Right now is Alan Reich.
I see that all you’re about quibbling over minutia.
If he was not threatened with imminent harm, then he didn’t have reasonable fear of serious bodily harm. In Zimmerman’s case, they are one and the same. The threat represented the supposed basis for Zimmerman shooting the kid. There’s evidence this threat wasn’t made, and in fact, the opposite occurred.
Why would a thug hellbent on killing someone be screaming for help like that? The idea is too improbable to take seriously, and it also contradicts Zimmerman’s account.
Yeah, but Zimmerman never said that he was afraid of breaking the wrist lock. He said there was race for the gun. He “won” the race by putting the kid in a wrist lock and then, with the same arm, reached back behind himself and pulled out his gun. Then he aimed the gun and fired it into Martin’s chest. There was no fight in progress when this happened, according to witnesses and according to Zimmerman.
If he was effectively able to immobilize the kid so that he could get his gun out, then the threat was neutralized at that point. There was no imminent threat because Martin wasn’t doing anything except watching him point the gun at him. And screaming for help in sheer terror.
Again, did Zimmerman ever claim this? No he didn’t. So why make up something that could have happened, when there’s no evidence to support it?
Please cite caselaw that this is the case in Florida, because it’s not what a plain reading of the law says, nor is it how such laws are usually applied.
If Zimmerman was put in reasonable fear by Martin, it’s reasonable for him to remain in fear until Martin retreats and clearly signals that his aggression is over. That is clearly not what happened here.
He had reason to be in fear from the moment Martin broke his nose, regardless of any threats.
Still doesn’t prove it wasn’t self defence. Once again, even if your crazy theories are correct, it still doesn’t make him guilty.
Perhaps you could cite this claim, that conveniently no-one else remembers hearing? Then, even if you’re right, prove that Zimmerman was not in some way mistaken due to the stress of the occasion.
False. The threat ending requires Martin to end his aggression, unless Zimmerman stops it. Restraining him won’t achieve that, as it’s temporary.
A question we’ve asked you again and again, and which you repeatedly fail to answer.
That’s absolutely untrue, as a matter of law.
Nor do i see how it can possibly be correct under the facts of this case.
In any event, it’s not minutia. The prosecution must disprove Zimmerman’s actual fear or the reasonableness of it. It is legally insufficient for them to simply disprove the absence fo an actual threat without addressing the reasonableness of his subjective belief. If they fail to do that, he will be acquitted: a matter you have certainly demonstrated you don’t regard as minutia.
Yes, there’s evidence. Is it evidence beyond a reasonabel doubt, or is it evidence that’s simply more likely than other other scenarios which are also reasonably possible.
You haven’t answered my question, by the way:
Specifically, Mrs. Riley, what must the prosecution prove (or disprove) to convict Zimmerman?
“Omara sad the seven witnesses he wantred to keep hidden include one witness to the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin the night of February 26, 2012.”
Apparently someone actually saw the encounter. Six others just saw and heard parts of it.
The hearing on the audio experts, which was supposed to take up Thursday, enters its fourth day this morning.
AFAIU, from news, there is no hearing on the audio experts today.
Hmmm. Now I’m unsure. CBS Miami says there is, but other sources just have it as a hearing on jury selection.
Still looking for the cite on this. I can’t find anywhere that, “according to Zimmerman,” Martin was immobilized at the time his weapon was fired. All of his interviews state that he and Martin were struggling when the shot was fired.
What your describing in your post is an entirely different scenario.
Nonetheless, according to you with the face, it could have happened that way, and therefore Zimmerman must be guilty.
Regards,
Shodan
I predict that Zimmerman will be found not guilty because ultimately, it will not be that hard for a jury of Floridians to find reasonable doubt in a case that has a lot of “we just don’t know” and probably falls into the realm of “he did it but we can’t prove it.”
I think Zimmerman is a piece of shit who set out to harass a black guy that night, initiated the confrontation, panicked when his prey didn’t buy his fake-cop routine, and is going to end up killing someone else in the remaining 50 or so years he probably has left to exist on Earth as George Zimmerman with all of his prejudices, impulses, and deficiencies.
I think the actual reasons he will be found not guilty have very little to do with his defenders’ insistence that people on the Internet being skeptical of factual claims made by a person charged with murder constitutes a violation of that person’s due process rights.
Is this a gut feeling of yours, or is this a reasoned conclusion backed by the evidence?
The burden of proof being on the prosecution, and their inability to meet that burden with the evidence available, is an actual reason he should be found not guilty, if that’s what you mean.
