If he’s using an affirmative defense he certainly does.
You seem to be confusing evidence that Martin was winning the fight with evidence that he started the fight.
This has been done exhaustively in the other threads. No, he doesn’t. He has to claim self defence, and the state has to cast doubt on that claim before it will even go to trial. The pre-trial hearing hasn’t happened yet.
It’s quite possibly just as likely. Fortunately, decisions about someone’s guilt aren’t made on the grounds of what is likely, they are made on the grounds of what is proven.
A claim which, it should be noted, Martin has not denied.
Not really, no. Threatening someone with a weapon is assault, you can look it up (in England, assault with an offensive weapon). I’m fairly sure it’s considered provocation too. Anyone want to man the Bricker-signal?
I’m sure you think that’s clever…
The point is that, if Zimmerman is a credible witness, there’s no reason to disbelieve him. It will come down to whether his account is consistent with the other evidence available. As yet, there’s nothing come out that shows it isn’t, but the assumption is that there’s something, else it wouldn’t be going to trial.
You are on very solid ground there.
Gotta love the liberal mind. Can’t digest facts. Following someone is not a crime. Not following a police dispatchers recommendation is not a crime. Shooting someone who is high and physically attacking you is not a crime. Not one of you can prove that Martin was provoked or attacked.
If you’re as stupid as this post indicates, you would enjoy going back through this thread and noting that no one is offering a theory of the crime that is inconsistent with Zimmerman’s injuries. If you pick a fight and pull a gun when you start losing, you have committed a crime. This is acknowledged throughout the civilized world.
Talk about stupidity. You have ANY proof that Zimmerman started a fight. I suppose I better be careful walking behind you because you might call that picking a fight. Show us the proof Zimmerman started a fight or shut up.
Yes, but under certain circumstances the crime you commit will be assault. Under the self defense law in Florida (NOT the Stand Your Ground law), if you are in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, and have exhausted all other possibilities, you are entitled to use lethal force even if you started the fight.
I’m neither saying that this is what happened in this case, nor that the law is right.
So you really didn’t read any of the thread. Okay. Which do you think is more likely, that Zimmerman started the fight, or that Martin did? If you think it’s more likely that Martin did, what’s your proof? Or is it because he’s black?
The problem with asking this question is that it bears no relation to the trial process.
Jurors can’t demand proof from Zimmerman. If it’s simply more likely that Zimmerman started the fight instead of Martin, then the jury must acquit Zimmerman.
The state must prove Martin did not start the fight, and they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words, the correct question is to you: what’s your proof that Zimmerman started the fight? And does that proof rise to the level of eliminating reasonable doubt?
Fortunately, I do not live in Florida, am unable to serve as a juror, and am free to have my own opinions. If you live in Florida, and might be a juror in this case, you should not read this thread, much less post in it.
I think part of the problem is that people are talking past each other. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but what I’m seeing right now is
- Zimmerman is a dick
- Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong
- Some poor kid got killed for no good reason
- It doesn’t look like Zimmerman comitted a crime under Florida law (acknowledging that you never really know what the heck a jury is going to do)
So, some people are talking about how the recent evidence changes the trial (a lot, potentially), and some people are talking about how it changes their opinion of what happened (not really at all).
Just my 2 cents.
I think anyone who carries a gun is both a dick and a puss BUT this likelihood thing is not being looked at correctly.
-
Nobody sane jumps on someone who has pulled a gun so that is highly unlikely.
-
Martin indicated to his girlfriend he was angry that he was being followed. I can see that. I would be too.
-
Anyone such a puss that they would carry a gun is unlikely to start a fight though it is marginally possible it gave him courage enough.
-
Generally a person already talking to the police on a phone isn’t planning on starting a fight.
So what is likely is that it happened mostly if not completely as Zimmerman said. That’s a damn shame because he took a life rather than take an ass whupping and it’s exactly the sort of puss move the gangs he would disdain (and for good reason) would do. He is no better than those he sought to protect against and unless new evidence comes to light that he did strike first he will get away with it.
I suppose he could get a jury that acts on emotion though.
Cite? Not that he had traces of THC in his urine, that it’s only not a crime to shoot someone attacking oneself if they’re high. Otherwise your qualifier is superfluous.
Shooting someone who is not high and physically attacking you is (probably) not a crime.
Shooting someone who is high and not physically attacking you (probably) is a crime.
Hmmm, just a guess but, I’m thinking “physically attacking you” is the part that matters legally and “is high” is fucking irrelevant.
CMC fnord!
That’s not a shame, it’s the reason self defence laws exist.
Wow. In case you needed more evidence that Republicans were scum