Burglary is the criminal offense of breaking and entering any dwelling or building illegally with the intent to commit a felony or crime.
Burglary is certainly easier to prove if something was taken but it’s the “breaking in” part that differentiates theft and burglary.
Assuming he chased Martin down with his gun flailing around in obvious site, I doubt it matters whether Martin was actually trespassing or if Zimmerman simply thought he was trespassing - sounds like there’s a bigger issue to deal with first.
Feel free to provide any evidence that Zimmerman did so though..
Just to be clear, the “injuries” to M’s “knuckles” is a single scrape of a size (1/32in^2) such that we could fit about 56 of the injuries on to a penny.
The singular “injuries” make up just under 2% of the surface area of one side of a penny.
0.75^2 * pi = 1.77 in^2
(1.77 in^2)/((1/8 in)*(1/4 in)) = 56.55
So look at a penny.
Divide the surface of the penny into just over 56 equal parts.
One of those parts equal to just under 1/56 of the penny is the size of the “injuries” we’re talking about–less than 2% of the surface area of one side of a penny.
I have real trouble as seeing this very minor single scrape as somehow being significant. I also have trouble seeing it as being necessarily tied to the altercation between Z and M.
The “injuries” to M’s “knuckles” [by that I mean a single, tiny scrape on one finger] is not the sort of things that indicative of much at all imho.
That scrape could have come from tens of thousands of places. It actually offers us no useful evidence imho.
Obviously, for many, that tiny single scrap has assumed greater levels of significance than I would have imagined anyone would have assigned it.
I’ll claim that the tiny scrape is not indicative of M striking Z. M may well have beat the crap out of z, but that small scrape is not evidence of such even if by some series of unlikely events the scrape was all that resulted from beating Z.
Weird things happen all the time.
Perhaps M did beat the snot out of Z, repeated pummeling Z’s head while Z merely laid there and took it w/o ever accruing the injuries to M’s knuckles I would expect.
It could happen.
Strange stuff happens all the time.
But, despite that possibility, that small scrape is not actually evidence that M hit Z. Obviously, ymv.
Stop saying it as though you know it is a rock solid fact. You are inclined to believe almost every aspect of Z’s testimony, I’m not.
I’m not being bigoted if Taafe IS a racist. And in case you missed it, we’re not in a courtroom here.
And you still don’t know where he was at that moment, so stop pretending that you know exactly how he responded.
It’s evidence that Z should leave neighbourhood watch duties to someone who can at least give comprehensible information to the relevant authorities.
Any doctor who says that those injuries could only have occurred in the manner described would be a liar.
If it’s bigoted to point out what I believe are racist inclinations, then I guess that makes me a bigot.
If the premises hadn’t been forcibly entered - eg, there was an obviously open door - you could be inside them uninvited and still not be a burglar.
Oddly this feels like dejavu with Betenoire.
Can you elaborate on your odd feelings, or are you content to just leave snide insinuations lying about?
Perhaps.
But this is a good chance to expound upon the arcania of common law offenses and definitions. At common law, the “breaking” can happen in a variety of ways. Breaking is the creation or widening of any aperture, however slight. An obviously open door, if bumped even slightly farther open during entry, is sufficient to constitute “breaking.” Constructive breaking can occur even without this, and “inner breaking” occurs when the intruder is already inside but moves an inner door, even slightly.
Questions?
So, if a person noticed their next-door neighbour’s front door was open slightly and after asking if anyone was home but getting no reply, then went inside, if the neighbour suddenly appeared and was of a mind, he could accuse the person inside his house of breaking and entering? And when the police arrived they would take the accusation seriously?
Seriously enough, but in the scenario you mention, all the elements of common law burglary are not present.
The “breaking” is, sure enough. And the “entering.”
But the actual list of elements of the crime of burglary, again at common law, is: trespassory breaking and entering into the dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein.
