|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks.
He said Martin was the one on top, and he saw blows being thrown downwards.
|
On July 12 2013 04:24 mainerd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:16 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:05 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 03:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 03:47 PassiveAce wrote:On July 12 2013 03:46 Blacktion wrote:On July 12 2013 03:40 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 03:38 Blacktion wrote:
Clueless about the american legal system but arnt these supposed to the closing arguements?
Shouldnt the prosecutors closing arguement be like "He is guilty because of X,Y,Z facts, shown by A,B,C evidence/testimonies"?
This guys got nothing but doubt, conjecture and shitting on zimmermans character. Doesnt he understand who the burden of proof is on? Evidence is not on his side. He's arguing for a conviction, regardless. So the evidence is shit but hes trying to fire enough bullshit at the jury to confuse them? Prosecutors are paid to go after the people they are paid to prosecute. most of the time, regardless of the evidence. Its quite rare for a prosecutor to outright dismiss a case. It's quite rare for a prosecutor to outright dismiss a case because they aren't supposed to take on cases that they can't prove in the first fucking place.The fact that this guy is arguing a defense position is proof that he doesn't even believe that the evidence supports his position. If he has to lie to get his point across then he doesn't feel that his case exists. That is a HUGE violation of ethics and I don't give a fuck what anyone here says about it or what the judge says about it. If George Zimmerman was black, then there would be no argument with me from anyone about this. sc2superfan101 you know what would happen if he dismissed this specific case. The guy has to be practial and so does that state. In many way, its better that a jury just settle the matter once and for all. If the police had bothered to investigate in the first place we wouldn't need these theatrics. They had an incident that looked sketchy as hell and just wrote it off. So the media had to step in and be like "no, you need to actually pay attention to what goes on in your fucking state" which got everybody worked up and now the poor DA has to prosecute this case because political backlash would be severe, regardless of how strong his case it. If the police had done their job in the first place we'd all be fine. I have always wondered why the police are getting blamed in this case. They certainly weren't perfect (they never are), but they detained and interviewed Zimmerman, had him return to the scene to reenact the ordeal, interviewed the neighborhood witnesses and reconstructed the events as best they could before determining there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. Where did they go wrong?
My understanding of events is that they pretty much wrote it off and didn't do all that stuff until the media came in. If I have it backwards, whoops. Also shocker! The media account of events made a true timeline almost impossible to assemble!
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 12 2013 04:25 mAKiTO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:22 BigFan wrote:On July 12 2013 04:21 mAKiTO wrote:
what are the odss in vegas right now for a guilty veredict? considering its a jury and not lawyers, I do think it could go 50/50 or something unless O'Mara blows his closing argument out of the water. edit: confirmed! George Zimmerman has 3 hands! :O thanks..on a side note Im hoping for a not guilty veredict, jury has to be insane to convict him
well, hard to tell tbh.
On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks.
He said he came out of his house, saw Trayvon on top, told him to stop and he didn't then went back into the house before hearing the shot.
|
Oh okay. Thank you for all the information guys.
|
On July 12 2013 04:16 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:05 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 03:57 sc2superfan101 wrote:On July 12 2013 03:47 PassiveAce wrote:On July 12 2013 03:46 Blacktion wrote:On July 12 2013 03:40 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 03:38 Blacktion wrote:
Clueless about the american legal system but arnt these supposed to the closing arguements?
Shouldnt the prosecutors closing arguement be like "He is guilty because of X,Y,Z facts, shown by A,B,C evidence/testimonies"?
This guys got nothing but doubt, conjecture and shitting on zimmermans character. Doesnt he understand who the burden of proof is on? Evidence is not on his side. He's arguing for a conviction, regardless. So the evidence is shit but hes trying to fire enough bullshit at the jury to confuse them? Prosecutors are paid to go after the people they are paid to prosecute. most of the time, regardless of the evidence. Its quite rare for a prosecutor to outright dismiss a case. It's quite rare for a prosecutor to outright dismiss a case because they aren't supposed to take on cases that they can't prove in the first fucking place.The fact that this guy is arguing a defense position is proof that he doesn't even believe that the evidence supports his position. If he has to lie to get his point across then he doesn't feel that his case exists. That is a HUGE violation of ethics and I don't give a fuck what anyone here says about it or what the judge says about it. If George Zimmerman was black, then there would be no argument with me from anyone about this. sc2superfan101 you know what would happen if he dismissed this specific case. The guy has to be practial and so does that state. In many way, its better that a jury just settle the matter once and for all. If the police had bothered to investigate in the first place we wouldn't need these theatrics. They had an incident that looked sketchy as hell and just wrote it off. So the media had to step in and be like "no, you need to actually pay attention to what goes on in your fucking state" which got everybody worked up and now the poor DA has to prosecute this case because political backlash would be severe, regardless of how strong his case it. If the police had done their job in the first place we'd all be fine.
I agree with you there. There was a manslaughter investigation going on, but they were not being forthcomming with that information. At the end of the day, with the outcry from the local community and the media, it likely best for everyone that a jury just decide this once and for all.
|
On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks.
John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning.
He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not.
He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard.
This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense.
It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated
It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling
It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon
An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun.
Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case.
Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar.
|
I honestly dont think theres any chance of Zimmerman being convicted of anything. It was self defense. Even though the prosecutions closing statement is probably the best thing the prosecution has done the entire trial, I think the only way he will get convicted of ANY charge is if the jury just decides to ignore all of the evidence. Even though he did kill Martin, I dont see how anyone can think that this man deserves to be convicted of 2nd degree murder. I would actually like to know if anyone here thinks he deserves to be convicted and why, at this point I just cant understand why someone would hold that opinion.
|
On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar.
So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida?
we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself.
|
On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida?
I think you have to ask them to stop first and its all of america.
|
On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida?
Basically anywhere in the world.
If you instigate the fight in a relatively harmless way, such as following them, asking them a question or even insulting them, and the other person responds with unreasonable force, such as trying to kill you, you are allowed to defend yourself.
|
Sprinker boxes. Could that have caused some of the injury ? WTF. Just admit Trayvon beat him up. His refusal to accept that simple, and OBVIOUS, fact screams to the jury that he can't or he loses the case.
|
How often did John Good tell them to stop?
|
On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida?
When someone shows up telling you to stop it is assumed that the cries for help have been met. Trayvon did not need to continue punching Zimmerman once John Good showed up--and that is assuming it was Trayvon yelling for help.
If it was Zimmerman yelling for help and John Good shows up, then Zimmerman is perfectly in the right to defend himself.
|
On July 12 2013 04:46 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself.
I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway?
And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police.
|
On July 12 2013 04:47 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? Basically anywhere in the world. If you instigate the fight in a relatively harmless way, such as following them, asking them a question or even insulting them, and the other person responds with unreasonable force, such as trying to kill you, you are allowed to defend yourself.
Yep, this is accurate. I like to think of it as the best IRL troll in the world that Zimmerman has pulled off. Tilt someone so hard they want to kill you, then you kill them. Biggest gosu level play you can make.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:46 BigFan wrote:On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself. I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway?
The fact he carried a gun doesn't mean that he was expecting violence is this particular situation. He probally always carried a gun, just in case he needed to defend himself, for some reason. If GZ made a stupid decision in following, that's completelly irrelevant if Martin attacked him later on. Zimmermann shouldn't have followed him, but following him is not enough cause for a potentialy deathly fight, and as such he shouldn't be held responsible for it.
|
On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:
I still have trouble with this "instigation" thing. Zimmerman was safe, in a car, on the phone with police. He wasn't even on Martin's radar and other than "he looks suspicious" (an incredibly vague modifier) he had no reason to follow him. Like...no matter who won the fight or who actually escalated it to violence, surely Zimmerman is partly responsible for the confrontation. The fact that he was carrying a gun with him means he anticipated violence. But he went anyway?
And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police.
Bolded part is your own ignorant (as in lacking knowledge) opinion. Carrying a gun does not imply anticipation of violence. At all.
|
On July 12 2013 04:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:46 BigFan wrote:On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida? we don't know who instigated the fight in this case and if your life is in danger like Zimmerman said he believes, you can defend yourself. And unless Florida has really aggressive neighborhood watches, I thought that neighborhood watchmen didn't even confront criminals. They just looked out for them and then reported to police.
He did report it (Hence the calls to 311) and according to GZ he didn't confront him. Treyvon ran off, and jumped GZ from the bushes or something.
|
On July 12 2013 04:44 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:27 autoexec wrote:On July 12 2013 04:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 12 2013 04:23 autoexec wrote:
I'm just starting to tune in. I haven't been following this case at all and all I know are the main points that were presented to the media at the time of occurrence. Could anyone please explain what evidence the prosecution even has at this point that could make him guilty? What they have is Rachael's testimony (showing he instigated), lack of blood on the sidewalk (suggesting his story is false), and his comment about "they always get away" (suggesting intent) None of them refute John Good's testimony. Could you explain John Good's testimony in a little more detail? Also, thanks. John Good said he saw a scuffle, guy in red at bottom, guy in black on top with the guy in black winning. He yelled for them to stop, the guy in black did not. He ran to call the police, a gunshot was heard. This means that even if it was Trayvon calling for help--John Good showed up (the help being called for) and that should have ended the fight. Since Trayvon did not stop his punches (Trayvon wore black), the shot is self defense. It wouldn't matter if Zimmerman instigated It wouldn't matter if Trayvon was yelling It wouldn't even matter if Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon An altercation happened, Trayvon started winning, John Good shows up telling them to stop. Whatever happened prior to that is null and void since it should have been over. Trayvon continues to punch Zimmerman, John runs for the phone, Zimmerman defends himself with the gun. Unless the prosecution proves John Good a liar; they have no case. Simply proving John Good inaccurate is not enough, since his testimony would still be enough for reasonable doubt. They have to show that he's a liar. So you're allowed to instigate a fight and then shoot the person if they get the better of you in florida?
Its not just shooting if you lose. You're allowed to shoot if you've been thoroughly defeated but your opponent continues the attack, threatening your life.
It's like that everywhere in the US, not just Florida. In fact, you're probably allowed to kill in self-defense if you had no other choice in practically every country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
