Every word of the above is wrong, including “the”.
Yes, they do have to disprove his claim of self-defense. Yes, they do have to construct a narrative in which they prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of second-degree murder.
Again - wrong. Zimmerman does not have to make a case. The prosecution has to make its case.
How often do you need your nose rubbed in this? Zimmerman is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Under Florida law, the prosecution must prove his claim of self-defense to be false.
The more these guys posts, the more absurd their positions become. It is as though they are trying to outdo each other. So I’m not surprised that we’re at the point where they are treating it like fact that it was Martin, not Zimmerman, who was trying to kill someone that night.
When Zimmerman waives the immunity hearing, I guarantee that instead of seeing that as a sign of a weak case, GZ supporters are going to somehow twist that fact into some sign of strength. That has pretty much been their MO throughout this whole thing. Anything that points to Zimmerman’s guilt is actually, somehow, more evidence that he is innocent. Lemme show ya how this thinking works.
So Zimmerman has been arrested, you say? Oh that just means the State is going after him for political purposes and has no real evidence (grand jury bypass blah blah blah). Case will be thrown out and Corey will be sued for making a false arrest.
Oh, so the case hasn’t been thrown out? Corey is still on the case? That just means that the judge is afraid of riot breaking out. Nothing to fear. He’ll get immunity at the SYG hearing.
So they haven’t requested an immunity hearing yet? That just means that they don’t need it obviously. Such a trifle procedural matter, anyway. They will roll it into the trial and he’ll walk easy peasy.
The image that comes to mind is a bunch of frogs sitting in a simmering water.
One knew the police would arrive any minute. One knew the consequences of assault. One was attacked viciously and without any signs of it ending. The only motive involved in the trial is self defense.
No it wasn’t. The judge asked O’Mara if he wanted to use the last two weeks in April for the hearing and he said no. That is not the same thing as waiving the hearing.
The state’s most recent motion is aimed at getting O’Mara to man up and either waive or request the immunity hearing. What he is doing right now is stalling.
Maybe they can’t tell who is screaming. But if there other voices on that tape that are saying things that incriminate George, well then we can reasonably guess who isn’t screaming.
O’Mara has previously said he hoped to wrap the issue into Zimmerman’s second-degree murder trial scheduled for June 10. He said that could still possibly happen, and the judge has said she is open to it.
“I haven’t made that decision yet,” O’Mara said. “The real focus is going to be on getting ready for a jury trial. As you know, I’ve been counting. We’re only at 96 days right now. So that only gives us time to really get ready for one hearing. And that’s going to be a jury trial where he gets acquitted. So that’s my plan.”
A judge would have sole discretion in an immunity hearing to decide if Zimmerman is exempt from culpability in the shooting. A jury would make the determination in the murder trial.
“if”. I haven’t seen anything in the related news that would indicate that there were “other voices on that tape” that could “incriminate George”. Are you just making it up?
“The cops are coming! I better shoot this screaming kid now before they see me pointing a gun at him!”
“If I go to jail, I lose everything. My wife, school, my car, my chance at being a police officer. I won’t be Neighborhood Watch Captain either. I can’t let this happen!”
versus
“If I go to jail, Momma and Pop are sure going to be pissed off at me! Of course, because I’m a thug I think going to jail is kinda cool. But I’m sure I won’t think so when I’m actually there!”
Yeah. The attack was so violent and incessant that the victim went directly to the hospital afterwards, where he left with bandages and stitches and everything.
When Zimmerman is the only one of the two who had a motive for murder and the means to quickly carry it out, how is it reasonable to persist in saying the dead person was the one attempting murder? When Zimmerman is the only one with a known agenda against someone, how is it reasonable to persist in saying that Martin–the kid whose only known agenda was to buy snacks from the store–was the one who targeted Zimmerman for an attack?
How do these thoughts even take shape in one’s brain without, presumably, the influence of powerful narcotics?
You talking about yourself, right? Less than 15 minutes ago, you said O’Mara waived the immunity hearing. Your own cite proves this is wrong. He has not waived the hearing. But more importantly, he has not requested one either. He has to do that to get it “rolled into the trial”; it is not something that just happens automatically.
I’ve asked you repeatedly to show that evidence when you’ve made similar posts, and you’ve consistently refused. Because you know it doesn’t exist.
Because it’s easier to be found not guilty than to prove one’s innocence. If, as seems likely and is the position of most rational people in this thread, that the evidence conclusively points to neither guilt nor innocence, the correct answer is to be found not guilty at trial. He can always claim immunity later if there’s a civil action.
Utterly false, and will remain utterly false no matter how many times you say it. They have to prove every element of the murder charge.
Maybe. That doesn’t mean Zimmerman would not be justified in defending himself. To say that, you have to prove him guilty of assault, which you can’t.
It is neither necessary nor sufficient for them to claim they feared for their life. They must claim that they reasonably feared death or great bodily harm. Zimmerman can, based on the evidence we have that Martin was on top of him brutally attacking him, claim that.
But, of course, any defendant can claim that, and if they do so claim, the prosecution must prove it false beyond reasonable doubt, according to Florida law. The reason a lot of people wouldn’t claim it is that it means admitting that you killed the person you are accused of murdering, which is often not a good idea.
Don’t be too general with the “these guys”'s and the “they”'s. Different posters have different views, and you should treat them as individuals.
I doubt Martin specifically intended to beat Zimmerman to death, more likely he just intended to give him a beating and walk away. But, there was no way for Zimmerman to know that.
Martin was shot once. Zimmerman’s Kel Tec PF9 holds seven rounds.
Shooting Martin once is much more consistent with shooting to stop, ie self defense, than it is with murder. If Zimmerman’s motive was to prevent Martin from telling anyone what Zimmerman had done that night, why not make sure he was dead with multiple shots? Why leave it to chance?
OK, can you walk me through this? What happens that ends with Zimmerman deciding to shoot someone as a way to face less severe consequences?