[QUOTE=Condescending Robot]
I think the actual reasons he will be found not guilty have very little to do with his defenders’ insistence that people on the Internet being skeptical of factual claims made by a person charged with murder constitutes a violation of that person’s due process rights.
[/QUOTE]
On the Internet? No, none of Zimmerman’s supporters have made such a claim. They have pointed out repeatedly that Zimmerman is entitled to the presumption of innocence in his trial, but that is far from the same thing.
Actually it is pretty much just the opposite - I for one have pointed out many times over that it is important to believe only in those parts of Zimmerman’s narrative that are backed up by evidence.
Which is in contrast to statements like this -
Since there is no evidence of racial animosity on Zimmerman’s part, no conduct that could be considered harassing on Zimmerman’s part, Dee Dee’s testimony and the pattern of Martin’s movements tends to demonstrate that it was Martin who initiated the confrontation by punching Zimmerman in the face, there is no evidence of panicking on Zimmerman’s part until after he was attacked, and that Zimmerman never stated or implied to Martin that he was a cop.
Whether or not Zimmerman will kill someone in the future remains to be seen. He seems to have avoided doing so for the first 28 years of his life - perhaps if no one attacks him and bashes his head on the sidewalk, he can start another streak.
Regards,
Shodan
This is not rational conclusion to make based on the evidence. As Shodan has stated, using the evidence at hand his story rings true. It was reasonable to be suspicious of someone he knew was not the owner of the house who was trespassing in the rain at dusk. My neighbors have called the police on people around my house and I have done the same for them. So far I stopped at least 3 burglaries and caught 2 of the people doing it. One was based solely on seeing a kid standing on a street corner. That’s it. I could tell based on his behavior that he was up to no good. It didn’t take much more observation to prove it. He was the lookout for others who were stealing a car.
I don’t even begin to know where you get come off referring to Martin as his prey or Zimmerman as a fake-cop. Nothing in the phone conversation to the Dispatcher indicated he attempted to make contact with Martin and the conversation as related by Dee Dee demonstrated nothing of the kind.
Martin on the other-hand has been shown to be a kid in trouble. The reason he was even living at that address was because of his school suspension for fighting, theft, and vandalism. His mother felt he needed help and sent him to live with his father. His text messages show him preoccupied with fighting, drugs and guns. His own girlfriend even warned him he was going to end up shot in the chest because of his activities and assumed he was fighting based on the last phone conversation. This was apparently so natural a thing to expect of Martin she didn’t call the police.
There is no explanation for believing that Martin was “trespassing” in a manner suggestive of burglary that does not require credulously believing everything Zimmerman said, and there is no explanation whatsoever for why Zimmerman got out of the car in the first place. I’m not particularly interested in re-arguing every point in a thread with ten thousand posts in it, but those are the fundamental facts that show that, in light of all “external evidence,” Zimmerman is, at minimum, an overly aggressive, paranoid asshole who self-appointed himself as the “captain” of a “neighborhood watch” that didn’t exist beyond himself, and had a habit of stalking around his neighborhood with a gun* looking for shit to start. I don’t particularly buy the arguments that he didn’t commit a murder here, but I see how a reasonable person could; I DON’T find it remotely reasonable to reject the lesser stuff about Zimmerman’s temperament and delusions of being a superhero.
*I am a gun rights/self-defense supporter and I have many posts on this board to back that up. With that said, I find strapping a gun to oneself ONLY when going on patrol for suspiciously dark-skinned people to be outside the spirit of self-defense, and I certainly find shooting a child armed with a can of iced tea to be wildly outside of it.
Overly aggressive, paranoid asshole or not, he’s not guilty of the crime of second-degree murder, because sufficient evidence doesn’t exist that proves him guilty of the elements of second-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
Out of curiosity, what’s so egregious about starting a neighborhood watch, and persisting even if no one else from your small neighborhood joins?
Zimmerman wasn’t on neighborhood watch patrol at the time of the incident, he was driving back from a store.
He used the trademarked name of an organization which prohibits its actual members from pursuing people, confronting them, or carrying guns, falsely represented himself as being authorized to do so, and did this because he was intentionally trying to be dishonest about his actual role of “lone armed racist walking around looking for trouble.” That’s what’s egregious about it.
Do you need “Neighborhood Watch authorization” to carry a gun, “pursue people”, or confront them? Can you explain which of these activities is illegal or requires being a Neighborhood Watch member (if there is such a membership, I am not sure)?
Again, though, he wasn’t on patrol for the watch when the incident occured.
Nor is there evidence that he confronted Martin.