Thanks for the response and to other one who replied and others who shall reply. The second question also apply to BigTexx, Giddy, et al - you know who you are :grin:. With the very same set of circumstances except that Trayvon was your own son (God forbid of course that it happen to your son), will you have the same verdict as what you are showing now in defense of Zimmerman? WOULD YOU WANT ZIMMERMAN ACQUITTED? To be fair, if I'm Zimmerman's father, I WILL DISOWN him for what he did. I will not lift a finger to defend him.
Citizen's grand jury? Not an actual grand jury but some extrajudicial vigilante group? Really? I see Eric Holder and Barrack Obama also under indictment. LOL
Innocent until proven guilty unlike the media puppets who had him guilty since day1. The prosecutors have an extremely weak circumstancial case.
To me the issue is whether or not GZ is guilty. Painting a dead teen as a bad guy isn't relevant in that except in just one issue and that's if he attacked GZ. The only thing is that for you it's incredibly important if he called someone a cracker. I honestly don't care if he did that at all, and it's not relevant to the case at hand.
You aren't putting this in proper context. You can't successfully claim self-defense if you seek out and initiate a confrontation. No, he didn't break the law by following TM. But, his self defense claim is weakened significantly, if not flat out crippled, if the state can prove he followed and approached TM.
I think it's relevant for the reasons I have stated. I dont care what you think is relevant. I listed several reasons why I think it was more likely TM was the instigator. YOU try to focus on me and try to paint me as a racist because that's all you got.
There's nothing circumstantial about this case. Zimmerman has admitted to shooting and killing Trayvon Martin. The gun and shell casings were recovered and a confession was obtained. The main question is whether it was legitimate self-defense. Many of the key elements to negate a valid self-defense came are beyond dispute. Zimmerman is on tape as having followed Trayvon Martin. This fact runs directly contrary to a valid self-defense claim. Next, you turn to the injuries. The defense has done a very good job of presenting a theory that Trayvon Martin was at one point beating up Zimmerman. That is obvious from the pictures of Zimmerman's injuries. However, did these injuries and the associated attack rise to the level that elevating a fist fight into a gunshot to the heart a reasonable response? That is the fundamental question. No one would begrudge or prosecute Zimmerman for punching Trayvon Martin back, but did he have the right to kill him? Remember, our legal system is founded on the basic principles of "an eye for an eye", not "a life for a broken nose" or something of the like. The defendant's response can be proportional to the attacker's response, but if it's an overreaction a crime has been committed. Today's testimony was quite devastating to Zimmerman in that regard. When you have the lead medical examiner at the hospital saying the injuries were unequivocally not life threatening and characterizing them as "insignificant", that is a huge blow to the notion that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It seems much more reasonable based on the facts presented to date that he overreacted to a physical confrontation that he essentially initiated. The State is failing on proving many of the elements necessary for a Murder Two conviction because it hasn't demonstrated "ill will" or a "depraved mind" by Zimmerman, but so far the defense has yet to present any kind of legitimate self-defense argument.
I don't know about that. I think a manslaughter charge, under Florida statutes, would've been a more accurate charge and would have resulted an easy conviction.
What? I never once said you were a racist. What are you talking about? Why are you even talking about that?
If you understand it is not against the law to follow and approach someone, how would it be crippling to the argument? Sure, if Zimmerman pulled out his gun or started shoving TM, then I fully understand TM retaliating. Simply put, you do not have a legal right to attack someone who is following you. This is really the only gray area of the case. Only Zimmerman can honestly state he felt his life was in danger. Just because his injuries were not life threatening doesn't mean his life was not genuinely in danger or if he felt so. If TM was truly going for his gun, then it very well could have been a 'him or me' situation. Since none of this can be proven, stating anything else is circumstantial.
I haven't followed the trial, too much drama for me. I'm satisfied with the fact there is a trial which is originally where all the outrage came from, suspected police/district attorney incompetence and corruption. I had to reminisce over bigtexxx's early performance in this thread where he plays the race card over and over while decrying the same. Truly bizarre, an epic troll de force performance.
Zimmerman stating his life was in danger is not sufficient to establish a valid self-defense claim. How he felt is actually irrelevant. The legal standard is whether it was reasonable for him to be in fear for his life based on the circumstances. If you didn't have this standard, it would be impossible to ever argue against self-defense, because merely saying "well, I was in genuine fear of my life" even if the circumstances clearly didn't warrant that fear would be enough to evade prosecution. This is where common sense comes into play and the extent of the altercation/injuries becomes basically the most important piece of the case. I completely agree that if TM was truly going for the gun, the self-defense claim is strong. However, it's hard to believe that actually happened. No forensic evidence is consistent with that claim by Zimmerman. And, if you believe TM was pummeling Zimmerman into next week (and thus obviously in complete control and domination of the fight), how plausible is it that TM failed so badly in his efforts to take control of the gun that Zimmerman recovers to fire a direct shot into his heart? Does that seem more likely or does it seem more likely TM never realized Zimmerman had a gun and Zimmerman used the element of surprise to negate the physical advantage TM had gained in the course of the altercation?
The evidence tells me that GZ is innocent of these charges in this cluster**** of an event. It's a total tragedy but that doesn't make GZ guilty of murder. Can't imagine how I would feel about that, although my guess is that I would be over-the-top angry for a time. Not sure why this is a relevant question because we are not to be ruled by emotions but by law. How is that fair?
It was interesting to learn that a "Slim Jim" was found in the non existent bushes during a subsequent search of the crime scene.
You don't need broken limbs and damaged internal organs to constitute fear of your life. I understand if someone has you subdued, you can't shoot them dead. But when someone is pounding your face, even if it is superficial, it could put a fear inside you. Unfortunately, you can't press 'pause' and look at your health meter to see how close to death you are. The placement of the shot is irrelevant as its not that far fetched to shoot him in the heart...or wherever he shot him. When it comes down to is that Zimmerman is the only eye witness to the event and we can't judge him on hypothetical situations.
Your comments were replied to very well by Space Ghost so I won't go back over them point by point. I just wanted to add that GZ's own finger prints were not found on the gun. Which supports the position that a lot of DNA evidence was washed away by the rain that night.
