Which part of the 24 minute piece is your cite?
If you’re standing on someone’s property without their permission you’re trespassing. And he wasn’t confronted by Zimmerman. In fact, Zimmerman chose NOT to confront him all through the event. He narrates the act while on the phone.
So you again accuse him of doing something he didn’t do.
I call hogwash.
Corey says nothing similar to “the review of public testimony made after the original investigation” was “new evidence that warranted a case” in that conference.
At 6:03 or so she more or less says the exact opposite of what you allege she said in the conference.
afaict anyway and imho
[quote=“PatriotX, post:9423, topic:619125”]
Which part of the 24 minute piece is your cite?
[/QUOTE
From CNN.](CNN.com - Transcripts)
COREY: Any time we take over a case, even from each other, we sometimes re-interview. We thoroughly go through the reports and we try to gather more evidence.
A lot of the witnesses had already made statements in public, even before we took over this case. A thorough review of all of the statements that made was done. And I can tell you I have the finest prosecution team ever. I know every boss feels that way, but these people have the best experience you can ask for.
IMO she is alluding to DD. This is bolstered by the evidence the Defense has been stonewalled against the original recordings of DD’s interviews. It is reflected in the recent document filed in court by the Defense. DD’s testimony is shrouded in secrecy.
How you get “a lot of the witnesses had already made statements in public…” to mean that the entire case hinges upon DD’s testimony is a mystery to me, but bravo. Professional yoga instructors only wish they could stretch so far.
FYI
You left out the part where she said that the result of the new interviews was “new evidence that warranted a case” in that conference.
Just saying.
that would be interviewing witnesses who made public statements. DD was the person who came forth after-the-fact with her statements so it’s her testimony that was given credit for this “new” evidence. The Prosecution has been withholding some of that evidence from the defense. They are hiding something.
Could you, along with answering my other questions, provide the evidence for your claim that Zimmerman confronted Martin? Because there’s none that I’ve seen. You might also want to review Deedee’s statement, where she claims Martin told her he was trespassing. For what little that’s worth, but if you’re going to believe her claim that Martin was attacked you need some reason to dismiss the rest of what she says.
I’m not going to answer your “when did you stop beating your wife,” questions, so give it up.
How about you answer the straightforward question why you think Zimmerman is guilty of any crime? Or even the one about what you think he did wrong?
Actually, I know why. It’s because you know full well that there’s no good answer to either, but you’re hoping that enough sound and fury will convince those not paying close attention that you do signify something.
That you consider these questions “wife-beating” ones shows how little you know and understand of either the law or the evidence in this case, or for that matter of basic morality.
Give up what, specifically? Wife beating or talking about wife beating? 
Florida has laws in place that make it illegal to murder someone. FLA also has laws stating that lethal force can be used to defend your own life. The SA has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that GZ didn’t believe he was in imminent danger when GZ used lethal force to stop TM from beating him.
Or, to be fair, it could prove that Zimmerman’s injuries weren’t inflicted by Martin, and that he didn’t beat him at all, or it could prove that Zimmerman started the fight, and had opportunity to escape.
The problem is, there’s no significant evidence yet released that points to any of those conclusions, let alone proves them beyond reasonable doubt. It is extremely interesting, and for that matter disturbing, that when asked why they believe these things, rather than provide evidence various posters here resort to evasion and insult.
The problem is is that you don’t yet understand that this for a jury to decide. Not armchair spectators casually following this case through message board postings and blog reports.
the jury cannot decide someone else beat up Zimmerman or that he started the fight without evidence. You seem to think they can simply not believe him. the Prosecution has to provide this evidence. They can not suggest that Zimmerman is a poopy-head and therefore his story is a lie. If there isn’t enough evidence to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt then a judge can override the verdict.
What you don’t understand is that the jury can only make it’s decision based on the evidence presented to them, and the law as explained to them by the judge. Nothing else. They will be told that the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defence, and will then have to judge whether they have done that. Based on the evidence revealed so far, they cannot do that, so the jury cannot find him guilty.
It’s just minimally possible that some jurors will get through who will ignore their duty, but all of them? Not a chance, fortunately.
Your perceptions on things continually are wrong.
And yet a year after his arrest, his charges remain uncontested by his lawyers, they’ve opted not to pursue an immunity hearing, and they’re wasting precious funds on an anti-DD crusade that is going nowhere.
Based on this, you are in no position to determine what a jury can and will find.
So, can you summarise the evidence that shows he wasn’t acting in self defence? If not, I will continue to believe that it doesn’t exist, and that you and others know this. Based on the evidence I’ve seen, and my understanding of the relevant law, I most certainly can conclude that no jury could legitimately find him guilty.
Here’s the evidence GZ wasn’t acting in self-defense when he shot Martin:
-
Based on his own statement, he followed after Martin in his truck. He also admitted that the kid suddenly started to run away, which is evidence he’d provoked fear in Martin.
