|
Phydeaux -> RE: Zimmerman III - Should the jury have a manslaughter option (7/10/2013 3:47:45 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: igor2003
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Public sidewalk. You want to head one direction. I'm entitled to go the same direction. I'm not entitled, perhaps to get in your face and yell at you - but there is no evidence that zimmerman did. Yet even if he had done so, its irrelevent. Martin is then not entitled to escalate to physical violence.
And we have absolutely no evidence that Martin escalated to physical violence. It is also Martins entitlement to say what the fuck are you doing?
Clearly, anyone who has actually been in a fight before knows that it is murder since it wasn't a contact shot, if it happened as Zimmerman claims, so it cant be as Zimmerman claims.
Clearly, you don't know what you are talking about, since there is evidence that the shot occured at short range, and at an angle indicating martin was on top of zimmerman.
Certainly there is evidence that Martin escalated to violence. What evidence, other than Zimmerman's heavily biased claim? There is actually more and better evidence that it was Zimmerman that escalated to violence. Of course the Zimmerman crowd don't want to accept that evidence because it puts poor Georgie in a deservedly bad light. conclusive evidence - no. But thats not the legal standard here. Reasonable doubt goes to the defendent - zimmerman. The only "reasonable" doubt is in Zimmerman's version...actually multiple versions...of what happened. After he "adjusted" his story a number of times he actually got it to line up, somewhat, with the evidence, but he was all over the map before that.
Fortunately, your views are probably soon to be proved wrong. At some point, whats the point of having inordinate discussion when neither you nor I can ater the outcome, nor have an expert opinion.
I find your views unpersuasive. Bottom line is that the jury needs to find beyond a reasonable doubt that zimmerman didn't have self defense.
Despite your claim that z's story changed, he consistently claimed a fight, and self defense. He never entertained the idea of a plea bargain.
After investigation the police didn't believe it was murder.
The Stanford prosecutor didn't believe that it was provable as murder.
And the bottom line is - did the prosecution prove to all the jurors that Zimmerman wasn't defending himself. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sorry. I just don't see it.
I still believe it was self-defense, and I see no reason to think that the defense wasn't plausible. Weighed in the balance Travon came across as an angry, drug using miscreant that was a fighter looking for a fight. Zimmerman, as a whole came across as a guy that was family and neighbor hood oriented. Perhaps a bit of a do gooder.
The only confirmed racist comments were made by Travon.
Yeah - I don't see a conviction happening here.
|
|
|
|
