Zimmrman case

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

No, it's not a good excuse, but its NOT illegal. Should you really have to get ground and pounded because of it? Some say yes, some say no.

Well its a good enough excuse to consider that the boy might have had cause to believe that he had the right to stand his ground.
Certainly being followed home by a stranger is as good of an excuse to stand your ground as pursuing a stranger and then pizzing him off to the point that he takes a poke at you is.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Well its a good enough excuse to consider that the boy might have had cause to believe that he had the right to stand his ground.
Certainly being followed home by a stranger is as good of an excuse to stand your ground as pursuing a stranger and then pizzing him off to the point that he takes a poke at you is.

Doing something legal, like following someone, isn't a good enough excuse to "stand your ground" and beat the person up. It isn't standing your ground unless a reasonable person would fear great bodily harm or death. Do you honestly believe that Martin was in fear of either? Is that why he ran away and then came back?

Following someone and "pizzing them off" by asking questions, doesn't give a person the right to attack.

The evidence shows that Zimmerman got beat. If someone is getting beat, a reasonable person would fear great bodily harm imo. Following shouldn't make someone fear great bodily harm or death until there are threats, or physical contact, or more provocation than just following. Mere questions just aren't enough to justify imo.

Imagine the precedent that would set. "officer, he was following me and asking what I was doing in the neighbourhood, so I beat him to death." Not guilty.

More could have happened, sure. Zimmerman could have attacked first, but the physical evidence definitely shows that Zim needed to defend himself. Martin might have had to also, but unfortunately for the Martin camp, there's not much indication.

I still think he'll either get off, or get manslaughter due to the emotions of the jury, NOT from evidence. I don't think the evidence is there to convict. ANYONE can see that it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered the kid.

[greylynx]

This case is nothing more than a race baiting scenario trumped up by the liberal media.

The police did not even charge Zimmerman until later when the state prosecutor was notified.

The prosecution's witnesses were made out to look very stupid and now there is pleas bargaining.

Statements from the prosecutors are at the point that this is a nothing case.

Just watch how the race baiters will try to keep this story going on and on and on. That is all they live for.

I wonder when Rev. Sharpton is going to coming riding in on his black horse.

[Pincherguy]

The prosecution had most of their witnesses testifying for the defense, I really don't know why they called some of them.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Pincherguy

The prosecution had most of their witnesses testifying for the defense, I really don't know why they called some of them.

It really did seem like they were just prosecuting him because they had to, not because they felt they had a good chance at a conviction. Listening to panel discussions concerning the prosecution witnesses, many times I would hear how they were surprised that they were called, or how it may have helped the defense more than the prosecution.

[Pincherguy]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

It really did seem like they were just prosecuting him because they had to, not because they felt they had a good chance at a conviction. Listening to panel discussions concerning the prosecution witnesses, many times I would hear how they were surprised that they were called, or how it may have helped the defense more than the prosecution.

Most of the witnesses were turned right around during cross examination. The defense team as bad as they are had them helping Zimmerman. If he does happen to lose he should appeal for a new trial due to dough head lawyers.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Pincherguy

Most of the witnesses were turned right around during cross examination. The defense team as bad as they are had them helping Zimmerman. If he does happen to lose he should appeal for a new trial due to dough head lawyers.

If he does get convicted and appeals, is the next trial still decided by a jury? I would say he would have a better chance of a not guilty verdict from a judge.

[Pincherguy]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

If he does get convicted and appeals, is the next trial still decided by a jury? I would say he would have a better chance of a not guilty verdict from a judge.

I think your right, but I am not sure whether they have that option or not.

[huntinstuff]

Good guy?
bad guy?

The guy with the gun usually wins.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

Doing something legal, like following someone, isn't a good enough excuse to "stand your ground" and beat the person up. It isn't standing your ground unless a reasonable person would fear great bodily harm or death. Do you honestly believe that Martin was in fear of either? Is that why he ran away and then came back?

