So you really think all O’Mara has to do is just go up and talk to himself after the State rests? No witnesses, no nothing? Lol.
I find it hilarious that your responses are dripping with so much emotion, so much anger. Keep it up, please!
Go to Youtube: full zimmerman hearing april 30, if you want to hear yesterday’s hearing. There are a lot of interesting points. Apparently DD didn’t write her own statement, the claim is someone else helped her with it. Is she illiterate?Sabrina Fulton kept DD’s statement, instead of handing it over to authorities, because she thought it was a personal letter to her. Huh? Than the prosecutors forgot all about the letter, which is why they didn’t turn it over to the defense. The ping logs apparently show that Trayvon was outside the area where he should have been that evening, indicating he wasn’t just coming and going from the 7-11. The pings logs should be available to the public soon, since they were turned over to the defense.
Someone helped DD write here statement? I bet it was one of those whatchacallits … a lawyer – helping that illiterate moron put words to paper. And Martin may not have been in the area where he should have been? Exactly what area should he have been in? Do you have his agenda for that night printed out? Was he prohibited for some reason from being anywhere but on straight line between the 7-11 and his father’s house?
Yes, yes, this is all very damning. Obvious, Martin is guilty.
Oops, shit, forgot he isn’t the one on trial there for a second.
Zimmerman broke the law when he committed battery, so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
It defies common sense to restrain someone who has almost killed you with his bare hards, so this doesn’t work either.
Zimmerman’s actions, based on the evidence we have, have gotten him arrested and charged with murder. So once again, I can only conclude that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
you with the face, I’m going to broadly address the logical and legal problems I see with your position. If I have any of your positions recapped incorrectly, please let me know.
- **Zimmerman restraining Martin after the shot was fired indicates that Zimmerman was not in reasonable fear for his life when the shot was fired. **
A reasonable fear for one’s life is based on a set of circumstances. It is not rooted in the physical person that’s caused the threat.
This is why Jerome Ersland was guilty of murder: the robber was the same person, but the circumstances had changed, the robber was unconscious on the floor and no longer a reasonable lethal threat.
This is why J Rowe was not guilty of murder. He’d started a fight by kicking a man, then withdrew to a different part of the hotel he was staying in. The other man fetched a knife, tracked him down, and slashed him. Rowe shot the man dead.
The other man would have been justified in using physical force to defend himself from Rowe’s kick. He did not no so, instead confronting him later with a knife. The person, Rowe, was the same, but circumstances had changed: the other man was no longer in reasonable fear for his life, because Rowe had left the room. Rowe was justified in defending himself from the deadly force of a knife attack. Crucially, if the other man had fought back against Rowe’s kick, and then later on came at him with a knife anyway, that would not be evidence that the fear which justified using force to fight off the kick was not justified.
Imagine a person, Steve, ambushed and shot at by another man, Rick. Steve fires back, and strikes Rick. Rick’s pistol runs empty, and he drops it. Can Steve legally shoot Rick again? No, he cannot. The person is the same, but the reasonable fear that justified Steve shooting Rick is no longer reasonable, because the circumstances have changed, and the threat is no longer a deadly one. Crucially, Steve shooting again would not be evidence that Steve wasn’t afraid when he fired the first time; they are separate acts under different circumstances.
This is why it would be illegal for Zimmerman to pause, assess that Martin was no longer attacking, and shoot him some more. Martin is the same person that caused Zimmerman to fear for his life, but the circumstances had changed, Martin was no longer atop Zimmerman and beating him.
By ignoring the point in the fight at which the shot occured, you are ignoring the change in circumstances. The shot is what caused Martin to no longer be atop of Zimmerman. It’s a vital part of what happened, and ignoring it contradicts everything above. The threat is not a physical being, it’s a circumstance of which the physical being is but one part.
- **Zimmerman restraining Martin after the shot was fired was illegal in itself, as Martin had surrendered. **
Martin on the ground still represents a reasonable threat of unlawful force; he had just been striking Zimmerman, after all. Zimmerman has the right to use physical force to defend himself from this threat. Laying on him and checking for weapons is a perfectly reasonable example.
The Court in Rowe ruled that a “good-faith” retreat renewed the right the self-defense for Rowe. Whether Martin made a good-faith retreat is up to a jury to decide, but note that Rowe physically left the room, whereas Martin supposedly took his hands off of Zimmerman, and said a phrase that contained the words “you got”. Also, the other man came at Rowe with a knife, a deadly weapon, which is only justified in the face of an immediate lethal threat. Zimmerman jumped on Martin, which is not deadly force, and can be justified by a reasonable fear of unlawful force. The fact that Martin had just been beating him fulfills the reasonableness of that fear. Again, Zimmerman would not be justified in using lethal force at that point, but he was justified in using physical force.
