|
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. 11061. arkymalarky - 7/11/2013 3:59:04 PM I agree Wombat. 11062. iiibbb - 7/11/2013 4:15:19 PM Anomie---
I don't think it's murder... I think it's manslaughter.
I think everything that happened has a root cause in Zimmerman leaving the car and closing the distance between him and Martin. I don't think he intended to kill Martin until he was getting beat up, so it can't be murder; but if anyone was covered by Stand Your Ground law it was Martin.
Let me put it another way
The defense seems to be relying on parsing the chain of events as much as possible so that in the final moments "stand your ground" appears to apply to Zimmerman. However, over the entire timeline, Zimmerman escalated the situation 3 times (following in car, following on foot, shooting)
Martin escalated the situation only once in response to being followed by car, and then by an individual on foot --- after trying to put distance between him and the person following him for most of the initial timeline. If "stand your ground" applies to anyone, it applies to Martin.
"Stand your ground" should be off the table for Zimmerman in my mind
But do I think that Zimmerman was out to kill anyone with malice aforethought that night? No. That leaves manslaughter.
The prosecutors were dumb for even putting murder on the table IMHO. They should've stuck to the simple story... proving murder in this case seems a very tall order. 11063. anomie - 7/11/2013 4:19:44 PM 11054 - if/then
Self defense works against manslaughter as well as murder.
Arky, you are still talking as though you know without doubt what happened that night, or at least what set of things might have happened, all to the exclusion of self defense, which is a much more plausible scenario.
And see Wombat's comments on bejhalf of Martin, "if" (then) "he would have been able to....make a case".
It's like you guys suddenly came into possesion of a crystal ball showing the events of that night.
None of you can rule out self defense. 11064. anomie - 7/11/2013 4:28:13 PM 3b, good summation. You are missing one critical thing. Proof. Prove to me that Z did not act in self defense. Prove to me that he did not fear for his life. All any of you have done so far is show that Z did some dumb stuff that was perfectly legal to do.
You are all reversing the burden of proof concept. You're also just making stuff up. All of you are asserting opinion as fact to the point of sbsurdity...making up stand your ground defenses for Martin...making up self defense excuses for Martin...
I'm surprised at you all! Ha! 11065. anomie - 7/11/2013 4:30:16 PM 3b, as I said, self defense works against manslaughter too, so it matters little.
And now let's see if he is a Child abuser too. Jeesh. 11066. iiibbb - 7/11/2013 4:32:02 PM Zimmerman precipitated and escalated the situation.
Self defense is ruled out IMO. Leave it to the jury, but that's the argument. 11067. iiibbb - 7/11/2013 4:36:29 PM anomie... it all depends on how you break up the timeline... when Zimmerman pulled the trigger, I'm certain he feared for his life...
but that doesn't absolve him of circumstances that were of his own making.
Florida Stand Your Ground
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
I don't see how Zimmerman escapes these clauses.
|
