Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[Coito ergo sum]

True, but this wouldn't shed light on who initiated the physical contact or whether or not it was racially motivated.

I honestly don't think it was racially motivated as in "zimmerman hatin on blacks", but had a habit as do many people just to assume the worst as soon as they see someone "apparently" suspicious being "black".

There is no crime in asking someone what they're doing in the neighborhood, white, red, yellow, brown or black. I am also allowed to follow someone while I'm walking around my neighborhood, as is anyone else.

Zimmerman "assuming" that Martin was up to something does not constitute a crime, and is not something that vitiates his right to self defense.

[kiki5711]

Zimmerman is perfectly entitled to follow Martin and vice versa. Mere following and mere asking for an explanation of what someone is doing there, is not a license of Martin to attack Zimmerman, or vice versa.

With this kind of defense and reasoning we could have and additional thousands of murders claiming the same thing. ie..I didn't like the way he looked at me and his hand was in his pocket, which to me meant there was possibly a gun and I had to protect myself and shoot.

[Coito ergo sum]

This prosecution will rest on whether Zimmerman was REALLY in fear of his life, not on who jumped who.

And whether that fear was REASONABLE.

If you go out with a gun in your pants, the paranoia in your head doesn't give you licence to kill.

Nobody said it does give you such a license.

If the prosecution rests on what you described, Zimmerman walks. Easily. No problem finding reasonable doubt there.

The prosecution will rest on forensics. It has to. The jury wants evidence, and they will expect to know if the forensics back up or contradict Zimmerman's story.

[Coito ergo sum]

Zimmerman is perfectly entitled to follow Martin and vice versa. Mere following and mere asking for an explanation of what someone is doing there, is not a license of Martin to attack Zimmerman, or vice versa.

With this kind of defense and reasoning we could have and additional thousands of murders claiming the same thing.

It's just a fact. If I walk out of my house today, and someone is walking in my neighborhood, I am 100% within my rights to walk up to that person and say "hey, what are you doing here?" They are perfectly entitled to tell me to shove off, or whatever. But, I am allowed to walk around the neighborhood too. And, Zimmerman was under no obligation to defer to Martin and make sure he avoided Martin's route. Surely you see that?

[kiki5711]

Nobody said it does give you such a license.

Not literally or legally, but in the person's mind it does.

[Coito ergo sum]

Nobody said it does give you such a license.

Not literally or legally, but in the person's mind it does.

Well, that must be what it would mean to you, since you don't know what goes on in other people's minds. Perhaps this is saying something about your thought process, rather than anybody else's.

And aren't you the one who is bothered by folks making "assumptions" about other people? Guess this is one area where you make an exception...

[Coito ergo sum]

George Zimmerman, the accused murderer of Florida teen Trayvon Martin, has been released from jail on bail. Meeting Zimmerman's release are calls (on Twitter) for him to be killed. As Twitchy reports, "Twitter lynch mob: George Zimmerman is out on bail? Let’s kill him!"

But it's not just Zimmerman who is at risk. In fact, there's already been a call on Twitter for the murder of the judge, Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester, who agreed to release Zimmerman on bail.

Writing on a Twitter, someone named @Rick_Cobain writes, "Zimmerman released from jail someone kill the judge!!!!!"

Zimmerman released from jail someone kill the judge!!!!!

—  (@Rick_Cobain) April 23, 2012

Already 25 other people have retweeted @Rick_Cobain's call for murder.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/som ... 40598.html

[mistermack]

In many countries such as the United States, police or prosecutor are not required to disclose to the defendant any exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant makes a plea (guilty or not guilty).

[kiki5711]

Zimmerman is perfectly entitled to follow Martin and vice versa. Mere following and mere asking for an explanation of what someone is doing there, is not a license of Martin to attack Zimmerman, or vice versa.

Well, that must be what it would mean to you, since you don't know what goes on in other people's minds. Perhaps this is saying something about your thought process, rather than anybody else's.

No. It's what you're implying should be in everyone's mind. It wouldn't be in my mind.

[Coito ergo sum]

In many countries such as the United States, police or prosecutor are not required to disclose to the defendant any exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant makes a plea (guilty or not guilty).

Brady v Maryland.

SCOTUS held that it is unconstitutional and a violation of due process to not disclose exculpatory evidence.

[Coito ergo sum]

Zimmerman is perfectly entitled to follow Martin and vice versa. Mere following and mere asking for an explanation of what someone is doing there, is not a license of Martin to attack Zimmerman, or vice versa.

Well, that must be what it would mean to you, since you don't know what goes on in other people's minds. Perhaps this is saying something about your thought process, rather than anybody else's.

No. It's what you're implying should be in everyone's mind. It wouldn't be in my mind.

How am I implying that that should be in everyone's mind, when I'm saying exactly the opposite?

You're making things up.... again.

Heck - you're the one claiming you know what was in Zimmerman's mind, and that it was ill intent.

[mistermack]

In many countries such as the United States, police or prosecutor are not required to disclose to the defendant any exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant makes a plea (guilty or not guilty).

[kiki5711]

Heck - you're the one claiming you know what was in Zimmerman's mind, and that it was ill intent.

AND YOU are saying you know what was in zimmerman's mind! Let's stop playing the patsy game.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In many countries such as the United States, police or prosecutor are not required to disclose to the defendant any exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant makes a plea (guilty or not guilty).

Prosecutors are required to disclose to the defense evidence favorable to a defendant which is either exculpatory or impeaching and is material to either guilt or punishment. Evidence is "favorable" to the defendant if it either helps the defendant or hurts the prosecution. (In re Sassounian (1995) 9 Cal.4th 535, 543-544.) In Strickler v. Greene (1999) 527 U.S. 203, 280-281, the United States Supreme Court stated:

In Brady this Court held "that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87. We have since held that the duty to disclose such evidence is applicable even though there has been no request by the accused, [United States v. Agurs (1976) 427 U.S. 97, 107], and that the duty encompasses impeachment evidence as well as exculpatory evidence, [United States v. Bagley, (1985) 473 U.S. 667, 676]. Such evidence is material "if there is a reasonable probability that had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different." Id at 682; see also [Kyles v. Whitley (1995) 514 U.S. 419, 433-434].

http://da.co.la.ca.us/sd02-08.htm

I'm pretty sure this holds true for the rest of the country, given the USSC's jurisdiction.

Now, maybe the LA District Attorney's office got this wrong; they're not the most competent organization I can think of viz law enforcement. But I'm inclined to regard them as more authoritative than Wikipedia, myself.

[mistermack]

In many countries such as the United States, police or prosecutor are not required to disclose to the defendant any exculpatory evidence they possess before the defendant makes a plea (guilty or not guilty).

Where does it contradict that? Zimmerman doesn't make a plea till mid May.