For the first time, you are a 100% correct. Not either or. Martin was gone, Zimmerman was alone, and turned back to his truck. After he went out to the street beyond the courtyard. the only poor judgement on Zimmermans part, was not taking the gun out to ward off the situation. On the 911 call, when he thought he had a potential burglar, he noted that Martin had something in his pocket. (iced tea). So he should have the gun out...then Martin proably doesnt commit the battery. That got him killed.
That is how every case is handled. The jury doesn't get the law or know the law until they go back in to deliberate, and the prosecution and defense do not finalize the jury charge until closing argument. Also, the jury doesn't know what we know from TV.
No. If he had the piece out, Martin does not commit Battery, goes home, and remains alive. Imho, if the State makes that case, zimmerman goes down for manslaughter.
You don't know that for fact, you are speculating that he goes home. That still doesn't make it legal for him to just pull his gun out and point it at Martin. Like Jets over Bills said earlier that is aggravated assault.
no, you said they were not doing anything illegal by letting their child stay with a sex offender. that is a false statement. that would fall under the boundaries of child endangerment, which is a crime, and thus illegal. but there was nothing wrong with what Zimmerman did, either criminally or socially, by following someone that he thought was suspicious. it may have been bad judgement to put himself in a potentially dangerous situation, which you can blame him for, but you cannot blame him for the situation that unfolded which was caused by the battery and a decision by the other party.
Fortunately, we have a witness's word as to what actually happened. Oh, sure, the witness also happened to be the defendant, but I'm sure he was telling the whole truth despite there not being anyone who could dispute his story if he wanted to fib a little and despite his freedom being on the line. We'll never know what really happened there. It was the correct verdict given the trial, but I laugh at the people who are sooooo convinced that they "know" exactly how everything went down. He was neighborhood watch, not the fucking SWAT team. And you are spouting one side of the story. Maybe you should listen to what the other guy had to say. Oh wait. The other guy is dead. Oh well, guess the first dude must be correct. I hereby anoint you king of confirmation bias.
Oh, for Pete's sake. It's not black and white like that. What if they were not aware that it was a sex offender because they did not bother to look it up? Are they to blame? Is it illegal? Regardless, you are missing the point. Willfully, most likely. So just never mind. Whatever the case, it's still a hell of a lot more accurate than your rape victim analogy. I can, and do blame him. Not criminally, but socially. As I would blame anyone who did something similarly stupid. It's not illegal to drink yourself stupid at home (if you behave). It is not illegal to get into a car with someone who is drunk. But if you drink yourself stupid and get into a car with someone who is drunk and get into an accident, I think you're an idiot. Zimmerman is an idiot. Make whatever lame semantical straw man arguments you want. It's not going to change that.
I didnt say he goes home. Im saying he had a clear path to it. And Rachels account confirms that. Once he lost sight of Martin, had he taken the piece out, he wouldnt have been guilty of jack shit, because the 911 call was documemted, but if the gun was out, Martin does not engage in the battery that ended with his desth. I didnt say Zimmerman goes home. I said he lost soght of Martin, who was on the concrete path leading to his home. Zimmerman makes it to the street beyond. Which means Martin could have been safe and sound at home. And chose differently.
I didn't say Zimmerman goes home, you are speculating that if Zimmerman has his gun out Martin elects to not confront him which you do not know for fact.
Zimmerman was following a guy, acting like a burglar. When he lost sight of the guy, who, according to the taped 911 call, he thought may have been carrying a.weapon,....he didnt take out his own. Then he got molested, and battered..and still didnt go for his gun...until the situation got out of hand. Basically, your argument is Tex Antoines. When grtting raped, lay back and enjoy it.
Can someone wake me up, when we get to the point that THE ONLY CRIME COMMITTED HERE, was Battery? It wasnt charged by virtue of the fact that the criminal became a decedent. The police saw it that way. The county prosecutor saw it that way. The Jury, saw it that way. The only remaining detritus, is purely lefty pandering politics, on a superstorm sandy level. Gun rights. Self defense rights. Stand your ground laws. And...the completely manufacture race issue...."white-hispanc" ayfkm? Does that make Obama, El Blanco Negro? Puhleese.
Well you just basically stated that Zimmerman walked into a potentially life threatening situation because if he thought Martin may have been carrying a "weapon" following him or searching for him was a pretty stupid thing to do.... You know a good Republican from Texas also made the enjoy rape comments.
Folks there is just no reasoning with this matter. Either you think Mr Zimmerman was clearly in the wrong and instigated the whole situation. Or you believe Mr Martin was the aggressor and attacked an innocent community watch person without provocation. One side or the other will not change the others belief. The one thing we can all agree on is eight days to training camp.
Do we have evidence of that, or is that Zimmerman's word? Because once you go into things we only know from Zimmerman's word (not record on the phone call) we have take with speculation. It's his word vs nobodys. There's no way to prove it's false, but no way to prove it's true. If you are basing that Zimmerman said he went back to the truck, my question is, what made this guy who was keen on following Martin, decide half way, I'll just peacefully walk back to my truck and wait for the police? Because Martin had something in his pocket is not a reason to have the gun drawn. When did he have time to process Martin had something his pocket if Martin just came up and attacked him? Zimmerman was in the wrong here common sense wise and legally if he was walking around with his gun out while following a teenager. The story Zimmerman gave has a lot of holes. The prosectutions attack of Zimmerman's story had a lot of holes. We will never know what happened, but taking Zimmerman's word for it is probbably not giving you the accurate story of what happened
Wait a second, you have never explain how there is evidence of battery by Martin. There is no evidence for that. If he was alive, and that charge was placed on him, self defense and he would be not guilty. He saw that Zimmerman had a gun and was trying to point it, and tried to knock the gun loose or keep Zimmerman restrained from reaching it and pointing it at him. It's a clear disregard of facts or lack of them to jump to the conclusion that Martin committed battery.
I should have read this before posting. This nails my point. Legally, jury did right. But I do laugh at people who pretend they know what happened and who did what. I don't believe Zimmerman's story, but that doesn't mean I know what happened. I just don't believe it because it takes some twists and turns with no evidence supporting it that I find hard to believe. But the law says that the court has to find Zimmerman guilty, not that Zimmerman has to prove his innocence.
So, you're saying that in every criminal case tried, the Prosecutor changes the charge during trial. So you can start out trying someone for murder, then end up trying him for aggravated assault although the original charge was murder. Juries being human, aren't suppose to infer that the prosecution doesn't have enough evidence to stay with the original charge and by doing that, start to doubt the evidence provided up until that point in the trial. You may be right, but it sure sounds amateurish to me. More like a CYA drill than anything else but hey, we all know our system of justice is a shining beacon of light. Especially in Florida and Texas.
You can't charge completely different crimes (like murder and aggravated assault) but you can later include what is a called a "lesser included offense" and prosecutors do this all the time. A lesser included offense is basically an offense that has most of the elements of the greater offense, but which you cant complete the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense. An example is... say you charge someone for rape, but your case for actually entering the body is weak, you can include a lesser offense of "battery" (unlawful, harmful or offensive contact) or sexual assault. The facts have to also support a reasonable jury finding guilt (meaning in the trial you just had, the facts you alleged must also support these lesser included elements). Same for the murder/manslaughter charges.
