One of the witnesses heard 2 people running by her house. If you would post your theories first we can explain why it’s wrong and save you all that time.
Martin and his fellow thieves (seen in the 7 eleven video) are casing the housing development looking for another house to break into. Zimmerman tries to stop them and they attack him. Now where did I put that pesky evidence. No matter, I’ll just come up with another theory without evidence and repeat the process.
Hey, I’m just being as unfavourable in my estimation of Z’s character as others are in their impressions of Trayvon.
So? Zimmerman didn’t mention anything about pursuing TM at any time. He was just looking for an address - why would he need to run anywhere?
Don’t concern yourself with saving me time. I’m happy just plodding along at a steady pace.
There’s evidence that Z knows Taafe and Osterman well. Do you have any that TM knew these “thieves” well enough to be taking such risks with?
He stated he was following Martin on the phone call to the Dispatcher. There is no dispute with this.
Wow.
Would you devote any attention to laying out the elements of second degree murder and assembling evidence to support each element beyond a reasonable doubt?
I ask because that does not seem to have been of interest to you – or, indeed, to anyone – in this thread.
What does “one of the witnesses heard 2 people running by her house” mean? Did she elaborate on that statement to give any kind of time scale?
So, if you was prosecuting this case and there was even the slightest suspicion that Z had help on the night, you wouldn’t want to look at Z’s phone records just to rule out an avenue of enquiry? You wouldn’t be interested in trying to discredit Z’s description of events all the way up to the death and claim his vagueness in describing his location was intended so he could carry on looking for TM?
In Florida, a first degree murder charge must come via indictment by a grand jury. Since I had, at this point, already chosen to forgo the grand jury option and proceed by information rather than indictment, I would actually be doing my second degree murder case a disfavor by presenting evidence that Zimmerman had help.
That kind of investigation is done prior to bringing charges, contrary to the educational guidance the public receives via such legal avenues as Law and Order University.
I just don’t get the sense that the legal aspects of this case interest you.
Not on the level you are obviously interested in. The way I see it, Z’s life is already finished and any jail time will be icing on the cake for me, although I imagine it is much more important to Trayvon’s loved ones. I might not have a clue how to prosecute a criminal, but I know a bullshitter when I see one and Z fits the bill.
Btw, I liked the Law And Order dig. It must be great being as smart as you.
It’s not so much being smart – although of course I am – but having the training and experience in the field. I don’t offer up opinions on cardiac illness or integrated circuit design, although I’m a bright guy. In fact, BECAUSE I’m a bright guy. I recognize that whatever I might bring to the table as an autodidact is not going to be particularly useful in those fields.
But I have a great deal of experience in criminal court.
What’s your experience with violent struggling while lay on wet grass like?
Would you have expected a fight like Z describes to have left at least some sign of its occurrence on the ground where it happened? Do cops not even have to think along these lines, once the person who admits responsibility for the dead guy on the floor says the magic words “stand your ground” or “self-defence”?
With regard to the investigation on the night, do you have any criticism of SPD’s seemingly total lack of regard for documenting the spot where the fight allegedly took place? Wasn’t that equally as important as documenting where TM’s body ended up?
Quick bonus question: is driving while using a mobile phone legal in Florida? If it isn’t, Z’s nen call is clear evidence of Z’s disregard for laws and rules that don’t suit him.
Yes, that’s correct. If Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, his shooting of Martin was legal. Whatever the surrounding circumstances. I’m glad you’ve finally realised this.
There should be a full investigation of Martin’s death. If, as it appears from the evidence that’s been made public so far, there was no wrongdoing on Zimmerman’s part, then taking it to trial would be both wasteful and unjust.
You do understand that it’s immoral to use a trial as a form of punishment for someone who’s clearly not guilty, right?
There’s a pre-trial hearing that may clear Zimmerman’s name, but due to the paucity of evidence of any sort, proving his innocence may be impossible. Unfortunately the prosecutor chose not to have a Grand Jury hearing, presumably because of that lack of evidence.
Let’s say we divide the nights events from Z leaving his home, until the moment the police arrived, into 2 parts, pre and post “nose-breaking first punch,” is it your belief that the credibility of the pre account has no bearing whatsoever on the credibility of the post section? Why would anyone want to continue to believe a person who’d been caught telling a manipulative lie?
Needless to say, even if it were illegal, the 404(b) rule I mentioned earlier would preclude your making this argument at trial.
But as it happens, Florida is one of the few states without a law against cell phone use while driving. SB 416, a bill that would have done so, was proposed in the Florida state senate this year by state senator Nancy Detert, but failed to pass.
Does this information interest you?
Only in that it exonerates Z from having been committing an offence while reporting a non-emergency. He’s not in the clear yet.
You said that if cell phone use was illegal, his call would be “…clear evidence of Z’s disregard for laws and rules that don’t suit him.”
Now that we know it’s legal, can we similarly conclude that it shows his scrupulous regard for the law?
If not, why not?
No. Why should he be commended for something he’s allowed to do?
Do you accept that driving while using a mobile when it is illegal shows a disregard for the law? I can’t see how it could be interpreted any other way.