Following someone and "pizzing them off" by asking questions, doesn't give a person the right to attack.

The evidence shows that Zimmerman got beat. If someone is getting beat, a reasonable person would fear great bodily harm imo. Following shouldn't make someone fear great bodily harm or death until there are threats, or physical contact, or more provocation than just following. Mere questions just aren't enough to justify imo.

Imagine the precedent that would set. "officer, he was following me and asking what I was doing in the neighbourhood, so I beat him to death." Not guilty.

More could have happened, sure. Zimmerman could have attacked first, but the physical evidence definitely shows that Zim needed to defend himself. Martin might have had to also, but unfortunately for the Martin camp, there's not much indication.

I still think he'll either get off, or get manslaughter due to the emotions of the jury, NOT from evidence. I don't think the evidence is there to convict. ANYONE can see that it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered the kid.

That law can cut both ways... all it takes is a perception that you are threatened.
If a person can sell that in court... then he's good to go.
Isn't that what Zimmerman is doing?
Why couldn't the kid... had he lived make the same claim... that he percieved a threat and acted in a lwful manner to defend himself?
Maybe he saw the gun.
Maybe the body language gave him cause to worry or maybe something was said that made him feel threatened.

Who knows?

I'm sure that in the fullness of time all sorts of precedence will be set but for now...
Perhaps the first one will be that its not OK to claim victim status when you set in motion the events that lead to a killing... against the advice of a 911 operator.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

That law can cut both ways... all it takes is a perception that you are threatened.
If a person can sell that in court... then he's good to go.
Isn't that what Zimmerman is doing?
Why couldn't the kid... had he lived make the same claim... that he percieved a threat and acted in a lwful manner to defend himself?
Maybe he saw the gun.
Maybe the body language gave him cause to worry or maybe something was said that made him feel threatened.

Who knows?

I'm sure that in the fullness of time all sorts of precedence will be set but for now...
Perhaps the first one will be that its not OK to claim victim status when you set in motion the events that lead to a killing... against the advice of a 911 operator.

I agree that you just have to sell the perception in court. I just really think it will be easier for Zim as he was injured. Anything could have happened, but strictly based on the physical injuries of both parties, it is easier to believe that Zim feared for his life rather than Martin.

[canadiantdi]

Analysis: George Zimmerman Probably Won't Be Convicted of Murder or Manslaughter -- Here's Why

I drew a legal conclusion on "Good Morning America" Saturday that would have surprised the Dan Abrams who covered the George Zimmerman case leading up to, and shortly after, his arrest.

Now that the prosecution's case against Zimmerman is in, as a legal matter, I just don't see how a jury convicts him of second degree murder or even manslaughter in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

So what happened? How can an armed man who shot and killed an unarmed teen after being told by the police that he didn't need to keep following him, likely be found not guilty of those crimes?

I certainly sympathize with the anger and frustration of the Martin family and doubt that a jury will accept the entirety of George Zimmerman's account as credible. But based on the legal standard and evidence presented by prosecutors it is difficult to see how jurors find proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.

Prosecutors are at a distinct legal disadvantage.

Trayvon Martin's Mother, Brother Testify Watch Video
They have the burden to prove that Zimmerman did not "reasonably believe" that the gunshot was "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm" to himself. That is no easy feat based on the evidence presented in their case. Almost every prosecution witness was called to discredit the only eyewitness who unquestionably saw everything that occurred that night, George Zimmerman.

The essence of Zimmerman's account is basically as follows:

He spotted Martin, became suspicious, called police, was told he didn't need to follow him, was only out of his car to give the authorities an address, was jumped and then pummeled by Martin and as he was being punched and having his head knocked into the ground, Martin went for Zimmerman's firearm and Zimmerman shot him once in the chest.