What of citizen’s arrest? The other man in Rowe’s case couldn’t claim that, he approached Rowe alone with a knife and slashed him. Zimmerman could claim that, as Martin committed a felony in his presence. I’ve seen no evidence of a duty to inform the arrestee; even if it exists, the circumstances of this particular incident reasonably excuse the omission: Zimmerman hadn’t approached Martin at his leisure, he was recovering from an attack that had ended a couple of seconds before. There was no reasonable opportunity for him to inform Martin that he was under arrest, if such is even required.
- **Zimmerman restraining Martin after the shot was fired indicates that Zimmerman tried to restrain Martin before the shot was fired. **
This is untrue, because the fact that Martin had beaten him alone is good reason to restrain Martin. There are two motivations for restraining Martin: doing so before the fight, unlawfully; or doing so in response to the fight, lawfully. As the attack by itself justifies the restraint, there is no way to eliminate it as the cause, in favor of the restraint-before-attack explanation.
Imagine two conditions, A (Zimmerman trying to restrain Martin on sight) and B (Zimmerman trying to restain Martin after Martin attacked him), that both lead to outcome C (Martin restrained). C occurs. Was it caused by A, or B? The evidence points to B: a fight occured, Zimmerman is injured and Martin is uninjured. What makes A the more likely cause? Nothing that I am aware of.
I’ll alert the Innocence Project so they can shut down, since only the guilty are ever convicted, let alone accused, of crimes.
I’d also better alert the West Memphis Three, the Scottsboro Boys, the Duke lacrosse team, the McMartin family, the Central Park jogger defendants, and countless others that they need to report to prison immediately.
They don’t need witnesses when the physical evidence is enough to show that their is reasonable doubt that he’s guilty. Again you don’t have a fucking clue how it actually works. Although there are plenty of witnesses who’s statements will support Zimmerman, including the medical examiner who will state that the injuries are consistent with Martin being attacked, and the people who heard Zimmerman screaming at the time he claimed to be attacked. You may say it was Martin screaming, but you cannot know that, and any claim that someone unidentified was screaming supports Zimmerman.
This is exactly why I keep saying her views are so dangerous.
It casts doubt on DD’s recollection of events. She’s the prosecutors key witness.
Hopefully voire dire will keep anyone who thinks accusations are evidence off of this, and all, juries. Presumption of innocence has been a cornerstone of our criminal justice system for a minimum of118 years, for heaven’s sake.
What are you trying to imply here? Where are you from? What exactly in the link you provided seems unusual to you?
I’m not saying the fact that he’s been arrested is proof that he’s guilty.
But it is evidence that there is evidence he committed a crime. Probable cause and all of that.
Probable cause is the legal standard used by grand juries to bring indictments.
Zimmerman’s case never came before a grand jury, meaning that Angela Corey got to be a one-person grand jury. So, you are trusting a single person’s belief that the evidence passes the probable cause standard.
The judge ruled yesterday that the details of that lawsuit and the settlement will be released to the defense.
Forgot to mention that DD claimed a friend (?) helped her write the statement, though she couldn’t recall her name.
Sorry, I’m not slogging through all that just so that I can end up saying same thing I’ve said 100 times already.
Your position is that Zimmerman was entitled to jumping on top of Martin after the kid surrended, and this action doesn’t in any way suggest an aggressive state-of-mind when he shot and killed the kid.
My position is that Zimmerman was legally required to withdraw force just as soon as he realized the kid was retreating from him, and by tackling the boy unnecessarily, he showed himself to be more interested in subduing his opponent than protecting his own life.
Let’s agree to disagree.
Ok, fair enough.
You don’t need a grand jury to indict someone. People are brought up on charges all the time without grand juries.
It wasn’t just Corey who looked at the affidavit and signed on it. It had to go to her boss and multiple judges.
Defense counsel has the power to request that charges to be dropped due to insufficient evidence. Why haven’t they done so, if what you’re saying is true? Why have they waived the immunity hearing if what you’re saying is true? Why are they grasping at straws by attacking Deedee’s literacy of all things, if what you’re saying is true?
This is true, but there is a reason grand juries exist, and the large part of it is to inject unbiased peers into the proceedings to weigh evidence dispassionately. This was not done in this case, which makes cries of “But he’s been charged!” even less meaningful then they would otherwise be, which isn’t very.
The prosecution isn’t an unbiased party. Prosecutorial misconduct is a common component of miscarriages of justice, after not (not alleging any in this specific case). Look at a case like Fatty Arbuckle’s, in which a zealous prosecution took an innocent man to trial three times, and was never able to convince a jury of his guilt. The prosecution was convinced they had sufficient evidence, but they clearly did not.
Excellent question. Bear in mind that O’Mara’s skill as a lawyer and the strength of the case against Zimmerman are unrelated.
Because it’s a higher burden to meet. The immunity hearing places the burden of proof on the defense.
By they, do you mean hmarvin, or the defense?
You have yet to provide any evidence that Martin surrendered, and simply claiming he retreated does not suffice. Please provide that evidence.