Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[Seth]

Super! Give me your address and I'll come and check out for any suspicious "persons" going through your neighborhood. Make sure it's not you or any of your family members. I'm prepared to "self defense".

I'm pretty sure if Martin had given Zimmerman his address, he'd still be alive now.

I'm pretty sure that if Zimmerman had not been allowed to carry a gun, Martin would be alive, and Zimmerman would be not facing a murder charge.

Or Zimmerman would be dead and robbed and Martin would be on the lam.

Yet another bunch of lives destroyed by America's loony gun laws.

Zimmerman's alive, which beats being dead.

Funny enough, I haven't heard lately of all the people who are saving lives with their concealed weapons.
There must be a press conspiracy to keep it quiet.

That's because you don't bother to look and are willfully ignorant of the facts, and yes, there is a press conspiracy at the national level to do exactly that. However, if you care to do some research, you will find many examples every month of lawful armed self defense in local papers. The NRA publishes about 10 briefs of precisely such incidents in their magazines EVERY MONTH, culled from the pages of newspapers across the country by members and people interested in getting the truth out.

They even published a book compilation of more than a decade's worth of such stories.

Research estimates that lawful DGUs (defensive gun uses) occur as many as two million times per year in the US. Even the DOJ admits based on it's own records that lawful DGUs occur at least 87,000 times per year.

Most DGUs (about 60 percent or more) don't even involve discharge of the firearm, the mere possession and display of the weapon being sufficient to thwart the crime. And the vast majority of DGU's are never even reported because no crime occurs when the potential victim indicates that they are armed.

So, your willful ignorance is of little interest when it comes to the factual social value of an armed citizenry.

[Seth]

Still trolling with your deliberate bollocks Seth?

I don't take the shit you write seriously of course. Bragging about being a troll sort of gives the game away. Not the cleverest trolling in the world.
You could try a bit of humour to make it worth reading.

You're dismay and blustering at being confronted with inconvenient facts that shoot giant holes in your ideological idiocy is amusing enough.

[mistermack]

Still trolling with your deliberate bollocks Seth?

I don't take the shit you write seriously of course. Bragging about being a troll sort of gives the game away. Not the cleverest trolling in the world.
You could try a bit of humour to make it worth reading.

You're dismay and blustering at being confronted with inconvenient facts that shoot giant holes in your ideological idiocy is amusing enough.

Troll troll troll. Just pathetic.
A sad species to be sure.

[FBM]

Research estimates that lawful DGUs (defensive gun uses) occur as many as two million times per year in the US. Even the DOJ admits based on it's own records that lawful DGUs occur at least 87,000 times per year.

Most DGUs (about 60 percent or more) don't even involve discharge of the firearm, the mere possession and display of the weapon being sufficient to thwart the crime. And the vast majority of DGU's are never even reported because no crime occurs when the potential victim indicates that they are armed...

A mere anecdote, but I've done this twice so far.

[laklak]

Florida requires the prosecution to make all evidence available to the defense, it's part and parcel of the discovery process. This does not mean cops can't lie to a defendant while questioning him, but it does mean that any and all evidence must be given to the defense prior to trial, and in a timely manner. If new evidence is uncovered in the course of the trial it may be admitted (or not, at the judge's discretion), but the trial will be delayed to allow the defense time to review and rebut any evidence. It is a legal requirement that the prosecution provide any and all exculpatory evidence to the defense, however, the defense does NOT have to provide the same evidence to the prosecution.

The prosecution has no responsibility to provide exculpatory evidence that would be normally uncovered by the defense "through the exercise of reasonable diligence". They cannot, under any circumstances, present evidence at trial that was not available to the defense either through "reasonable diligence" or direct discovery. They must provide a list of ALL possible witnesses to the defense and allow the defense attorney(s) to depose those witnesses. "Surprise witnesses" are a fictional conceit.

In this case the prosecution must make available any and all evidence, including photographs, video, interviews with first responders, medical records etc. whether or not they undermine the prosecution's case. Failure to do so is a direct violation of State law and are grounds for outright dismissal, mistrial or directed grounds for appeal.

http://www.countyjudges.com/articles/96 ... VIOLATIONS

[mistermack]

As far as the photo of Zimmerman's head goes, it would seem that the defence would be able to find it with due diligence, as even I've seen it.

However, what have we actually seen? We don't know if it's been faked by abc, we don't even know if it was taken that night. Putting people on a stand to swear that it's genuine isn't the same. People can lie.
I'd like to know how much abc paid for the picture.

Unless there is a chain of evidence, it has to be treated with suspicion. That's why it's incredible, if the police don't have photos of their own. It's another example of the sheer incompetence of the investigation.

Having said that, the photo proves nothing new. The police made statements about him bleeding from the head and nose. The photo, if genuine, would just confirm that they weren't lying about the head part.
Which is of very little value to anybody.

