Yet I had no bruising*. Just one hell of a gusher bloody nose. It was pouring out before I could get my hand to my face. Conceivable that on his back the blood went back into the sinus cavity and throat? However, surprising then that there isn’t some droplets or spittle containing blood on Martin from Zimmerman screaming for help.
I’m still firmly in the Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, they struggled, Martin got the upper hand and Zimmerman shot him. Unfortunately as long as Zimmerman sticks to his story there isn’t much to go on.
*After the surgery I looked like a raccoon (two massive black eyes). I don’t even want to know what they did to me. :eek:
The charges imply that Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon in an attempt to defend himself. It implies a “depraved mind”. It excludes the idea that he was acting in self-defense. I’d like to hear why Betenoire (or preferably the prosecution) believes that Zimmerman pulled the trigger?
If the prosecution was not alleging that Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon Martin, they would have charged him with manslaughter. I think their charge of murder does imply the intention on Zimmerman’s part to kill (or at least do great bodily harm.)
Correct. In Florida, self-defense is not a traditional affirmative defense. In Florida, the accused can raise self-defense by his testimony, and the burden then shifts to the prosecution to disprove it, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quoting Falwell v. State, 88 So. 3d 970 (Fl. DCA 2012) and emphasis added by me.
Sir,
**
You just don’t know when to stop—even when I have tried to disengage you.**
Sounds like very familiar behavior--the same behavior that led to this case in the first place.
Is that why you have your views about Zimmerman?
Yes, I am attacking you as I have had ENOUGH of you.
You are completely ignoring the CONTEXT of why I made my comment.
You are completely ignoring that even another poster commented on your fallacies.
So then you throw another red herring.
Look at the exchange again:
I wrote: “And I initially gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. It doesn’t add up to me either. IMO, everything I needed to know came from his mouth in the police interviews.”
You responded by asking me a question about what I think Zimmerman’s motives were (WTF???)
I don’t answer your red herring, and then you accuse ME of hiding something.
