I did answer your question. Second, the theory of self defense has not changed in months. If you indeed did read the thread and still cannot comprehend the basis for defense then I fear you have more wide spread issues. No, the circumstances really have not changed.
You guys are really starting to reach on some of this evidence -- and you're moving the goal posts constantly to fit the narrative you support. 'Look at GZ in the police video no injuries at all...' New evidence comes out showing a broken nose, lacerations, and few other scrapes and bruises -- now it's 'well, he wasn't injured that bad.... what, he wasn't man enough to defend himself without a gun..?' The other thing is pumping up what a 911 operator can tell people to do -- their instructions are important, but (again) this 911 operator made a mistake and said, "you don't need to follow him." This is vague and will be destroyed in court -- so many of the arguments are morally correct IMO, but are legally irrelevant. If GZ stepped out of his vehicle and stood next to it waiting for the cops then he absolutely has the right to defend himself if Martin charged him and attacked. Considering the injuries GZ received he was clearly getting his ass whipped, which puts the spotlight back on TM as the aggressor. I will enthusiastically support Martin if new evidence comes out showing that GZ attacked him, but the evidence out so far shows that TM did in fact attack GZ.
My question centered on gross negligence and GZ's disregard of the dispatcher's instructions (which would point to manslaughter). If your answer to that is based on the theory of self-defense, then I fear you have more wide spread issues.
You're talking about the prosecution's burden to prove murder. I'm talking about the prosecution's burden to potentially prove manslaughter. Abandoning pursuit doesn't change the fact that GZ defied the dispatcher's instructions, and that defiance ultimately led to TM's death.
This is correct. It's because they are exhibiting bias, due to having made up their mind based on the very early media reports, which were very biased. Due to the mind's propensity to latch on to early evidence, they are very hesitant to change their minds. They are not looking at this objectively. FranchiseBlade, across110thstreet, and Carl Herrera are guilty of this error in judgment.
Interesting. Please tell me what law school you went to and where you primarily practice. If you want an answer to your question, which has has been answered to and alluded to many, many times, then CAREFULLY listen to the 911 dialogue, further your theory of gross negligence is a real reach.
I agree with everything you stated except for the very last bit. There is no evidence that shows Martin or Zimmerman as the attacker/aggressor. That is a fact in this case that we may never know the truth on.
Ugh... Go listen to the dialogue of the 911 tape.. Second, despite the extreme ambiguity of the dialogue, the authority of the dispatcher is limited and there are a number of fact patterns that would defeat your proposition. In a civil suit, off the top of my head, you may have a valid point...
The fact that GZ CHASED after him pretty much is the definition of seeking out a confrontation. I mean, seriously? You just chase after people for fun right?
Yeah, sorry if that wasn't clear, but i'm totally in agreement -- we don't have any idea of who was the aggressor and i'm not sure that will ever be proved one way other the other.
The problem for Zimmerman is that juries commonly consider moral and common sense aspects of the case, even if they aren't legally relevant. If jurors think of a defendant as a scumbag or a liar, they are more likely to convict even if they are unconvinced a crime has been committed. If the jurors get together and agree that had Zimmerman stayed in his car and followed the strong advice of the 911 dispatcher or generall accepted neighborhood watch principles Trayvon would not have died, their inclination is probably going to be to punish him to some degree (probably manslaughter). Even Zimmerman's attorney conceded this fact on an interview, but tried to downplay it's significance. This case isn't going to be decided by a judge who's only interested in the letter of the law. It's going to be decided by jurors who will consider common sense reasoning. Can even the most ardent of Zimmerman supporters argue that his actions that night didn't show really poor judgement?
I don't think anyone can argue that GZ exhibited extremely poor judgment that night, but that in itself isn't a reason to charge him with murder 2. I think the prosecution is overreaching on a grand scale -- they will never get a M2 conviction on this charge.
At the bail hearing, one of the detectives who wrote the affidavit did testify that Zimmerman did tell police officers Trayvon was circling his vehicle and did testify that Zimmernan told police officers in his statements that his mouth was being covered by Travyon while he was being punched. I doubt he is lying, but we will see when the trial commences and the police recordings on the night of the interrogation will be released. Please explain how someone can be screaming for help in a clearly unmuffled manner while their attacker is covering their mouth? You can't have it both ways. There were many allusions to the fact that the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story is one of the main reasons charges were filed. This was obvious from the prosecutor's line of questioning in the bail hearing. It also didn't help that he lied under oath that day about being indigent when his defense fund had collected $200,000.
I'm not reading and reponding to every post like some in this thread but I'm glad you called me out in your three random poster alert. Zim charged. I'm good. Your comments are awesome. Still upset about a huffpo article and a hollister photo.