The prosecution, on the other hand, called 38 witnesses to try to show: Zimmerman was a wannabe cop who regularly reported black strangers in his neighborhood; initiated and was at least at one point, on top during the encounter; that Zimmerman's injuries were minor and that many aspects of his accounts to the police and media were inconsistent and/or lies.

For a moment, lets put aside the fact that many of the prosecution witnesses seemed to help Zimmerman in one way or another.

As a legal matter, even if jurors find parts of Zimmerman's story fishy, that is not enough to convict. Even if they believe that Zimmerman initiated the altercation, and that his injuries were relatively minor, that too would be insufficient evidence to convict. Prosecutors have to effectively disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. So what exactly would that mean based on the facts as we know them?

Let's take a hypothetical, but realistic, scenario whereby jurors don't believe Zimmerman when he says he wasn't following Martin (the lead detective who seemed to find Zimmerman's account credible had a problem with this part of Zimmerman's account).

Let's also assume they believe Zimmerman approached Martin and it is only because Zimmerman was tailing Trayvon Martin that a fight ensued. First of all, the fact that there was a fight at all makes a murder conviction difficult. To win a murder conviction, they have to show he had the intent to kill and did so with "depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will."

While prosecutors argue that Zimmerman's statements to the 911 operator about the "f------ punks" always "getting away," shows ill will, most legal analysts felt from the beginning that with a fight, a murder charge was overreaching.

Manslaughter is far more likely to create debate in that jury room (there could also be even lesser crimes they consider, where they could find him guilty of something).

Zimmerman's injuries alone -- his broken nose and cuts on the back of his head -- are objective evidence to support his account that he shot Martin as he was being pummeled.

Just as important is the testimony of neighbor John Good, who lived directly in front of the location where Martin was shot. He very precisely (but reluctantly) testified that he saw the lighter skinned man in the red jacket on the bottom of the scuffle with the darker skinned man with the darker clothing on the top in a "mixed martial arts position." He said he now believes that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

But wait, another witness said she thought Zimmerman was likely on top. Put aside the fact that Good's home is the closest to the incident and that her testimony didn't seem nearly as credible or definitive as Good's, that doesn't change the legal reality that one does not negate the other.

The prosecution has the burden to prove the case and so if there is reasonable doubt, the defense wins. Good's testimony in conjunction with Zimmerman's injuries are likely enough to cast reasonable doubt on the key question, which is whether Zimmerman reasonably believed he needed to shoot Martin to prevent "great bodily injury."

Of course, the jurors could also accept all or the vast majority of Zimmerman's account, making an acquittal that much easier.

What about the fact that prosecution witnesses have testified that his injuries were not that significant? While interesting (and debatable), the only relevant legal question is what was Zimmerman thinking or fearing at the time, not what already occurred.

In many self defense cases the person who shoots a fatal bullet suffers no injuries at all and instead argues he or she protected himself or herself from injury by shooting the attacker.

So wait, let's take a step back. If jurors believe Zimmerman followed Martin, maybe even racially profiled him and initiated the altercation, can Zimmerman still legally claim he needed to defend himself and walk free? Yes.

If these jurors have questions or doubts about whether, at the moment he fired the fatal shot, Zimmerman "reasonably" feared that this was the only way to stop from getting beaten further, then they have to find him not guilty.

To be clear, if we were talking about Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground Law, who initiated the encounter would be crucial and the defendant would have the burden to prove that he should not be held legally responsible for the shooting. That law, which can protect a shooter from even going to trial, wasn't designed for someone who starts a fight and then loses the fight he initiated.

Zimmerman waived a pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing and went directly to trial (likely because his lawyers knew they would lose) and simply argued classic self-defense, which is different. Now no matter how it started, if Zimmerman shot Martin because he reasonably believed it was the only way to protect himself from "great bodily harm" then he is not guilty. That's the law.

