You don't need a high burden of proof to make an arrest ...you only need resonable suspision. Burdon Of Proof is a legal term used in court ...not used by police in the field.
You are correct in that Number 1 will certainly be disputed in court ...as it should be. So lets not argue the outcome of a trial by jury as that is impossible to predict. Lets just discuss it as if we were trial lawyers. We do not have any evidence to suggest he "changed his mind". However, we do have the 911 tape indicating his original intent and we also know there was in fact a confrontation. Therefore any reasonable person could conclude that Zimmerman intentionally and successfully instigated a confrontation and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. So while it is possible he changed his mind, we have no reason to beleive he did change his mind (unless of course I missed something so please quote it if I missed any tangible evidence to suggest he changed his mind). Update: Changing his mind AFTER the confrontation begins is not a valid defense. He already "showed his cards". The use of deadly force no longer applies if you willingly enter into a confrontation.
The Zimmerman apologist defense seems to be that if you follow someone in the dark in your vehicle with a weapon and get out of your car to confront the much smaller individual who happens to be a minor and he strikes you for fear of the fact that you have been following him in the dark that you're justified in shooting him dead. It's brilliant!
Whoa brah, you need more facts, for all you know Zimmerman gave Trayvon a cake and Trayvon was all "Say homie, I don't play that in my hood G" and punched Zimmerman in the nose. Don't believe the lamestream media, need more facts.
He said that he was following the guy. He was also mad that previous burglars got away. He was a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain. Are you saying he did not initiate the contact to Martin? We do not know exactly, but everything we know points to the direction that he confronted Martin, not the other way around. According to Martin's girlfriend, Martin said he was trying to get away from Zimmerman. So while it is theoretically possible that Martin stopped Zimmerman, everything we know so far makes that highly unlikely. I would say it's like 99% to 1 %.
You cannot use probilities to prove a case. You have to use the facts given and you outlined those. We have no evidence to suggest Martin stopped Zimmerman. We do have motive (neighborhood watchman) and we do have intent (Zimmerman's own words) that he initiated the contact. You can't base law on hypothetical's. If Zimmerman could have changed his mind but that doesn't make him innocent.
The dude should have been carrying a stun gun or some other form of non-lethal protection. Neighborhood watch captains really have no business toting a gun as a part of their job description.
Except that Zimmerman wasn't appointed by his neighborhood so nobody had any authority to tell him to not tote a gun. He was acting alone.
"Need more facts" Is the slogan of the month. This phrase is cleverly used to pussyfoot one's position when their argument is not holding up. It can also be used to distract the opposing argument, thus displaying intellectual dishonesty. While needing more facts is pertinent to anyone's argument, the repetitive nature of which person is saying it, casts doubt on their position if they have not provided a counter argument of substance. Simply put "Need more facts or "Need more facts bro" has become the new "U mad?"
First 3 posts of your CF journey in the D&D? I'm not sure if I should say "welcome aboard!" or "welcome back!". Need more facts.
Sounds like a hazy area. If he was acting in their name then certainly they have authority over him and culpability for his behavior. If he is acting in their name and they know he's carrying a weapon then they're culpable even more so.
Gotcha, but my point is even a self-appointed volunteer has no business carrying lethal protection to protect his hood. Had he carried a stun gun or some Dog the Bounty Hunter style bear mace we could have heard Martin's side of the story because he's still be with us today. The death is senseless and the actions of the police disgraceful. It could have been avoided with non-lethal means.
Zimmerman said he leaving and heading toward his car. At some point Martin attacked him. We just don't know when.
We don't know that Martin attacked him. He could have attacked Martin (which I personally consider more likely, but we don't know). Again, why would Zimmerman leave and head toward his car? That does not make sense. All you have to support that is his own statement.
Given that he appointed himself I don't think the neighborhood as any culpability as for carrying his weapon under FL law that isn't an issue since he has a concealed and carry permit. Krosfyah noted that in determining self-defense one consideration is if the person is armed initially as that would go to intent to do harm prior to the situation. Concealed and carry laws muddy this up since under those laws you are allowed to carry a firearm anytime and anywhere that doesn't specifically forbid them. I think in this case it might be difficult to establish that Zimmerman set out that night to shoot someone because he armed himself. He more than likely always carried a gun with him in public, or at least when he went out on patrol.
Dude, just give it up. Why are defending this dumbarse? Dude is/was a paranoid racist. It's clear as day. Who the ef patrols a neighborhood with a gat? I don't care if he has a license or not. I would have paid money to beat this man up. But I would have probably gotten shot in the back running away once he pulled out his gun. SMH.
