He is not charged with anything he did before the gun went off. His self defense claim will be heard if he wishes to present it.
Victim of perceived thug does end up in jail
- Thread starter JollyRoger
- Start date
- Status
woody60707
Deity
Under FL law, he wasn't stalking. Following and or confronting are the correct terms. I post the law on page one. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11412642&postcount=2
Berzerker
Deity
Of course not, nor am I claiming brain surgeons and stalkers are mutually exclusive... Or rocket scientists and stalkers... Or... Do you see a flaw with your question yet? What I did "claim" was you need evidence to support accusations and all I see is media BS regurgitated here. Calling a neighborhood watch volunteer a stalker for trying to stay close to a suspect until the cops arrived is laughable on its face.
sorry bout that
I am not changing my stance on that.
His contradictions come between what is on the tape of the call to the dispatcher and his testimony at his bail hering. To the dispatcher, he strongly implies that the thinks Martin is armed ("He's got his hand in his wasteband") which would bolster a claim for self defense. And his bail hearing, he claims he didn't know if Martin was armed or not which dilutes his initial implications.
During the call, he claimed that Martin looked to be in his late teens. At the bail hearing, he claimed he thought Martin was a little bit younger than 28.
Given two slip ups in a few minutes of testimony, I would be surpised if they risk putting him on the stand again. This presents a problem for the defense as a self defense claim will be more challenging if the defendant does not testify.
woody60707
Deity
Just because it's a affirmative defense case (maybe not the correct legal term, but you know what I mean), does it automatically mean it has to go to trail. I mean I know the answer is no, but i'm not sure generally were the line drawn.
And with an affirmative defense ... I'm just going to copy/paste wiki on this one as it said it better that I could word it.
Is there anything that disproves Zimmerman's claim?
Zimmerman has already shown a propensity to contradict himself, sohis credibility is questionable. The timeline is too short for all the action to have realistically happened according to the story coming from the Zimmerman camp. Testimony from the girl that was on the phone with Martin that would indicate that Martin was trying to get away from Zimmerman rather than attack him. The voice analysis that likely eliminates Zimmerman as the one screaming for help before the shots went off. There could be more that we do not know about.
woody60707
Deity
The FBI (and any other reliable test) couldn't tell who's voice that was as the prosecution stated. And the girl on the phone could be key, but witness by phone could be very iffy. Also when was her statement taken? It would give more weight to her statement if it was taken by police soon after. At the same time if her statement was first taken by someone in the media after this all blown up in the news,...it would make it difficult trust it. Not believe it, but trust it.
You know probably better then most that memory is a very poor tool. I am kind of looking fwd to when the statements taken by police come out, and we can compare them to what those people are saying now to see how far they changed. It doesn't mean they are lying or being dishonest in anyway, it's just the way human memory works.
EDIT: I edit both your post in to one reply, as my reply somewhat fit both.
It is hard to remember what self-serving statements you made to law enforcement when giving a self-serving apology to the victim's family.
Berzerker
Deity
He was describing Martin's behavior, you're implying that on his behalf.
wow, you got him on murder 2 now
She told him to run and he didn't, how is that trying to get away? Martin told her he saw Zimmerman again and it was Martin who began the conversation - she heard him start the conversation and she corroborates Zimmerman's version of that conversation until Martin removes the phone. The voice analysis? Didn't somebody just post an inconclusive FBI analysis.
That's why we have a jury.
Berzerker
Deity
we start with evidence, right?
what evidence do you have?
Faith the prosecutor has the evidence?
wonderful
what evidence do you have?
Faith the prosecutor has the evidence?
wonderful
You just went about trying to debunk some of what is publically available. Now you may think you have a good argument, but it is just that at most, not the gospel.
Berzerker
Deity
its not so much about my argument, its the absence of an argument from your side
you need an argument to charge somebody with murder
something
calling Zimmerman a stalker discredits you, not him... You dont see that?
you need an argument to charge somebody with murder
something
calling Zimmerman a stalker discredits you, not him... You dont see that?