With all of this said, juries are notoriously impossible to predict and the deliberation process can take on a life of its own, but if they follow the letter of the law, it's hard to see, based on everything we know now, how they find him guilty of either murder or even manslaughter.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimm...2#.Udo_qj772Fc

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

I agree that you just have to sell the perception in court. I just really think it will be easier for Zim as he was injured. Anything could have happened, but strictly based on the physical injuries of both parties, it is easier to believe that Zim feared for his life rather than Martin.

It is easy to believe that he feared for his life.
It is also easy to believe that the kid may well have feared for his own.

As I see it... the case hinges upon whether or not the judge believes Zimmermans story or believes that he willfully and unreasonably initiated an action that lead to an altercation and finally the kid being shot.

IOW... Did he influence or steer things towards that outcome or not?

Regardless of his intent... is he responsible for his own actions and what followed after he was told to back off?

[Forest Techer]

^ interesting analysis.

If trevon had a gun and there was a mutual begin to the fight could it then be said that whoever begins to loose is then covered under a case of self -defense?

So in a circumstance where your fighting someone and your both armed let the other party get the advantage and you then can escalate force well beyound the fight and walk.

Why win in fisticuffs if it then gives the loosing party a right to shoot you?
Maybe it's all about how the fight begins?

Now obviously the issue with this case is only 1 person knows exactly how the fight started.
Maybe this case frustrates and excites people because it seems easily avoidable.
I don't think either party was doing anything wrong until "something" triggered a fight.

With the facts presented and the lack of any proof to the contrary zim will most likely walk. I wonder in what light he really thinks about that night.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

It is easy to believe that he feared for his life.
It is also easy to believe that the kid may well have feared for his own.

As I see it... the case hinges upon whether or not the judge believes Zimmermans story or believes that he willfully and unreasonably initiated an action that lead to an altercation and finally the kid being shot.

IOW... Did he influence or steer things towards that outcome or not?

Regardless of his intent... is he responsible for his own actions and what followed after he was told to back off?

It's easier to believe that Zim feared for his life due to his injuries.

I doubt it matters too much if he initiated an action that lead to an altercation. You can **** someone off and not have to be murdered for it. You can **** someone off and not have to get a beat down for it. And if for some reason, someone decides to pound on your skull because you pizzed them off?? Well, I would say you can defend yourself..

He wasn't told to back off. He wasn't given a lawful order from a police officer. He was told that "we don't need you to do that" by a 911 operator who has no legal authority to give orders. There really isn't any evidence that Zim broke any laws. May have been dumb, may have started it, may have aggravated Martin etc, but unless he, without a doubt, made Martin fear for life or limb, which there is no solid evidence for, he should be found innocent. I understand that many peoples gut feelings are telling them that Zim did more, and that he is guilty in some way.. but we can't find people guilty based on gut feelings. Find them suspicious, or investigate further based on gut, sure.. but to send a man to jail without being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime?? I don't think that's right..

He may have honestly feared for his life after merely following the kid to see where he was going.. he may have had the best of intentions, wanting to stop ANOTHER break in from happening in his neighbourhood. Martin may have ran away and then circled back, caught up to Zim and attacked him. Obviously we don't know for sure if any of this happened, but I don't think, based on the evidence, that anyone can say that this DIDN'T happen.. Reasonable doubt.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

It's easier to believe that Zim feared for his life due to his injuries.

I doubt it matters too much if he initiated an action that lead to an altercation. You can **** someone off and not have to be murdered for it. You can **** someone off and not have to get a beat down for it. And if for some reason, someone decides to pound on your skull because you pizzed them off?? Well, I would say you can defend yourself..

He wasn't told to back off. He wasn't given a lawful order from a police officer. He was told that "we don't need you to do that" by a 911 operator who has no legal authority to give orders. There really isn't any evidence that Zim broke any laws. May have been dumb, may have started it, may have aggravated Martin etc, but unless he, without a doubt, made Martin fear for life or limb, which there is no solid evidence for, he should be found innocent. I understand that many peoples gut feelings are telling them that Zim did more, and that he is guilty in some way.. but we can't find people guilty based on gut feelings. Find them suspicious, or investigate further based on gut, sure.. but to send a man to jail without being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime?? I don't think that's right..

