An interesting, and likely accurate perspective. Obama was way out of line commenting on the Trayvon when he didn't have the facts of the case. Pure politics, and it's well known that Obama will use anything to "prove he's black" -- even linking himself to Jeremiah Wright to make him more credible with the black community -- until it wasn't convenient for him during the '08 election. He's a typical slimy politician who isn't afraid to race bait to solidify his base.
I think Jaentel was credible in the part of her testimony that is the most important because it hasn't changed at all since the very beginning. That is that GZ was following Martin around and Martin was afraid of him. That could lead or help to show GZ was the instigator but it certainly doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. GZ may walk. He may not. GZ's defense has shown zero to very little evidence that TM was the one who initiated the physical conflict, which I believe they have to do in order to make self defense stand.
Sure. http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-782-02-justifiable-use-od-deadly-forc/ http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute...his-chapter-is-not-available-to-a-person-who/ Those are specific to Florida.
the second link provides a clear out if the instigator is in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death so you just pwn3d yourself. Stop being lazy and think critically
More importantly she told us all that Martin racially profiled GZ and had no issue with it. She was also deposed by authorities in the presence of the Martin's which is highly unethical.
It is an age old issue with criminal justice. The misinterpretation that the defense has to prove that Zimmerman is innocent. The reality is the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to prove he killed him with intent. The defense only has to prove that it was possible that Zimmerman feared for his life. The problem for the prosecution is that there are too many people that didn't really see much and aren't real sure what the hell they did see. It isn't just in this case either, in a lot of cases where someone is assumed guilty many people react in a sense that the person has to prove he is innocent. Even in he Hernandez case. The prosecution will have to prove without a reasonable doubt he did it. I think the main difference in the two though is there is way more evidence against Hernandez and the prosecution will have a much easier time proving it.
I agree 100% about how wrong it was to depose her in front of Martin's family. I think of all the insignificant things in this whole trial, Martin saying the guy following him looked like a crazy ass cracker might be the single most insignificant of them all.
Apparently you can't read. The second link I posted says this. "he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant" Following a guy after the conversation with 911 says not to, that certainly isn't exhausting ever reasonable means to escape danger. It's the opposite.
Then how can you trust anything she says knowing she was in a compromised position when she made those statements. Her entire testimony should be tossed.
The danger started when he was attacked by Martin. The danger to his life or health began when Martin who had no legal right to attack him did so.
IF that happened. The defense has done very little to show that is indeed what happened. In fact they've presented less evidence of Martin starting it than the prosecution has shown that Zimmerman started it. The prosecution hasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started it by any means, but they've shown more evidence at this point, that's what happened. We'll have to wait and see.
Yes wait and see. The defense hasn't had an opportunity to show anything, it is still the prosecutions turn to make their case. If it ended right now and the defense rested without calling a witness, according to the highlighted portion of your post you would have to acquit.
It's also interesting to know that the Zimmerman supporters here keep talking about how athletic Martin was and how he was a fan of MMA and that Zimmerman was just an out of shape guy who would never start a fight with Martin. Yet it turns out that Zimmerman was the one who went three times a week 3 hours a day to MMA training.
Wow. Seriously? That's what you came up with? Tell me this: was the following before or after the initiation? The answer is before. Therefore you have absolutely no point. My advice to you, in general, is to think more critically. It will likely help you in all aspects of your life.
I know they have to show beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed the murder. I don't know that they have to show that in regards to who started the fight. They might. I admittedly am not sure of what the instruction to the jurors are regarding this. Either way it would premature to make a decision in Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. It's just that so far Zimmerman has claimed that his head was being smashed into the ground, and no witnesses can back that up, the medical testimony so far doesn't back that up either.