There’s no good evidence in your story that would allow a finder of fact to conclude you intended to commit a felony inside. You knew the neighbor, you called out, you entered through an open door. Nothing in that list suggests felonious intent.
The police would take the accusation seriously because they have no way of knowing what just happened, so their arrival on the secene starts with, “This person was in my house.”
Not oddly…
Don’t waste your breath…
They don’t care.
Zimmerman was in the right and he should be acquitted.
The “evidence” only suggests THEIR scenario, and no other.
Everything else is irrelevant.
That’s how they work.
We are not the same person, if you were wondering.
Unbelievable that someone else (like millions of people LOL) would share the same opinions.
Good Heaven!!
[quote=“betenoire39, post:6455, topic:619125”]
The “evidence” only suggests THEIR scenario, and no other. [/quoye]
You’ve been asked repeatedly to show how the evidence fits your scenario, and instead of doing so, have used constant ad hominem attacks on posters who are of the opinion that the evidence doesn’t show Zimmerman’s guilt.
Correct. The only thing that’s relevant is what we can prove with the actual evidence. Whether you like those facts or not is irrelevant. Whether there are things that can be proven, and which are legal, that you consider should be illegal, is irrelevant.
That you consider us immoral or despicable for not wanting to say someone’s guilty of murder without evidence is also irrelevant, but somewhat amusing in it’s idiocy.
Yes it is, and more importantly, it’s how the justice system works. Something we should all be thankful for.
To beat the dead horse some more, yes, a scratch on a ring finger may indeed be an indication that the bearer of said scratch threw and landed a punch. May be. I haven’t punched anyone in, oh, my entire life, yet I frequently have small injuries to my fingers, particularly in winter when the air is dry.
Actual injured knuckles would, of course, be much more consistent with a punch. But we don’t have injured knuckles here.
Here’s my simple answer: maybe Martin struck Zimmerman, with or without provocation. And maybe he didn’t.
But you certainly did not described it as it relates to the case. A knuckle is a knuckle and no other part of the hand. One abrasion is one abrasion, not plural abrasions to different fingers. If I had a scratch on my shin, I wouldn’t say I had scraped knees.
Being a big believer that the truth will set you free, I just wonder, if the forensics are so in favor of Zimmerman’s innocence and Martin’s general thuggery, why the need to exaggerate?
What do you mean more consistent? It’s either consistent or it isn’t.
The point is, the only documented injuries to Martin - the scratch on the finger, and the gunshot wound, are consistent with Zimmerman’s story, and not consistent with a story where Zimmerman attacked Martin.
People have claimed Zimmerman attacked Martin, initiating the confrontation. In the absence of any evidence of Zimmerman threatening Martin, or injuring Martin in any way prior to the gunshot, this is unsupported speculation. The claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman shot him in self defence, is supported, though not proved, by the available evidence of injuries to both parties.
Note again that Zimmerman does not have to prove his innocence, he has to show that there’s a reasonable possibility of it. A narrative where he’s innocent, that isn’t contradicted by evidence, is sufficient to do that.
How so? What about the injuries precludes the possibility that Z initiated the physical confrontation?
Honestly I don’t understand how the injuries do that.
The closest there comes to being evidence for Z initiating the physicality is DeeDee’s vague account of what she heard.
…as long as one counts Z’s various accounts among the evidence.
Iirc, there’s no other evidence outside of Z’s say-so as to who started the physicality.
The respective injuries support Zimmerman’s claim that he was attacked. They do not prove it.
Imagine that the fight had stopped before Martin was shot. Looking at the injuries, would you doubt that Zimmerman was the victim?
I wish there was a clapping emoticon.
It’s like the fish bowl and cat analogy I gave earlier.
The cat may have knocked the fish bowl down.
But then again, the cat may NOT have.
You can turn it around and say the same injuries were indicative of self-defense on the part of MARTIN.
But when you are using racial overtones of Martin being a violent thug, then it’s easy to use the so called evidence to reach the conclusions Zimmerman wants you to reach.