He may have honestly feared for his life after merely following the kid to see where he was going.. he may have had the best of intentions, wanting to stop ANOTHER break in from happening in his neighbourhood. Martin may have ran away and then circled back, caught up to Zim and attacked him. Obviously we don't know for sure if any of this happened, but I don't think, based on the evidence, that anyone can say that this DIDN'T happen.. Reasonable doubt.

Of course you don't jail men where there is reasonable doubt but you also don't reasonably expect to stalk someone and not get a reaction.

And THAT is the problem with this stand your ground law and the idea of ordinary people carrying guns for defense.

At what point do you depart from being within your rights and reasonable to being outside of your rights, unreasonable and an instigator of trouble?

George Zimmerman barely seems to know....yet he took courses and training for the purpose of knowing.

What makes this smell bad for me is not the fact that the kid was shot.
Its not the argument that the kid might have dominated in a fight.
Its not whether or not at that moment when the trigger was pulled George Zimmerman felt his life was threatened.

Its the fact that no fight would have occurred had a certain somebody been a little bit less keen to catch those..."*** punks"... that... "always get away".
It that George Zimmerman has been caught lying when an innocent man didn't need to.
Its that there are witnesses that counter his claims
Its that he...seems to have initiated contact according to witnesses and finally...

Its that some folks seem able to ignore the fact that stand your ground covers an awful lot of territory and is subject to individual interpretation and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that two young men were both standing their ground and one... brought fists to a gun fight.

Murder?... probably not.
Manslaughter?.... quite reasonably.
Innocent?.... absolutely not.
This situation didn't just fall out of the sky... land on Zimmerman’s face and start to wiggle.
Its not like... ooops I accidentally profiled a young man... followed him home...creeped him out...engaged him of the street and then had to shoot him.
Its more like... Bolstered by my "position" in the neighbourhood watch and the fact that I had a handgun and stand your ground training...I showed decidedly poor judgment and got myself into a pickle that I felt that I had to shoot my way out of.... or at least I knew I could shhoot my way out of... if anything went south.

He made decisions and willful actions that brought him into contact with Martin.
Believing that Martin was up to no good... he assumed risk by doing those things and then initiating contact.
That means he was mentally prepared for and in pursuit of or at the least should have anticipated...danger.

George Zimmerman probably isn't a murderer and he probably didn't wish for a physical confrontation but... he is no innocent and he is responsible for what unfolded whether intentional or not.

I'll be very surprised if he walks away scott free unless this is an all or none murder 2 or nothing situation.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

Of course you don't jail men where there is reasonable doubt but you also don't reasonably expect to stalk someone and not get a reaction.

And THAT is the problem with this stand your ground law and the idea of ordinary people carrying guns for defense.

At what point do you depart from being within your rights and reasonable to being outside of your rights, unreasonable and an instigator of trouble?

George Zimmerman barely seems to know....yet he took courses and training for the purpose of knowing.

What makes this smell bad for me is not the fact that the kid was shot.
Its not the argument that the kid might have dominated in a fight.
Its not whether or not at that moment when the trigger was pulled George Zimmerman felt his life was threatened.

Its the fact that no fight would have occurred had a certain somebody been a little bit less keen to catch those..."*** punks"... that... "always get away".
It that George Zimmerman has been caught lying when an innocent man didn't need to.
Its that there are witnesses that counter his claims
Its that he...seems to have initiated contact according to witnesses and finally...

Its that some folks seem able to ignore the fact that stand your ground covers an awful lot of territory and is subject to individual interpretation and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that two young men were both standing their ground and one... brought fists to a gun fight.