All the photo would prove, if genuine, is that they had a struggle. I think that's now generally accepted anyway.

I think Zimmerman's going to go down for it. And it's important that he does. If he doesn't, every pathetic wanker who carries a concealed gun will feel confident that if he gets into a fight, and doesn't get the best of it, he can scream for help. pull out his gun and kill the person he's fighting.
It's not exactly how John Wayne would have done it, is it?

[FBM]

The conspiracy theorists have a (slightly) harder way to go if there's photographic evidence to back up police statements. The psychological impact of seeing his head bloody may lessen the mob mentality a bit. Maybe prevent it from spreading so quickly. Dunno for sure, of course. Once mob rules/mass hysteria gets started, no amount of reason is sufficient to stop it, most likely.

[mistermack]

The conspiracy theorists have a (slightly) harder way to go if there's photographic evidence to back up police statements. The psychological impact of seeing his head bloody may lessen the mob mentality a bit. Maybe prevent it from spreading so quickly. Dunno for sure, of course. Once mob rules/mass hysteria gets started, no amount of reason is sufficient to stop it, most likely.

The only believable conspiracy theory is that the police chief and prosecutor, together with persons unknown, had a little discussion, and decided that Zimmerman was one of the good guys, and there was no need to press too hard on this one.
Maybe just the first two met, and a few phone calls came in from "helpful" friends of the family.

The photo doesn't really affect that possibility one way or the other.
The lack of effort was extraordinary, and does point to something happening. It would be virtually impossible to prove conspiracy though. The best you could do in those cases is to point out the incredible incompetence, and that's already glaringly obvious.

[kiki5711]

Or Zimmerman would be dead and robbed and Martin would be on the lam.

so now you're the jury and the executioner, ha?

Zimmerman's alive, which beats being dead.

how very tender of you! I bet martin would feel it'd be better that he was alive as well.

It's also better to be alive than dead for Charles Manson, let's just not mention anything he had to do with "some murders" a while back.!

[Tyrannical]

As far as the photo of Zimmerman's head goes, it would seem that the defence would be able to find it with due diligence, as even I've seen it.

However, what have we actually seen? We don't know if it's been faked by abc, we don't even know if it was taken that night. Putting people on a stand to swear that it's genuine isn't the same. People can lie.
I'd like to know how much abc paid for the picture.

Unless there is a chain of evidence, it has to be treated with suspicion. That's why it's incredible, if the police don't have photos of their own. It's another example of the sheer incompetence of the investigation.

Having said that, the photo proves nothing new. The police made statements about him bleeding from the head and nose. The photo, if genuine, would just confirm that they weren't lying about the head part.
Which is of very little value to anybody.

All the photo would prove, if genuine, is that they had a struggle. I think that's now generally accepted anyway.

I think Zimmerman's going to go down for it. And it's important that he does. If he doesn't, every pathetic wanker who carries a concealed gun will feel confident that if he gets into a fight, and doesn't get the best of it, he can scream for help. pull out his gun and kill the person he's fighting.
It's not exactly how John Wayne would have done it, is it?

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.

[mistermack]

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.

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

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

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

I'm not at all. I have no idea. I'm not even saying he's innocent. I've simply identified many facts that you claimed to be true and on which you based your conclusion that he was guilty, were in fact either very unclear or contrary to the 911 tape itself (like that he ignored the dispatcher's instruction) or just flat out false (like that he was uninjured and had no back of the head injury).

I don't know what he was doing. Maybe he got out of the vehicle salivating to kill him a negro. Then he called the police before doing so. Might be. I don't claim to be a mind reader.

[Coito ergo sum]

The police aren't required to disclose any evidence to the suspect be it exculpatory, or inculpating, before arraignment. I don't have a problem with that, myself; indeed, I think that simply asking the suspect for his accounting of events, and comparing that to the evidence at hand, is likely to produce a better picture of events, by not cluttering the suspect's mind. Memory is a delicate thing, and should be left alone as much as possible.

I do think that the legality of lying to a suspect about evidence in their possession is bullshit, though. I think that telling a suspect "we've got a guy who'll put you at the scene with a gun in your hand" is corrosive of justice, n the sense that it undermines faith in the system.

The issue with the warrant, though, is whether the prosecutor can swear out a warrant under oath without telling the whole truth. That's where this issue came from.

[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?"

so would that also mean I can just walk through your neighborhood, I can walk up to a person that looks suspicious to me and ask them what they're doing there?

Sure, why not?

[Coito ergo sum]

Super! Give me your address and I'll come and check out for any suspicious "persons" going through your neighborhood. Make sure it's not you or any of your family members. I'm prepared to "self defense".

Are you suggesting that in the US, one is not allowed to walk around in public and ask people questions?