Whether you like it or not, as Bricker and others have tried to point out, in order to claim self defense, you have to be in reasonable fear for your life, and have no avenue of escape. Looking at the drawings made by at least one of the witnesses, with Martin on top of Zimmerman, and the fact he had injuries, it’s rather difficult to prove him guilty of second degree murder. You can look up on the internet examples of people beaten to death, after being slammed on the ground. I even provided one earlier of a policeman who was thrown to the ground and killed by someone caught keying the policeman’s car. People have died with fewer external injuries than Zimmerman (usually due to aneurisms), There is no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight by intentionally ramming his nose against Martin’s fist.
Sorry, I was unaware there was no way for people in similar fields of employment to establish contact with like minds in different states.
There’s a little snippet somewhere on the webs where Z does a bit of bragging about moving to Florida and working with his Godfather, who’d just bought a million dollar business. Aren’t Godfathers usually friends of the parents? Perhaps this was Z snr’s man with influence?
I’ve got all that. It’s the job of the prosecution to prove that wasn’t the case, right?
The person with the best view of any of the struggle saw about 10 seconds of it under less than optimal lighting conditions, and couldn’t positively claim to have seen TM hit Z even once.
In the time he was watching, the “fight” moved from on the grass to nearer the dog path. By the time he’d gone upstairs to look from the window there, the shot had been fired. Z could have easily got the upper-hand over TM in that time
The injuries are suspicious as fuck, in light of the guy who took the photos of those injuries not even being mentioned by the first on-scene officer, or anybody else.
There is no evidence either of TM making the first aggressive move in their final encounter.
You are allowed that. However the court is a bit more hindered. While you, I and anyone quite frankly are welcome to speculate on what the evidence “may” indicate, the court is stuck with what the burden of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
So you take a thread like this, you have some vociferous posters on both sides, but you also have some pretty well reasoned people disagreeing on the interpretation of the evidence we know of. To me that says hung jury at best. Unless as Bricker has pointed out, there is something we are not aware of.
So while I am almost certain Zimmerman tried to restrain Martin and shot him because he was going to get away, I begrudgingly accept that the know evidence is not in my favor… beyound a reasonable doubt.
But hey, if you are just here to cast aspersions of racism on anyone who doesn’t agree with you completely, you might as well cast them my way too, as I think half the theories you present are completely nutty. Simply fishing expeditions for something that might stick.
You just broke the case wide open!!!111!
It was Z’s mob connections that got him off the hook!!!
No, I couldn’t say that.
But of course, I also couldn’t say that judges and doctors NEVER mix in the same circles. I couldn’t say that judges and carpenters NEVER mix in the same circles.
But because their jobs and functions are so separate, I can tell you that in Virginia, judges and magistrates mix in the same circles with generally the same frequency as judges and doctors, or judges and pilots.
In other words, a magistrate doesn’t have any special relationship with judges.
So when there is no evidence… What must a jury conclude?
Did I ever at any point claim they did?
If there is no evidence at all, they should wonder why they’ve been called to serve.
If you mean no conclusive evidence pointing clearly against the accused, they should find the accused not guilty.
What - even if they disbelieve, completely, the evidence that the accused supplied?
I thought the accused supplies testimony, not evidence? If they disbelieve all his testimony and the prosecution still has no evidence that indicates ill-intent, he should be found not guilty.
I think you meant to write “evidence that proves ill intent beyond reasonable doubt” right?
Testimony is evidence.
But, yes, if they disbelieve every word out of Zimmerman’s mouth, and the prosecution has no evidence that indicates ill-intent, he will be acquitted.
Testimony is evidence.
But, yes, if they disbelieve every word out of Zimmerman’s mouth, and the prosecution has no evidence that indicates ill-intent, he will be acquitted.
dimmy, this has been explained to you repeatedly. It’s not a function of the evidence “pointing in Z’s favor”. There are 3 possibilities that evidence can take:
- It directly agrees
- It directly disagrees
- It neither agrees or disagrees and is neutral
The prosecution has to prove evidence disagrees with Zimmerman’s account. As it stands now the evidence shows Zimmerman called the police regarding a suspicious person. It shows both parties lost sight of each other. It shows Martin initiating conversation with Zimmerman and subsequently attacked him for an extended period. His injuries are consistent with his account as are witness accounts and other evidence. Nothing directly disagrees with his account and that is what will matter in court.
I’m not pretending anything. I’m stating up front what I’ve analyzed based on the evidence available. This is how it will be in court. The prosecution can’t make stuff up like you’re doing and say “it’s possible”. It has to be based on evidence.
You clearly think he’s guilty regardless of the evidence and clearly do not understand the legal process.
and here is the basis of your inability to grasp what is being stated. Do you have evidence that he lied? Possibilities are meaningless without evidence. Anything is possible but it requires proof.
You’ve stated you think his acquaintances are bigots, The police are incompetent, Zimmerman was given preferential treatment because of his father, evidence was planted ……. none of this with any evidence. You just throw it out there. You then ramble on about things like the neighbor who took a picture of the back of his head or where he parked his car.
The police involved were either incompetent, or they were biased in Z’s favour because they were convinced Z had shot himself a Goon. There’s no other way of interpreting their evidence-gathering abilities on the night.
That you still can’t even accept this doesn’t incentivise me towards responding to your posts in any detail.
Considering that there is no evidence either of incompetence or of bias, you are incorrect.
As pointed out, Virginia magistrates and Florida judges are not particularly similar in their fields of employment. But you have not produced any evidence of any contact between Zimmerman’s father and any judge. So it isn’t up to anybody else to show that contact is impossible - it is up to you to produce one single, solitary scrap of evidence to show that it happened.
Which you haven’t done.
[list=A][li]I have learned not to trust any allegations you make about the case. Please provide a credible cite about this alleged bragging Zimmerman did. I want to be sure you are not misrepresenting. Again. [/li][li]Please produce one single, solitary scrap of evidence that anyone exerted any undue influence in this case. If and when you do that (you can’t) we can discuss who this shadowy figure might be, based on the evidence. [/li]
But, as I say, you won’t be able to produce any such evidence, because it doesn’t exist.[/list]
Regards,
Shodan
You seem to be missing a very important point. I don’t HAVE to provide anything.
If you don’t like it, ignore my posts.
Maybe Obama can weigh in on this again and give it his blessing.
No need. He’s already made his point. He’s aware of the situation and Florida knows it, so they’d better not let him down.