Murder?... probably not.
Manslaughter?.... quite reasonably.
Innocent?.... absolutely not.
This situation didn't just fall out of the sky... land on Zimmerman’s face and start to wiggle.
Its not like... ooops I accidentally profiled a young man... followed him home...creeped him out...engaged him of the street and then had to shoot him.
Its more like... Bolstered by my "position" in the neighbourhood watch and the fact that I had a handgun and stand your ground training...I showed decidedly poor judgment and got myself into a pickle that I felt that I had to shoot my way out of.... or at least I knew I could shhoot my way out of... if anything went south.

He made decisions and willful actions that brought him into contact with Martin.
Believing that Martin was up to no good... he assumed risk by doing those things and then initiating contact.
That means he was mentally prepared for and in pursuit of or at the least should have anticipated...danger.

George Zimmerman probably isn't a murderer and he probably didn't wish for a physical confrontation but... he is no innocent and he is responsible for what unfolded whether intentional or not.

I'll be very surprised if he walks away scott free unless this is an all or none murder 2 or nothing situation.

I think you are still not considering that if the situation went down like Zim said, which the evidence points to, then he did nothing illegal. He may have initiated the situation, no one is denying that. But someones response to a legal act, can't be to physically asault someone else. We all may have the urge to punch a guy who can't keep his nose where it belongs, but most can agree that we shouldn't.

[Fisherpeak]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

I think you are still not considering that if the situation went down like Zim said, which the evidence points to, then he did nothing illegal. He may have initiated the situation, no one is denying that. But someones response to a legal act, can't be to physically asault someone else. We all may have the urge to punch a guy who can't keep his nose where it belongs, but most can agree that we shouldn't.

You can`t follow and harass someone until they take a poke at you,then shoot them.Period.Guilty,lock his dumb ass up.

[NewGuard84]

These kinds of cases really bring out some interesting views. And by interesting, I mean shameful.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by MerrianWebster;

Definition of VIGILANTE
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

Should have stayed in his truck and let the real authorities do their job.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Fisherpeak

You can`t follow and harass someone until they take a poke at you,then shoot them.Period.Guilty,lock his dumb ass up.

I agree with you. I would not have done what either of these clowns did. But legally, I think you can follow someone without getting assaulted.

[huntingd]

Originally Posted by Fisherpeak

You can`t follow and harass someone until they take a poke at you,then shoot them.Period.Guilty,lock his dumb ass up.

Exactly.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

I think you are still not considering that if the situation went down like Zim said, which the evidence points to, then he did nothing illegal. He may have initiated the situation, no one is denying that. But someones response to a legal act, can't be to physically asault someone else. We all may have the urge to punch a guy who can't keep his nose where it belongs, but most can agree that we shouldn't.

I think you are missing the point.

You can still be found guilty of manslaughter having done nothing else that was unlawful.
Further, losing a fistfight that you could have easily avoided is not just cause for gunplay.
Further still...there is nothing unlawful about punching some guy out if you are exercising your right to stand your ground.... and that is a plausable argument given the circumstances and almost all of the agreed upon facts.

Finally... its a bit rich to suggest that the evidence presented by the prosecution actually favours Zimmerman.
Taken out of context it might sometimes appear that way but if it really did... there wouldn't be a trial.

We'll have to see what the defence has to offer and then wait for the decission and perhaps an explaination of that decission before we really know.
As of now... we are all relying upon snippets of information... much of which is completely bogus having been generated to cloud the issue by one side or another.

Bottom line is... and I HATE saying this because it is why folks jump to conclusions but....there is usually a pretty good reason for charging someone and that reason is that they are usually guilty.

I do not believe that this is a show trial or appeasement of the masses who have on the whole been quite well behaved. I believe that the state must have good reson for charging the man and a resonable chance for a conviction despite the fact that the law is intentionally sloped in favour of the accused.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

I agree with you. I would not have done what either of these clowns did. But legally, I think you can follow someone without getting assaulted.

