That’s not what happened in this case, either. So your hypothetical is entirely irrelevant.
To quote betenoire39. Wow. Just wow.
Seems like you had a point you wanted to make and just talked your way in to it regardless of what I said.
They defense doesn’t have to have “evidence”. The state has to have evidence that the lab tested Marvin’s hands (not nails, hands) for, as you put it, microscopic traces of Zimmerman’s blood and it was not found. So far in the evidence released there is no indication whatsoever that such analysis was done.
Think we have another situation here where someone doesn’t understand SYG or in particular Florida’s inaugural version of SYG.
Putting yourself into a situation that MIGHT result in a casualty or fatality of either yourself or someone else, does not exempt you from defending yourself.
If a man walks into a bar to pick a good ol fist fight mano to mano with some guy over the matter of his girlfriend’s honor, and then gets beat on by six people to the point where he is afraid of death, then he has 100% law supported right to remove them as a threat with lethal force if necessary.
The question is not should he have defended himself (because he ‘started’ a fight). The question is was his use of lethal force necessary in that situation - could he have retreated or found another method.
What the hell? What part of what I posted is wrong? It’s a fact that the defense has to have evidence of gross negligence on the part of the lab to actually argue that in court. There is nothing “wow” about this statement, so sorry if you’re awestruck by fundamentals like this.
Well, as it happens, there is some evidence that would support the claim that Zimmerman negligently created a dangerous situation in which someone got shot to death. But that’s a crime called manslaughter, and we have a different name for it because it involves different acts and a different state of mind than “murder” does.
They have evidence: the lab seems to have lost the lab report containing the test of Martin’s hands.
Because it hasn’t been turned over to the defense or made public, has it? Fingernails, yes, but whole hands? With no report, no one can testify that any such tests were done.
It is surely a great comfort to the Martin family to know that the murder of their son didn’t meet the narrow legal definition of murder under Florida law.
Since I am not a member of the court, I am not required to use the narrow legal definition of words in my everyday speech, so I will call Zimmerman whatever I damn well please. In this case I will call him a murdering asshole.
Do you have any evidence that such a test was done? Checking the fingernails during the autopsy is a standard test.
If you aren’t going to use the common definitions of a word, maybe you should explain what your definition is. Do you object to the idea of people using firearms to defend themselves or do you think anyone accused of a crime by the state is ipso facto guilty.
Why would the absence of a report preclude the forsenic witness from testifying as to how they examined Martin and went about collecting evidence? What would preclude the witness from explaining the lab’s SOP for taking specimens from a subject, and swearing under oath that they followed this SOP when they processed Martin? Why would they be limited to only testifying about what they put in the report, and nothing more?
The defense could make the claim “There’s no documented evidence that Martin’s hands screened negative for blood residue, so how do we know for a fact that they did, huh?” But that is miles away from arguing “There’s no documented evidence that Martin’s hands screened negative for blood residue, so OMG! that means the lab didn’t even check to see if his hands were contaminated!!!”
The latter is what I’m saying the defense can’t assert without having supportive evidence.
That you know about.
Wow, because you are answering a question that was never asked. The whole gross negligence angle is something you concocted along the way in an effort to show how stupid it was to ask “what about the rain?”. You probably should have just left it at ‘it wasn’t raining very hard’.
Given Florida’s discovery laws, we should know about any relevant evidence by now. If any has been concealed, it’s unlikely to be accepted by the court, as Zimmerman won’t be able to adequately defend himself against it.
So, yes, there is no evidence for murder that we know about. Therefore, he should not be charged with murder, and the prosecution and state are acting at best unethically, and at worst illegally.
Glad you agree.
So you’re another one who thinks people should just let someone kick the crap out of them if they want to? Why is that? It was self defence, therefore it wasn’t murder. Words have meanings, and emotive words like “murderer” should be used with care.
Whether you like it or not (and, frankly, you should like it if you’re not a bully) one has the right to defend oneself against attack. Martin attacked Zimmerman, and pretty badly injured him. Zimmerman shot him. It’s tragic for all involved, but it should have ended there.
Unless, of course, you have any actual evidence that Zimmerman threatened or attacked Martin. Plenty of people claim he did, but go oddly silent when asked why they think that. Are you going to be any different?
Dude, you’re not making any sense. My post was in direct response to what you wrote.
(bolding mine)
I don’t see get what your issue is when nothing I said even conflicted with what you posted. You’re right, the defense very well might try to counter the question of “where’s the blood” by painting the lab as being grossly negligent (to use your phrase). But my point is that they can’t argue this unless they have evidence of gross negligence.
There is no reason to respond to this with “wow” unless you find this very basic point shocking.
Yeah, that really captures the entirety of the situation; “Martin attacked Zimmerman.” Kinda goes right to the essence of everything that happened that day. Out of nowhere, some angry black kid just randomly assasults Zimmerman, who just happened to be standing there.
Zimmerman didn’t stalk Martin, no sir. Zimmerman behave in a fashion that would make any rational person fear for their safety, no sir. Zimmerman didn’t stalk a scared kid through an unfamiliar neighborhood in the dark and the rain, no sir. It wasn’t Zimmerman’s gun that was used to murder an innocent kid, no sir.
None of that shit matters, because the entire scenario can be summed up as “Martin attacked Zimmerman,” provided you squint real hard, and are incapapable of feeeling empathy for a scared kid who was stalked by a creepy gun-wielding vigilante late at night in the rain through an unfamiliar neighborhood.
Yeah, the only reason I think Zimmerman is a murderer is because I’m a bully who doesn’t think a person has a right to defend themselves.
My question is does the prosecution have the right to hold unto evidence for months? This would seem to imply that the defense can’t do their job, since their hands are tied.
“Knowing about evidence” is not synonymous with knowing how to interpret evidence. For that you need to be a trained investigator.
It is rather mind-boggling stupid for anyone participating in this thread to assume that they know all they need to know about this case simply because they have access to online documents.
And secondly, the State still has not released Zimmerman’s phone records, IIRC.
Wait, you think the common definition of murder doesn’t include shooting someone to death?