|
|
I think a loud gunshot is one of those things that makes everyone stop what they are doing. The defense had a well respected expert testify that based on the hole pattern in the shirt and the powder burn pattern and lack thereof on M's body, that M was leaning over Z. If Z were lying, he was pretty damn lucky that the evidence was also consistent with his lie.
If we truly don't know what happened then charges should have never been filed against Zimmerman. I don't understand the whole "Justice for Trayvon" argument. What was unjust about this? His best argument is "we don't know what happened because Zimmerman and the witnesses are lying." How do you get justice for that?Originally Posted by philgarris
I don't think shooting someone for following you would be considered legal. It would be too hard to prove that the follower was a threat to your life. If he had a visible gun or knife and it was in a kill position... and there were witnesses, then yes, I would think you would be justified in shooting them.
If he felt like his life was in danger and it was on the 9-1-1 call where you could hear Z chasing him. I would think that would be pretty hard to argue.
I have another question that I never heard clarification on. Z said that M had one hand on his mouth or nose I forget which and another around his neck. I am guessing a third was going for the GUN or did Z ever retract where one of the hands were at? I never heard how he explained that one.
Maybe so. But I think if Trayvon would have just waited for the police to get there... he would still be alive today. The fatal decision was to attack Zimmerman. He didn't need to do that. He wanted to do that. And it cost him his life.
Are we sure 100% that Trayvon knew the police were on the way?
Another little girl shot in Chicago yesterday. Where is the outcry? Where is Obama? http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-memorial?lite=
[QUOTE=DONW;1362120]Another little girl shot in Chicago yesterday. Where is the outcry? Where is Obama? <a href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/20/19586750-6-year-old-girl-shot-in-chicago-while-at-family-memorial?lite=[/QUOTE">http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...memorial?lite=[/QUOTE</a>] No creepy ass cracker involved, so this isn't even news.
The pros tried to argue that, but IIRC, the struggle lasted around a minute or so. It would be unusual for your hands to remain stationary during that time. My interpretation was that he moved one of his hands to go for the gun. Alternatively, Z thought he might have seen the gun and interpreted one of his movements as going for the gun. But whether M went for the gun or not, is not particularly critical in concluding that Z reasonably feared great bodily injury. Based on the injuries that Z
already sustained, the evidence was on his side.
The dead guy wasn't on trial, so it wasn't relevant in the trial.
But, even if you don't know police are on the way, you can't just beat up someone that is following you and then asks you what you are doing.
Z never chased M. Followed, yes, but chased, no. Also, he didn't have to obey the suggestion of the 911 operator. They are not legally binding. Heck, the operator most likely isn't even in law enforcement and/or doesn't have any law enforcement training. Therefore, Z could continue to perform his duties as the neighborhood watch which gave him every right to get out of the car to see where a suspicious looking person was going. I do agree, with you, that Z is probably feeling guilt over taking a life but not because he provoked it. If he doesn't feel guilty about it, then I suspect we will hear about him again in similar circumstances.
Finally, you and other justice for Trayvon zealots seem to be having a hard time grasping how the justice system works. Those who set it up pretty much knew that in most cases, it would be impossible to know 100% what actually happened in any case. Especially back then when they didn't have the luxury of video and other recording equipment. Therefore, no one needs to be 100% sure of how something happened. Most importantly, the defendant doesn't need to make sure the jury is 100% sure he is innocent. In fact, the defendant doesn't need to prove his innocence at all. Also, what's beneficial for the state is that the prosecutors don't have to make sure the jurors are 100% certain the defendant is guilty. They just have to deliver the evidence that leads to a logical conclusion that the defendant is guilty without the defense being able offer an opposing and equally or more logical conclusion refuting his guilt thereby causing reasonable doubt. I'm sure you and most others already know and understand this concept, but it's hard to tell because all of you justice for Trayvon zealots let your emotions get the best of you and start demanding irrefutable proof that Z is innocent when that is not what is required.
How about justice for all? That would have been the best outcome, wouldn't it? Many people act as though either Zimmerman or Martin had to be guilty. I assert that had this tragedy had a different outcome, there likely wouldn't have been enough evidence to find Martin guilty of a crime in a fair court system. This was a he said/he said story, so we may never know. But, just maybe, both were not guilty of a crime.
I assume you're post isn't directed at me specifically but is more of a blanket statement using my post as a reference because I, personally, agree with you that I don't think either could have been convicted of a crime. Even if it were simply a punching brawl in which Trayvon was getting the best of George and had someone break it up, I don't think either could have been convicted of assault, etc... unless someone had video showing one or the other to be the aggressor. I think they both were responsible for actions that make them equally culpable in this tragedy.
You assume correctly--just used your references of "justice for Trayvon." Few are paying attention to the fact that justice was served because they are busy equating justice with vengeance. Some in the justice for Trayvon movement seem to think the only way justice could have been served was with a Zimmerman conviction. If that were true, we'd have no justice in our system at all.
All around--this was a tragedy and nobody "won."
VERY good analysis. That's why it wasn't making sense to me. They want vengeance, not justice.
Justice: The act of applying the law. (they got that)
Vengeance: Infliction of harm on a person by another who has been harmed by that person (they did not get this)
It's like watching an old western. There's always a bunch who wants to hang the person who killed somebody. They never want to wait on the trial nor do they care about the verdict. We need a Matt Dillon leading us instead of the community organizer.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
