Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by DaveFla, Jun 24, 2013.
The judge has to be elected.
Zimmerman would not have stalked a white guy
What if Martin saw the gun?
Any reasonable person would not start a fist fight with someone they know to have a gun.
Can you prove that?
A holstered gun, even if he saw it, doesn't seem something that would create the reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury; that's why I said "gun drawn".
Keep in mind, if the only path to that possibility is "what if..." that's pretty much the definition of reasonable doubt, as well.
Can you prove Martin saw the gun?
Again, I say, the defense can be in the alternative theory business all it wants. The prosecution has to say what definitely happened and then prove it with evidence. Hopes, dreams, wishes, and narratives aside, what evidence proves that Zimmerman is lying about his version of events and was not entitled to the right of self-defense? If you've got any, then I recommend immediately forwarding it to the prosecution. Because under the law, they appear to be foundering from the perspective of this layman.
Prosecution played it smart. Charge GZ with a higher crime, knowing well that jury will get instructions to consider manslaughter (30 years in prison).
He said "they always get away".
Why is the assumption that "they" refers to race? Can't he just be referring to the fact that not many burglars have been caught in their neighborhood?
As I said, this case even getting to a jury would be an accomplishment with the way the prosecution's case has gone so far. They're going to have a perfected self-defense claim not only not disproved, but pretty conclusively established, before the defense presents a single witness at the rate they're going right now. And a finding of perfected self-defense precludes a verdict on the lesser includeds as well, not just murder.
I came into this trial thinking the State overcharged. At this point I'm beyond that to being frankly puzzled as to why the State brought this case at all.
It should be obvious: to keep the peace. The question is, could the state find an attorney able to bring charges "in good faith." But I guess when you specially select a stooge, anything is possible.
So "they" proves Zimmerman's inherent prejudice and criminal intent? What does "creepy ass cracker" suggest about TM?
You need a new compass.
Your personal inference about who "they" stands for is all the proof you need to send a man to prison for 30 years? Good Lord ...
Except, again, they still have to meet their burden to the lesser offense, and they are no closer to a manslaughter conviction than they are to a murder conviction on the basis of the evidence presented in their own case-in-chief so far. They still have to overcome the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as prove the elements for the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ben, I'm almost of a mind to say that, at this point in the case, Sanford PD has gotten a pretty raw deal in all this from the outset. I mean, it's not quite as open-and-shut as your basic "DRT" defensive gun use against a mugger or something that doesn't lead to an arrest, but it's much closer to that than it is to "Trayvon was hunted down like a rabid dog" (pace the ridiculous Frederica Wilson).