trayvan martin

Originally Posted by sync0s

Eye witness reports are conflicting, as well as not highly regarded in court. The evidence is that he killed Martin. I have already said that by Affirmative Defense, Zimmerman must himself prove that it was justifiable.



A neighborhood watchman (which was not known by Martin) who was told by dispatch not to follow him, but he did so while armed with a gun. His path (assumed path, if true) was clearly confrontational (he cut him off) thus making him the instigator.

If I were the prosecutor here is my case: we already know that he murdered Martin. We know that Zimmerman followed Martin, and eventually took a path that cut him off and instigated a conflict. We know that Martin was unarmed, headed to his Father's girlfriends house. We know that Zimmerman was armed, and that he had prior prejudice toward Martin when he said "They always get away with it" (obvious proof that he had already labeled him a criminal). We know that, while Zimmerman claims his head was being bashed into the concrete, they were in the grass. We know that Martin was face down.

We have: Intent (He followed him while armed) and motive ("They always get away with it"). We have the murder weapon, and the admitted shooter. You have conflicting eyewitness (Using 'eye' loosely) reports and a story with gaping holes.

I'd say if I were a prosecutor, while it may be tough, I could see conviction.

Id like to declare you the winner of this here debate lol GUD SHOW, GUD SHOW!!!!

• Under Florida's SYG law you are shielded from prosecution when you use lethal force in the face of "reasonable fear of great bodily harm, or death". Google "776.041". Read exception 2a. The law is the law.

  
  

Shielded from prosecution means that you dont have charges filed...

Sorry

Eye witness reports are conflicting, as well as not highly regarded in court. The evidence is that he killed Martin. I have already said that by Affirmative Defense, Zimmerman must himself prove that it was justifiable.
Not really conflicting at all. Both eye witness accounts are consistent with Zimmer's claims and the police/emt statements.


A neighborhood watchman (which was not known by Martin) who was told by dispatch not to follow him, but he did so while armed with a gun. His path (assumed path, if true) was clearly confrontational (he cut him off) thus making him the instigator.

1. Irrelevant, and probably inadmissible.

2. Zimmer had no duty to obey the SUGGESTION that he not follow Martin. Besides, it is not clear that he continued to follow Martin; he responded "OK" to the suggestion that he not follow, and a few seconds later in the conversation said he had lost sight of Martin at the very least implying that he had, in fact, stopped following Martin.

3. Zimmer was legally armed, so not an issue.

4. If you plan to argue that a "path" was confrontational, then good luck.

5. Zimmer was acting in good faith as a member of neighborhood watch. He has a legitimate reason for his actions.

If I were the prosecutor here is my case: we already know that he murdered Martin. We know that Zimmerman followed Martin, and eventually took a path that cut him off and instigated a conflict. We know that Martin was unarmed, headed to his Father's girlfriends house. We know that Zimmerman was armed, and that he had prior prejudice toward Martin when he said "They always get away with it" (obvious proof that he had already labeled him a criminal). We know that, while Zimmerman claims his head was being bashed into the concrete, they were in the grass. We know that Martin was face down.

1. "We" don't know any such thing. Murder is what you, the prosecutor, are trying to prove.

2. Potentially a good point, but seems easily rebuttable. The neighborhood had experienced multiple burglaries, he was exasperated with the burglars always getting away, i.e. when Zimmer said, "they" he was referring to the overall situation.

3. The scuffle started while they were on the sidewalk. TM punched Zimmer knocking him to the ground where he fell partially on the concrete and partially on the grass.

4. Martin was face down... so what?


We have: Intent (He followed him while armed) and motive ("They always get away with it"). We have the murder weapon, and the admitted shooter. You have conflicting eyewitness (Using 'eye' loosely) reports and a story with gaping holes.

I'd say if I were a prosecutor, while it may be tough, I could see conviction.



I don't think the prosecutor has a prayer of a conviction here.

Having said that, I fully expect Zimmer to be charged as there is simply too much moral outrage to resist. I guess we will get to see which of us is correct on the possibility of a conviction here.

Originally Posted by desert dude

Eye witness reports are conflicting, as well as not highly regarded in court. The evidence is that he killed Martin. I have already said that by Affirmative Defense, Zimmerman must himself prove that it was justifiable.
Not really conflicting at all. Both eye witness accounts are consistent with Zimmer's claims and the police/emt statements.


A neighborhood watchman (which was not known by Martin) who was told by dispatch not to follow him, but he did so while armed with a gun. His path (assumed path, if true) was clearly confrontational (he cut him off) thus making him the instigator.

1. Irrelevant, and probably inadmissible.

2. Zimmer had no duty to obey the SUGGESTION that he not follow Martin. Besides, it is not clear that he continued to follow Martin; he responded "OK" to the suggestion that he not follow, and a few seconds later in the conversation said he had lost sight of Martin at the very least implying that he had, in fact, stopped following Martin.

3. Zimmer was legally armed, so not an issue.

4. If you plan to argue that a "path" was confrontational, then good luck.

5. Zimmer was acting in good faith as a member of neighborhood watch. He has a legitimate reason for his actions.

If I were the prosecutor here is my case: we already know that he murdered Martin. We know that Zimmerman followed Martin, and eventually took a path that cut him off and instigated a conflict. We know that Martin was unarmed, headed to his Father's girlfriends house. We know that Zimmerman was armed, and that he had prior prejudice toward Martin when he said "They always get away with it" (obvious proof that he had already labeled him a criminal). We know that, while Zimmerman claims his head was being bashed into the concrete, they were in the grass. We know that Martin was face down.

1. "We" don't know any such thing. Murder is what you, the prosecutor, are trying to prove.

2. Potentially a good point, but seems easily rebuttable. The neighborhood had experienced multiple burglaries, he was exasperated with the burglars always getting away, i.e. when Zimmer said, "they" he was referring to the overall situation.

3. The scuffle started while they were on the sidewalk. TM punched Zimmer knocking him to the ground where he fell partially on the concrete and partially on the grass.

4. Martin was face down... so what?


We have: Intent (He followed him while armed) and motive ("They always get away with it"). We have the murder weapon, and the admitted shooter. You have conflicting eyewitness (Using 'eye' loosely) reports and a story with gaping holes.

I'd say if I were a prosecutor, while it may be tough, I could see conviction.



I don't think the prosecutor has a prayer of a conviction here.

Having said that, I fully expect Zimmer to be charged as there is simply too much moral outrage to resist. I guess we will get to see which of us is correct on the possibility of a conviction here.

Originally Posted by smokeymcpotz

Id like to declare you the winner of this here debate lol GUD SHOW, GUD SHOW!!!!

But you just can't bring yourself to do it because you see the obvious flaws in his argument?

Language is a tricky thing, my friend.

Originally Posted by Carne Seca

Doesn't matter what you mean. It wasn't Stand Your Ground and he shouldn't be able to use that as a defense. That's why we need a trial. Either it was self-defense or it was murder.

So, your driving down the road and someone gets pushed off the sidewalk and you run into them and kill them. Are you a murderer because it wasn't self defense?

That's ok though, about 90% of the people here don't even know what murder is, they just think murder is when someone kills another person. Period.

Originally Posted by cliffey501

no but the [Jews] did TROLLOLOLOL

Originally Posted by sync0s

If I were the prosecutor here is my case: we already know that he murdered Martin.

Murder requires malice aforethought.