In your first link, about 3/4’s of the way down.
“Uh huh,” exactly.
What do you think he might have thought was in TM’s hands? A bag of Skittles?
"As far as the evidence can determine, none of Zimmerman’s actions, taken either together or separately, constitute criminal intent.
It is not against the law to be suspicious of a stranger in your neighborhood. It is not illegal to be a neighborhood watch. It is not against the law to follow a stranger. It is not against the law to report suspicious activity to the police. It is not even against the law to ask a stranger what he is up to in your neighborhood.
So that, even if you are suspicious and you report a stranger to the police and you follow the stranger and you ask the stranger what he is up to, you have not committed any crime. "
Same shit, different day.
The things you quotes might not be illegal, but Zimmerman’s actions go way beyond the bullshit scenario you posted–WAY BEYOND IT. That’s why he’s in the predicament he’s in. Martin is dead. **That’s why he’s where he is. **
Maybe I shouldn’t have said extraneous…too academic. I should have just stuck to “bullshit”.
He did break the law: manslaughter, perhaps?
It’s courtroom bs for “one who has the best argument.”
- Bullshit.
Again, how about manslaughter?
Bricker backs me up here. - No it doesn’t.
LOL. Ok. Now I see where your argument is coming from.
Well, in spite of what you think, it isn’t “courtroom bs”. And the jury is so instructed and is required to consider it in that light.
I see you’re backpedalling from your contention that Zimmerman is guilty of murder.
No. Because the defense doesn’t have to conclusively defend them as credible. The prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the hostilities did not happen. You’re allocating the burden to Zimmerman, when the state is the one that actually carries it.
This might be the source of the confusion.
So let me ask you another pair of questions: what does a directed verdict mean? What does legal sufficiency mean?
And to forestall your first choice: no, they’re not courtroom bullshit or legal mumbo jumbo.
Yes. He must both withdraw (to the extent he can) and indicate clearly to the assailant that he wishes to terminate the use of force.
But remember the burden of proof: Zimmerman does not have to prove he did this. The prosecution has to prove he did not.
(Technically, Zimmerman must “show” it, but his own testimony, and nothing more, is sufficient do accomplish this. Once he has done so, then the burden is on the state to disprove.)
That’s impossible to prove, because we all know some kind of hostilities took place. Isn’t it the job of the prosecution to try and prove that Z was lying in other parts of his accountbeyond any doubt, and therefore his account of the actual hostilities is lacking in all credibility?
No, really, it isn’t. It was just a flippant response to a question I didn’t hold in high regard.
The way you and others are trying to paint this case, the prosecution may as well throw their hands up and accept total defeat as all they are doing is wasting tax payer’s money.
It depends. In a civil case, where to required standard is “preponderance of the evidence,” credibility can be critical.
In a criminal case, when the evidence is hardly conclusive either way, an acquittal is the correct result, regardless of credibility.
That’s part of their job, sure.
But that can’t be all of it, because if all they can do is make the jury think Zimmerman is untrustworthy, they will lose to a motion to strike before the defense even begins their case-in-chief.
This is a really key point: if Zimmerman says, “He hit me first,” and the jury thinks he’s lying, that is an insufficient record on which to find that Zimmerman actually hit Martin first.
Well, as to the charge of second degree murder, I believe that’s true… UNLESS they have some additional evidence I don’t know about.
How many lies in a row does an accused person have to tell before a jury member has any right not to believe the next thing they say?
If Z can be proven to have lied when he said he parked up at the clubhouse, how would that affect his chances?
Wow, this thread is still going on?
Unfortunately, I suspect that Zimmerman will soon join the lengthy list of people who have murdered someone and gotten away with it. Those of us who would prefer for murderers to be punished will have to wait for his next crime spree, OJ style. Speaking of OJ, I remember people cheering when he was acquitted. At the time, I remember thinking, what the fuck is wrong with these fucking people? I strongly suspect I’ll be thinking that again in similar circumstances in the near future.
In the evil 90% of my brain, I’m going to hope that the next kid he kills will be the child of someone who argued to have him released. It’s probably wrong to want that to happen, but in the grand scheme of things it’s probably less wrong than arguing for a murderer to be released, so I won’t be giving up my air of moral superiority, thank you very much.
I would imagine that both parties were speaking to each other in less than pleasant tones. Dee Dee’s version lacks all the puffery that Zimmerman’s version gave. That could be a matter of protecting Martin. If it was as confrontational as Zimmerman’s version then I suspect Zimmerman wasn’t as placating as he made himself out to be. If it was as confrontational as Zimmerman’s version then he should have known Martin represented a threat.
Fistbump.jpg
I can totally relate to those thoughts. It seems to me that even if Z is convicted, there’s been enough fuck-ups by the SPD that any conviction is going to be overruled on appeal. This case is going to leave it’s mark on American society for a long time.
Why are you so unwilling to believe that Trayvon could have stepped out of the shadows when he saw Z heading towards him, knowing it was pointless hiding anymore, and just asked what DD said he asked, ie. “Why are you following me?”
Why does Z’s version of “Have you got a fucking problem, homie?” strike you as so much more likely?
How likely do you think it is that Trayvon would have told DD he was hiding like a scaredy cat?