-
Based on his own statement (and the dispatcher convo), he then rushed out of his vehicle and chased after this pedestrian. To say this behavior would provoke fear in a reasonable person is a massive understatement. Seriously, you have a truck with tinted windows following behind you on an unfamiliar dark street and naturally, you get spooked. So you run. What would go through your mind if you looked back and saw an unidentified man get out of the truck to chase after you?
-
He admitted to never identifying himself or explaining his actions as he chased after the kid-- behavior that would provoke a reasonable person to assume danger.
All 3 of these together disqualify him from the no-duty-to-retreat clause of SYG, as they implicate him as the aggressor of the fight. Even O’Mara agrees with this; it’s exactly why he has said this isn’t a case of SYG. So the only way Zimmerman could have legally killed Martin in self-defense, was if he had been 1) overpowered by force so imminently harmful that lethal force was the only option and 2) unable to retreat. Here’s the evidence for that neither of these two conditions were met:
-
Zimmerman’s injuries were not life-threatening, and his own behavior indicates that he did not take them seriously. Martin’s body bore no defensive wounds. Zimmerman admitted that his arms were free through most of the struggle, but he never used them to fight back. The only reason he went to be medically evaluated the following day was so that he could get permission to go back to work. He never followed up with a specialist for his nose. Etc.
-
Zimmerman admitted to getting on top of Martin and restraining him at the first obvious moment when he had a chance to retreat. Not only that, but he admitted to doing so despite supposedly *not *knowing the kid had been shot. This is basically a confession that he was not in fear of Martin if even a little bit. But wait, there’s more! He admitted to restraining the kid after Martin indicated to him that he was “giving up”. Not only is this more evidence that he wasn’t in fear of Martin, but its also evidence that Zimmerman was more interested in winning the fight than ending things peacefully. When pieced together with the other data points, it means he was never the victim in this fight.
Here’s the cherry-on-top evidence for murder 2:
- Witnesses said they heard a young male screaming “despondently” for help seconds before Zimmerman shot him. It’s one thing to aggress an attack on an innocent person for ill-founded reasons, but to pull a gun on them and shoot them even though they are begging for their lives at the top of their lungs? That is evidence of a ill will, depraved mind, and gross disregard for life.
This is all the minimum evidence needed to make a case for 2nd degree murder. Notice what’s absent from this list: Zimmerman’s lies and obvious embellishments, Deedee’s testimony, the forsensic evidence that renders Zimmerman’s account(s) suspect, and whatever evidence the state has from Zimmerman’s phone and emails.
The problem being, if Martin was in such fear, why did he double back and confront Zimmerman? Since Martin came back from his father’s girlfriend’s condo, this is evidence that Martin was not frightened.
This is hardly evidence of who started the fight. And both Zimmerman and Dee Dee agree that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin.
And again, if Martin was so scared, why did he come back and confront Zimmerman? He was in no danger at his father’s house.
He did not get close enough to Martin to explain anything. Almost the moment he got close enough to Martin to say anything, Martin attacked him.
No they don’t, and this has nothing to do with any duty to retreat.
Following someone down the street does not prove that you attacked them. Especially if you lose sight of them, and then they come back and attack you.
Wrong again. This is not a case of “stand your ground” because Zimmerman had no opportunity to retreat once Martin attacked him - Martin knocked him down and sat on top of him bashing his head on the ground (proven by the injuries which you wasted many pages denying).
This has already been explained to you by real lawyers. Zimmerman did not have to wait until after Martin killed him to defend himself. He was legally justified to use deadly force as soon as he was in reasonable fear of death, or grievous bodily injury. Having someone sit on your chest and smash your head against the ground puts most reasonable people in fear of death or grievous bodily injury.
IOW, Zimmerman did not attack Martin. Martin had two injuries - a scrape on his knuckles from where he punched Zimmerman in the nose, and the gunshot wound that killed him. Martin doesn’t have any defensive wounds, because Zimmerman did not attack him.
And yet you were the one swearing up and down many pages ago that Zimmerman didn’t have a broken nose. Now that you recognize that he did, do you realize that this means that Martin punched him in the face, broke his nose, and blackened his eyes? And that there is not a mark of anything even remotely equivalent on Martin?
Again, IOW, the evidence to which you have been dragged, kicking and screaming, shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and not vice versa.
After he shot Martin and the incident was over. And the only eyewitness to the fight before that stated unequivocally that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. So that Zimmerman could not retreat.
No, Zimmerman said quite clearly that he was in fear of his life. I am not sure how restraining someone shows that you are not afraid of them.
Unless it was Zimmerman.
And the evidence indicates that it was Zimmerman, not Martin. We have a witness from whom Zimmerman asked for help. The injuries show that Zimmerman was getting very much the worse of the fight. Why would someone who was winning a fight cry for help?
Any ability to grasp or process facts.
Regards,
Shodan