I responded to your question already and from the victim's point of view from real life experience not hypothetical experience. In my son's case, I did not blame the mother of the perpetrator for supporting her son guilty or not. To this day, I have empathy for her. If I was Trayvon's Dad, I'd take in to his account that his behavior likely contributed to his demise. Sure, I would want to see it play out in court and hopefully dispel all doubt that Zimmerman didn't purposely kill my son. If I sat through this trial, I'd be worried that the facts were pointing at my son as the instigator and not GZ.
The Medical Examiner did one good thing today, his performance today made Rachel Jeantel look like the second worse witness for the prosecution.
If he had followed his neighborhood watch training, which was echoed by the police department on their website, then nine of this would have happened. I am mystified that this is such a difficult concept to grasp.
It's not difficult to grasp but it's not obviously a crime to have departed from it. You seem to have a tough time with that one.
If you think following somebody is unlikely to end in an altercation, you're wrong. Wen I was in college, I was being followed. It ended in a lot of yelling. The guy following me was approaching me angrily when campus police stopped him. He apparently was under the mistaken impression that I had done something to his car. It was like that when I passed by. Following somebody almost ALWAYS ends up in some kind of confrontation. It is simply a stupid thing to do.
It doesn't have to be a crime to be of import in this case. All it has to do is convince the jurors that GZ wasn't an innocent bystander forced into protecting his life. That also seems to be eluding you.
It depends on how the jury instruction is written. Conversely, it could be seen as a miscarriage of justice that somebody could arm themselves and track somebody down with no evidence of a crime being committed because "these assholes always get away" and then plug them when it goes badly. It is this kind of indifference to life that caused the prosecution to make the horrible decision to seek murder 2 instead of manslaughter.
He should have removed himself from the situation. If Zimmerman's pursuit caused Martin to view Zimmerman as a threat, he has every right to react to that threat. It is a basic fight or flight response. The fact is that Zimmerman chose to ignore all of his training and chose to chase Martin. I believe that the fact he was armed emboldened him to do so. Obviously, his pursuit was enough to cause apprehension in Martin as evidenced by the phone call he made. He even thought that Zimmerman was "crazy." Being followed by somebody you think is mentally unstable will cause a fight or flight response. Zimmerman aspired to be a cop. In this instance, he decided he could do this better than the police so Martin wouldn't be another "*******" that gets away. Such behavior shouldn't be tolerated in a society that prides itself on law and order.
There you go again playing amateur psychologist. It's like you're trying to prove to use how much (or little, actually) you know about psychology or the code of neighborhood watchmen or the CCL code rules. How about you stick to the case instead? You haven't convinced anybody.
How about you counter Refman's argument with something concrete? "Waaahhhh you don't know what you're talking about waaahhhh" is not a counter-argument.
It's better than a crazy dude followed me and I got in a shouting match so that means Zimmerman is guilty. GZ has to be proven guilty of a depraved mind and there can be no reasonable doubt. That hodgepodge easily countered case the prosecution put up wasn't enough to prove 2nd degree murder.
Yes, you did reply. But only one GZ supporter (SMoniker) unequivocally stated he want Zimmerman acquitted with the evidence at hand, even if he is the "victim's" father. Not that it matters, but do you know that your tone and disposition is very different now that you're Trayvon's father? At this point, you are only worried that the evidence is pointing to TM as the instigator. Want to see it play out in court and dispel all doubt. Guess what, some of you did not even want to put GZ to trial, when he is not your (son, family, ...). Not an indictment of your character though, just looking how committed you are to the evidence for and against either side. Giddy, you still don't get it.
Got it a long time ago. There was not enough evidence of a crime to bring charges against GZ until political pressures were mounted to do so. Now, at great expense, we have nothing being proved except the certitude of George Zimmerman's tale.
Those tangents are what decide cases. You play out the facts to jurors who weren't there and are only hearing what they're told at trial....those jurors don't live in a bubble though. They come to their own conclusions based on the evidence, the same way Refman just did. Lawyers at closing will tell a story based on the evidence...the same evidence...two different stories....the jurors decide which is more credible.
The forensic evidence does not match Zimmerman's story. It may or may not be enough to rebut his self defense claim. At the very least, he got some pretty important details wrong.
