|
11041. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 4:33:55 AM IOW, this is not about either of the men. It's about whether Zimmerman had a legal right to kill Martin in that situation. Period. If he did, we're all less safe in public IMO. 11042. anomie - 7/11/2013 5:02:52 AM I might agree with you if I knew what the "situation" was. I haven't seen any proof offered as to what it was. This is what worries me. If very smart people like you and Judith, (and I don't mean top be patronizing, really), can't see the problem here, then it's hopeless, not just for Zimmerman but for any of us who might be brought up on such charges. I hear very few TV lawyers talking about proof, but they all seem to KNOW what the "situation" was. Even Piers Morgan had to correct a TV Judge who was spouting off a lot of speculation as if it were fact. And she's supposed to be a Judge.
This trial has been an example of many, many things wrong with our trial procedures in general, but that's a different topic. I think proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt is on trial here. 11043. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 5:24:41 AM no more so than with any other trial that I can see. it's always been a similarly imperfect system. Publicity makes it more complicated for the public, but that's always the case. Our right to walk down the street without getting shot, however, is being challenged. In our rapid reversion to a wild west culture we need to set better parameters. 11044. anomie - 7/11/2013 5:41:20 AM Don't be silly. Something happened besides someone just walking down the street. We just don't know what. So again, proof? You can send a man to jail for life with now proof?
I don't expect perfection from the legal system but this trial is just off the rails. There's good reason why the state didn't prosecute initially. They don't have a case and they knew it. Being such a high profile media case, they conjured as best they could, giving a jury the right to convict someone based on the emotional repsonse to a tragic situation instead of evidence.. As far as I can tell, you haven't made a case either, legal, moral or otherwise. You just keep going over the same preconvieved notions of what might have happend. And you talk as though it's just impossible for Martin to have been the aggressor. Why? You talk as if proof is just a nice option in an otherwise cut and dried case. 11045. anomie - 7/11/2013 5:41:54 AM now = no 11046. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 6:00:12 AM No, Martin was followed, confronted the man, and was shot. He had no weapon, Z was told not to follow and kept on, and Z had no serious injury. No might there. If Zimmerman had acted as an even minimally responsible individual (see my example above), he would NEVER have stalked someone down a dark empty street. And he wouldn't get life and plenty of people are serving a lot more time for a lot less. He deserves jail time. If you think based on what is known that it was okay for him to shoot then I would not trust you with a firearm. Yet people like Z are given carte blanche to carry one wherever they want and fire based on their perceptions. This is a sobering fact. No speculation.
And they didn't even look at the incident until they were compelled by publicity. The authorities get no pass.
Under your reasoning anyone who shoots an unarmed individual with no witnesses should be acquitted if there's evidence the victim fought back. 11047. anomie - 7/11/2013 6:20:04 AM Arky, you're confusing fact with speculation and that goes to my main point. Much of what you claim as true has just not been proven or even shown with the preponderence of eveidence. You are speculating as to events and intent and usinf terms like "stalking" and on and on. And you don;'t even realize it, apparently, because otherwise I would not suppose you to be deliberately unfair. Z is not on trial for being stupid or irresponsible. He's on trial for murder...for breaking the law. You don't seem to know the difference. I'll give you irresponsible, not murder. 11048. judithathome - 7/11/2013 6:56:19 AM Z had previously had incidents of over-reacting...he had attacked a police officer; he had been in trouble with an incident with his former girlfriend...had an order of protection taken out against him. These facts were barred from testimony because they would be prejudicial. He is heard BEING prejudicial on the call..."they always get away with it".
It is a FACT he was told "we don't need you to do that" by the person at the other end of the call he made. There was no need whatsoever for him to follow that kid...the police were on their way.
I wasn't aware that "Neighborhood Watch" meant those on that watch be armed and suspicious and decide on their own to dole out justice...none of the numerous calls to 911 that he had made previous to this incident were allowed in testimony...there were MANY.
He is going to get off...what more do you want? He will more than likely be involved in another such incident down the line because he will have learned nothing more than what he knew when this happened...that "they always get away with it" and somehow deserve it. It was God's will...that is his true belief...disgusting.
11049. judithathome - 7/11/2013 7:39:43 AM Another thing: in testimony from Z's friend who wrote the book: Z carried his gun in the holster in back, under the waist band of his pants...in testimony today, they claimed it is on the right side of his waistband.
Naturally, the state didn't pick up on that and let the defense get away without an objection. 11050. judithathome - 7/11/2013 7:41:20 AM crap 11051. judithathome - 7/11/2013 7:42:11 AM someone please fix this...it shows up fixed in preview 11052. judithathome - 7/11/2013 7:42:36 AM sheesh....... 11053. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 1:18:23 PM Anomie I am absolutely not. It's in the phone records. Point out the specific speculation. Manslaughter, negligent homicide, take your pick. If you kill me because you're stupid and act irresponsibly you should suffer legal consequences. 11054. iiibbb - 7/11/2013 1:30:25 PM It's not speculation that Zimmerman was following Martin in his car while on the phone with police... then got out of the car after it being suggested that it wasn't necessary.
Zimmerman precipitated the events of the night by leaving his car. If he thought Martin was up to no good, then leaving the car was stupid beyond words because he had no idea if Martin was alone or with others up to no good. And although Martin was perhaps not a boy scout... there is no evidence that he was up to no good that night.
Martin's death lies squarely on Zimmerman's shoulders.... it may not be murder, but it's something. 11055. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 1:34:25 PM Exactly 3i! Thank you for putting it so clearly and succinctly! 11056. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 1:38:26 PM Judith's background info is exactly why I couldn't serve on that jury. He's scum with connections. Add to that his spending money raised for his defense and other behavior after the incident and it's hard to find anything redeeming about him. But again, looking only at the incident, what 3i said. 11057. anomie - 7/11/2013 3:31:25 PM I don't get you guys at all. It's like you don't see the elephant in the room. You convince me, he was stupid, irresponsible, but that's all. You resort to a lot of if/thens regarding Zimmerman's actions - still not murder. What of the if/thens on Martin's part? YOu're all ready to convict when your own words show you don't know what happened.
Now the state is adding child abuse. It's a circus. 11058. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 3:49:04 PM You do understand that stupid irresponsibility is legally prosecutable as manslaughter, don't you? Martin is not the issue. 3i's post is very clear. Had something different happened we'd be discussing something different. But it didn't. What 3i summed up is what happened.
And regarding the trial itself, that's the process. If you react to everything the lawyers sling trying to see if it will stick you may be seeing significance in it, but that's what lawyers do. I'm not watching it at all. 11059. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 3:53:10 PM And fwiw, no one has used if...then. 11060. Wombat - 7/11/2013 3:54:02 PM Martin acted like many teenagers would have. He was minding his own business, returning to his father's unit after going out for some snacks. He noticed that he was being followed by someone (for no reason), and decided to confront him. He could have ignored Zimmerman, he could have decided to run (which would have, ironically, confirmed Zimmerman's suspicions).
Had Martin lived, he would have been able to make a reasonable case for self-defense ("standing his ground," as it were). A murder prosecution for Zimmerman is stretch; manslaughter shouldn't be.
|
