People need to stop acting like they know what happened that night. Was Zimmerman a good guy attacked by a thug who defended himself? Was he a vigilante who gunned down someone without justification? Based on what we know from media reports, either is possible. Let the evidence come in at trial, and determine reasonable doubt from there. Then let the evidence come in at the inevitable civil suit, and examine it based on the lower preponderance of the evidence standard.
If I had to bet, right now, I say he gets a criminal verdict in his favor and a civil verdict against him, just based on the differing standards. But I don't know.
Zimmerman still has a potential defense here. He had a broken nose and various cuts and bruises. He was obviously in some sort of altercation that night. I don't believe he had enough time to beat himself up and try to make a play that it was self defense knowing that he could be in deep trouble? Whether the jury will excuse him completely for killing the man remains to be seen.
It really depends on who the jury is at heart, if they truly believe that Zimmerman thought his life was in danger then he should be completely acquitted. But I really don't think it will work out that way.
The jury will likely compromise on a lesser offense so they can show they exerted "justice", meanwhile knowing they would never be able to agree completely that it was second degree murder.
Last edited by Mainejet; 06-13-2013 at 02:47 PM.
Absent any new evidence at the trial I don't see how it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. The burden of proof is on the prosecution here and I haven't seen anything that can refute Zimmerman's story as of this moment. None of us know what evidence will be presented at trial however so this can change.
I would think whoever threw the first punch is the one who started the fight. I assume Zimmerman says that was Martin and unfortunately Martin is not here to tell his side. Tough to prove.
Zimmerman had what appeared to be a broken nose and cuts on the back of his head. I am no expert but I would think those wounds are consistent with getting beat up by someone that is on top of you. And if that was the case Zimmerman can claim he was in fear for his life and the use of the gun was justified.
I agree with doggin. In a vacuum, based on what I have read, I think Zimmerman would be cleared of criminal charges but would be subject to civil penalties. But we do not live in a vacuum and this case has been highly sensationalized.
Last edited by DDNYjets; 06-13-2013 at 02:10 PM.
Zimmerman thought this kid was a criminal and pursued him with a gun. I don't know about most self defense claims but I'm guessing the statistics point toward the pursuer not the pursued as being the one defended against.
Most people who would have a legit claim of self defense are rarely following someone they have already acknowledged as dangerous and potentially a criminal. The notion of self defense is based to some extent on initiation of contact. In this case everything points toward Zimmerman initiating as part of his mind set as neighborhood watch, carrying a gun and pursuing after calling it into police. Might that point not just away from self defense but toward pre-meditation?
It seems to me Zimmerman claim of self defense after he pursued is suspect even if he was confronted after he initiated pursuit.
Point 1. Is it false imprisonment IF you have been empowered by residents as a watchman? