Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[tattuchu]

Based on all the current available information, I'm kinda leaning toward Zimmerman being innocent at this point. I know, I know. That means I'm racist

[kiki5711]

That's how you came up with your ironclad conclusion that Zimmerman was guilty...by sleeping through all the evidence.

No, that's how boring you are.

[mistermack]

Zimmerman "claims" that Trayvon knocked him down and continued to hit him. Unless you have evidence to refute Zimmerman's claim, he was legally justified.

You still don't get it. THAT is not enough.
That's enough justification to fight back. You need much more justification than that to kill.

[Seth]

Zimmerman "claims" that Trayvon knocked him down and continued to hit him. Unless you have evidence to refute Zimmerman's claim, he was legally justified.

You still don't get it. THAT is not enough.
That's enough justification to fight back. You need much more justification than that to kill.

No, all you need is a reasonable belief that you, or another person, is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and that a lesser degree of physical force would be inadequate to prevent the injury or death.

Having someone sitting on your chest banging your head on the concrete absolutely qualifies as a deadly dangerous attack that raises a reasonable belief that one's life is in danger of death OR serious bodily harm...like brain damage or a fractured skull.

I'd have shot Martin just as dead if it happened to me and never doubted that it was a justifiable exercise of self-defense.

Just because YOU don't understand the law, or are willfully ignorant of it, or are simply in ignorant denial of the truths about this case doesn't mean you're right about anything. You're not. You're just ignorant and have your own ideological agenda to forward that has little actual connection to the facts or the law.

Jump me from behind, knock me down, punch me and bang my head on the concrete and I'll do my level best to go all Zimmerman on your sorry ass as quickly as possible, and I won't shed a single tear doing it or afterwards because you will have deserved exactly what you got.

[kiki5711]

No, all you need is a reasonable belief that you, or another person, is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and that a lesser degree of physical force would be inadequate to prevent the injury or death.

you obviously never lived in New York City. Almost Every homeless person looks like they're about to attack you or push you in front of the train. Zimmerman would love that territory.

[Seth]

If they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight, he walks. The simple fact is, there is not enough evidence to even charge Zimmerman let alone convict him. You can suspect all you want, but there is no evidence against Zimmerman and he does not have to prove his innocence.

Not at all. I don't know how you got such a weird view.
If Martin started the fight, that wouldn't give Zimmerman the right to shoot him. That's just basic common sense that you're failing on there.

Of course it would, if the "fight" was an attack that raised a reasonable belief in Zimmerman's mind that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

And a jury are entitled to convict, if they don't believe Zimmerman.

Not exactly. Zimmerman doesn't have to testify, you see.

People have been banging on about reasonable doubt, but the fact is, if the jury don't BELIEVE that Zimmerman had a real justifiable fear for his life, they have EVERY RIGHT to come to a verdict of guilty.

No, they don't. They have to reach a just verdict based on the evidence presented at trial. Zimmerman does not have to testify in his own defense, he can let the evidence speak for him, and the evidence is strongly in his favor so far as I've been able to see. If the prosecution fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, then the jury must acquit him. And if the jury convicts him against the evidence, the judge can throw out the verdict and/or Zimmerman can appeal the verdict if it's a miscarriage of justice.

And the burden is not a "real justifiable fear for his life," it's a "reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger of death OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM, and that a lesser degree of physical force would have been inadequate to prevent the harm. You keep falsely insisting that the standard is "fear for his life" when it's not. Having one's head banged on the concrete is absolutely an imminent danger of SERIOUS BODILY HARM, including skull fracture, brain damage, unconsciousness, coma, sub or epidural hematoma, neck injuries or other serious injury or death that fully justifies the use of deadly force. You really need to quit trying to rewrite the law, it just makes your arguments look stupid.

And Zimmerman has already shown that he's not the best witness.

Thing is, he doesn't have to testify at all. The burden is on the prosecutor to prove that he WAS NOT in reasonable fear of death or SERIOUS BODILY HARM. Having raised self defense as a legal justification, the prosecutor now has to prove that he WAS NOT justified in using deadly force according to the law, which in this case is going to be a tough sell indeed.

The defence will bang on about doubt, they always do. Some they win, some they lose.
If the jury don't believe him, he's not likely to be walking very far.

First, it's not about believing Zimmerman because he's not required to testify. Second, it might not even get to the jury. First, the prosecution presents its case, and when it rests, Zimmerman's lawyer will almost certainly move for a dismissal based on failure of the prosecution to prove a prima facie case that Zimmerman broke the law. If, on the face of it, the prosecution's case is so weak that no reasonable person could conclude that Zimmerman committed a crime, the judge can dismiss the case with prejudice.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's how you came up with your ironclad conclusion that Zimmerman was guilty...by sleeping through all the evidence.

No, that's how boring you are.

Incisive, as always.

[kiki5711]

That's how you came up with your ironclad conclusion that Zimmerman was guilty...by sleeping through all the evidence.

No, that's how boring you are.

Incisive, as always.

Do you want proof that you're boring me to death?


yup that's me: incisive, decisive, slicisive, maricisive,

[Coito ergo sum]

That's how you came up with your ironclad conclusion that Zimmerman was guilty...by sleeping through all the evidence.

No, that's how boring you are.

Incisive, as always.

Do you want proof that you're boring me to death?


yup that's me: incisive, decisive, slicisive, maricisive,

Silly girl.

[FBM]

I don't know if he's guilty or innocent. I only know that the reasons you claimed for thinking him surely guilty were based on manufactured, doctored, or faulty evidence. Your conclusions were knee-jerk and all over the map. First he was racist (that appears to be long abandoned). Then the cops were racist. Then he disobeyed the dispatcher. Then he had no injury at all, and the "evidence" showed he made the head injury up. On and on and on. You got yourself so emotionally wedded to one conclusion that you can't even see your way clear to the intellectual honesty of saying "yes, I was wrong about those things, and maybe the facts aren't as clear as I have been saying they are."

If I have concluded that he is innocent, then what do you make of the posts I've made discussing what I think would demonstrate his guilt? i.e. the ballistics/forensics evidence, wherein I stated clearly that I thought he could be found guilty if the bullet wound analysis showed that it did not come from the position Zimmerman claimed to be in when he fired. If I already concluded he's innocent, why would I say it's possible he's guilty?

The "He who is not with me is against me" mindset. Unfortunately, it's a pretty common pitfall for people who like to over-simplify complex issues into dumbed-down sound bites. Anyone who doesn't assert that Zimmerman is guilty is treated as if s/he is asserting the opposite, when instead, what you're saying is that there is a wider range of possibilities and the available evidence is so far insufficient to be decisive beyond a reasonable doubt.

Logical possibilities that I can think of right off the bat (may not be exhaustive, still on my first pot of coffee):

Martin innocent, Zimmerman guilty.
Martin guilty, Zimmerman innocent.
Both Martin and Zimmerman innocent.
Both Martin and Zimmerman guilty.

But logic isn't emotionally gratifying, so it's usually tossed out the window early on by people who are going strictly on emotions, damn the evidence.

[kiki5711]

I don't think it's that simple. As I said before, I don't think zimmerman intended from the start to shoot martin. But the circumstances, and thought process on both sides ended in a scuffle, zimmerman having the upper hand because he had a gun.

Let's pretend zimmreman didn't have a gun and they just had a good ol fist fight, the police come and sort things out. both are alive.

zimmerman thought martin was "up to no good", martin thought zimmerman was "up to no good".

they cross paths, zimmerman has one side of thinking gearing him towards self defense and figures since he has a gun, he'll be ok, or at least even, if in case martin had a gun.

turns out martin didn't have a gun, and while zimmerman's immagination might have run wild, both were scared at that cruical moment when the gun went off.

if zimmerman never had a gun, they both would be alive today, arguing their case in court.

Sad story, unfortunatelly, we all have to pay the price for the choices we make, even if they were not meant to be made, on purpose from beginning, bottom line is one person is dead, one is alive. One can defend himself in court, the other one cant.

[FBM]

We can play "let's pretend" all day and it will get us nowhere nearer the truth. We can pretend that Martin was up to no good and that Zimmerman's possession of a gun prevented him from being a dead victim. But the evidence so far doesn't prove or particularly support either your "pretend" hypothesis or "mine" (it's only an example, not something I'm proposing).

kiki, it seems to me that, up to now, every time someone mentions the logical possibility of Zimmerman's innocence, you treat them like the enemy, as if they were asserting that Zimmerman is innocent. Both CES and I are only asserting the logical possibility that Zimmerman is innocent, given the available evidence; we're not claiming that he is innocent. To be honest, I'm finding it very disheartening to even try to discuss it with you.

[mistermack]

FBM, the flaw in your argument is that it doesn't matter in the slightest what anybody says on this forum, because nothing any of us says can bring Martin back, or put Zimmerman in jail, or keep him out.

It's all purely academic.
If I was on the jury at his trial, I wouldn't give any weight to my own prejudices, which are that all gun-lovers are complete wankers, and should be behind bars.
But as I'm not, I can say what I really think, without it harming anybody.

And what I really think is that Zimmerman did NOT fear for his life. He's a gun nut. While it's legal to carry a gun, it says a lot about the person who chooses to.
It's a fantasy thing for inadequate people. They dream that one day, the gun will make them important, when they blast a bad guy. And Zimmerman fits that model to a T, with his self-appointed neighbourhood watch captaincy, and his dream to be a cop.

I really think that he had every intention of using his gun, and all of the screaming for help was cover, to establish his excuse of self defence. If that WAS him shouting and screaming, I think it's the strongest evidence against him.
I also think that this kind of incident was something that he'd thought about, and rehearsed in his head, and planned for what to do and say, if he ever did kill some "punk" with his concealed gun.
Why do I think that? Because it's exactly what I would do myself, if I carried a gun. And I'm not obsessed.

Even his so-called mentoring of a black kid in a dangerous area fits the profile. They try to say what a saint he is, but I see it as part of his fantasy. He has a gun in his pants, and an excuse to come and go in a risky area. Only, it was him that was making it risky. He's just going around, looking for an excuse to be a gun hero, and he thought he'd finally found it that night.

[FBM]

What argument?

[mistermack]

What argument?

The argument that people shouldn't take sides.

It doesn't matter in the slightest what people say or do, here on this thread.