It's not illegal but it establishes that Zimmerman had been cautioned about it. From the police report just released the police felt Zimmerman was at fault because he could've avoided the situation. http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...ooting-ultimately-avoidable-by-zimmerman?lite [rquoter]rosecutors on Thursday made public a trove of evidence used to justify murder charges against Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman, including a police report that concluded "the encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman."[/rquoter] I am guessing this is the basis of the 2nd degree murder charge vs. manslaughter that Zimmerman had been warned about entering the situation but continued on that course of action.
My understanding of self-defense laws including FL's is that if you start the confrontation you can't claim self-defense. With this case the question is exactly where does the confrontation start? That still isn't clear at all. I think there is good basis to argue that Zimmerman never intended to physically confront Martin and still feel the scenario I outlined on page 87 of this thread, that it was an accident of darkness and rain that led to them confronting each other. That said I certainly more fault can be placed on Zimmerman since he deliberately followed Martin, Martin didn't deliberately follow Zimmerman, so that at least initial fault lies on Zimmerman.
Also just heard that the trajectory of the bullet was determined to be horizontal. I am presuming this means that it was horizontal to Martin's body and not to the ground. That might support the idea that Zimmerman shot Martin while Martin was on top of him since if Zimmerman shot Martin from the ground while Martin was standing or backing off the bullet would've likely entered at an angle. At the same time though that might also indicate he shot Martin while both were standing. That would fit with a scenario that Zimmerman drew the gun Martin saw it backed off Zimmerman got to his feet and shot Martin. That would explain why Zimmerman was seen standing over Martin's body right after the shooting. With all of the new evidence I am still leaning towards manslaughter but self-defense is very possible and at this point if the jury acquits it won't surprise me.
Could any of you be an impartial juror for this trial? So many people have their minds made up it seems. Who could sit and listen to the evidence and make a decision based on the evidence even if it is contrary to your original beliefs?
I believe I could be an impartial jurist. But then again, I'm unconvinced that the prosecution will be able to have enough evidence for a conviction. So, maybe I wouldn't be as impartial as I believe.
I am quite sure there is a lot of information about this tragic event that has not come out in the media. I certainly hope the 12 people who get picked for this trial can sit and listen to the evidence and make an impartial decision. I also hope that people on both sides can accept the decision cause one side of this debate is going to be really disappointed when the verdict comes out. I could be an impartial juror. I have not made up my mind because I know I don't know all the details.
Given how much I have discussed this situation and followed it I certainly don't think I qualify as an impartial juror. That said I have tried to keep an open mind about it and take into account all of the new information as it comes in.
That is an arbitrary determination. Someone else will say that it started when the first punch was thrown. Did Zimmerman give up pursuit and then was attacked? Did Zimmerman catch Martin, verbally AND physically confront him? We do not know.... but the fact that the dispatch said that Zimmerman did not need to follow Martin does not necessarily defeat his self defense claim.
I think I could be impartial since I have no idea if he's guilty or not until I see all the evidence. An attorney for one side or the other could most definitely think I would be biased.
I don't know. It depends on the criteria the lawyers have. I think because I don't approve of the stand your ground law in general and have strong beliefs about that, which stem from my religion they might think I'd be biased. Though I would promise to do everything in my power to apply the law as written. It just depends on the lawyers. I want both sides to do everything in their power to make the trial fair and get the relevant information in front of an impartial jury. Like I said, I think I could, but it wouldn't be up to me to decide.
I wish they would keep this stuff out of the media and let a jury look at it first. It really doesn't matter what any of us think. It will be up to the 12 people picked for the jury and I certainly hope they do not make up their minds before the trial based on all the information in the media.
I haven't had much doubts that Zimmerman was injured in the encounter. The problems though are that one if he started / or agreed to the confrontation his self-defense argument goes out the window. You can't shoot someone if you are losing a fight that voluntarily engaged in. Two, even if he was wounded at the point that he shoots Martin does Martin constitute a reasonable threat. This is why the position of themselves to each other is critical. Neither of those issues are fully clear and while recent information does support Zimmerman's argument it doesn't answer everything.