...and then shoot them for it?

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

...and then shoot them for it?

The difference is, he WAS assaulted.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

I think you are missing the point.

You can still be found guilty of manslaughter having done nothing else that was unlawful.

True, but having a witness saying that someone was on top of him, injuries that coincide and having done nothing illegal, I think it's a hard sell to give him manslaughter, or to say that there is no way he feared for his life. A jury of all women may think otherwise though.

Further, losing a fistfight that you could have easily avoided is not just cause for gunplay.

So if you start a fistfight and start to lose, you have to let the person kill you? I think there comes a point when the other person can take it too far and you are allowed to save yourself. Furthermore, in this case, there isn't any solid evidence to say that Zim started a fistfight. Hard to convict because he might have done something.

Further still...there is nothing unlawful about punching some guy out if you are exercising your right to stand your ground.... and that is a plausable argument given the circumstances and almost all of the agreed upon facts.

Ok, so he punches him.. and then continuously slams his head into the ground. Is that standing your ground? Not to mention, Martin lost Zim when he initially ran away. His girlfriend told him to go home, he said no, is that standing your ground? Does standing your ground really include running away and then returning? The defense isn't even saying that Zim was standing his ground, they are saying it's a straight up self defense case. You can't stand your ground when there is someone on top of you.

Finally... its a bit rich to suggest that the evidence presented by the prosecution actually favours Zimmerman.
Taken out of context it might sometimes appear that way but if it really did... there wouldn't be a trial.

We all know why there was a trial.

We'll have to see what the defence has to offer and then wait for the decission and perhaps an explaination of that decission before we really know.
As of now... we are all relying upon snippets of information... much of which is completely bogus having been generated to cloud the issue by one side or another.

Bottom line is... and I HATE saying this because it is why folks jump to conclusions but....there is usually a pretty good reason for charging someone and that reason is that they are usually guilty.

I do not believe that this is a show trial or appeasement of the masses who have on the whole been quite well behaved. I believe that the state must have good reson for charging the man and a resonable chance for a conviction despite the fact that the law is intentionally sloped in favour of the accused.

I completely disagree.

I don't know if you read it, but the article I posted in post 162 is pretty good.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

The difference is, he WAS assaulted.

There you go assuming that he was assaulted and that the kid started any fight that might have taken place.

The only witness isn't so sure now and Zimmermans story and the DNA suggest otherwise.

I thought you were following this.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by canadiantdi

I don't know if you read it, but the article I posted in post 162 is pretty good.

You need try to keep up.
A lot of what you are claiming has been disproven and recanted.
Team Zimmerman has been caught in a lot of lies here... his mother is awaiting trial for perjury related to the bail hearing.
The prosecution scored some points diuring this trial and about a half dozen of them are making it a bit harder to defend Zimmermans actions.

As for the article.. I saw that but I also some one written by a lawyer that feels a conviction may occur.
Which one is right?

I also think it was a mistake to elect to have a trial by jury...

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

There you go assuming that he was assaulted and that the kid started any fight that might have taken place.

The only witness isn't so sure now and Zimmermans story and the DNA suggest otherwise.

I thought you were following this.

John Good's temtimony is that Martin was on top during the struggle. I am assuming Zim was assaulted because his face and head are bashed up. Not a big stretch.

[canadiantdi]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy Badger

You need try to keep up.
A lot of what you are claiming has been disproven and recanted.
Team Zimmerman has been caught in a lot of lies here... his mother is awaiting trial for perjury related to the bail hearing.
The prosecution scored some points diuring this trial and about a half dozen of them are making it a bit harder to defend Zimmermans actions.

As for the article.. I saw that but I also some one written by a lawyer that feels a conviction may occur.
Which one is right?

I also think it was a mistake to elect to have a trial by jury...

What have I claimed that has been recanted or disproven?

Which article is correct? Both. A conviction may occur but is unlikely.