As the leaks have shown, we do not have all the evidence (whether for or agianst Zimmerman). While not a stalker in the criminal law sense of the word, he may very have well stalked Martin in the sense of giving Martin justification to stand his ground. Since Zimmerman has already blown his credibility by contradictory statements, a trial is certainly justified rather than relying purely on the self-serving statements of the killer.
If innocents such as O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony can go to trial, I do not see what exempts Zimmerman.
If innocents such as O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony can go to trial, I do not see what exempts Zimmerman.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
As you are an attorney, I am shocked at this comment.
And fwiw, I figured you for more of a criminal defense guy as opposed to a prosecutor.
Berzerker
Deity
If they were innocent putting them on trial was an injustice, thats why we want evidence before putting people thru that... So Martin was justified attacking Zimmerman based on how he allegedly perceived him but you condemn Zimmerman for his alleged perceptions of Martin (largely invented by the media). And you also justify attacking Zimmerman based on self defense or stand your ground while denying Zimmerman any claim to self defense even if he was attacked. Thats why Zimmerman is guilty no matter what the evidence shows, you already convicted him based on the fact he initially followed Martin. Do you expect a jury to convict Zimmerman of murder 2 based on that argument? If not, why put him thru that? Why risk his life?
brennan
Argumentative Brit
It cannot be an 'injustice' to put an innocent person on trial. A trial is the official process by which someone's guilt or innocence is decided, given that there is any doubt as to their innocence.
I'm just going to reiterate my view on this: Zimmermman caused a confrontation while armed with a deadly weapon. He should not have been armed. He should not have followed Martin. He should not have ended up in a physical confrontation. Martin should still be alive. Since Zimmerman repeatedly failed to act in a responsible manner and someone else paid with their life he should face an appropriate jail term.
I'm just going to reiterate my view on this: Zimmermman caused a confrontation while armed with a deadly weapon. He should not have been armed. He should not have followed Martin. He should not have ended up in a physical confrontation. Martin should still be alive. Since Zimmerman repeatedly failed to act in a responsible manner and someone else paid with their life he should face an appropriate jail term.
I am a criminal defense guy and Zimmerman is not being railroaded here. In my county, he would have been arrested on the night of the crime, thus not attracting the national attention needed to raise a massive amount of money for a high end defense lawyer. There would be high pressure to plea bargain because a trial would be tough to win.
My comment was snarky because many think those two were guilty, yet they got a not guilty verdict. I am on record here in saying that Zimmerman has a decent chance of winning at trial - the police did not treat the crime scene as a potential murder, he has what appears to be a very competent defense attorney, this is high profile and many of those end up in acquittals.
It is clear that he killed Martin. There is evidence on both sides of whether it was self defense. The facts are in dispute. That is what our jury system is for. The likes of Berzerker are claiming there is no evidence that Zimmerman did not act in self defense even a post after arguing against such evidence. Just because you can make an argument against some evidence does not mean it is not evidence. It just means you have something to convince the jury to be skeptical about in regards to such evidence.
I mean, just look at Berzerker's last post - accusing me of convicting Zimmerman and not allowing him to make a self defense claim when I am merely calling for a jury trial with full expectation that Zimmerman will make the self defense and stand your ground claims. It is Berzerker that wants to proclaim Zimmerman's absolute inncocence by advocatoing for no trial. Neither of us know the complete facts. My call for a jury trial is so that the facts get out before the institution in our system assigned to judge them. Zimmerman is not the only one with a stake in this - there is also Martin's family to think of. If your child was killed and there was a dispute in facts, would you want the killer to walk merely because he claimed self defense? Or would you want a jury trial?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
My point is, as an attorney you fully know that the other two cases didnt have the possibility of self-defense via 'stand your ground'. People around here know that you are an attorney and value your opinion as informed. The least you can do is offer your opinion as a bit more informed than that so that others that are far less educated than you about the law wont think that all 3 of those cases are just the same.
Your're an attorney. When giving legal opinion, act like it.
Your're an attorney. When giving legal opinion, act like it.
They didn't need to put up a self defense claim because the prosecutors there, unlike here, couldn't even establish that they committed the killing. They had a bunch of speculative and circumstantial evidence, just as here on the self defense issues, but I do not think that neither you nor Berzerker think those cases should not have gone to trial.
- Status
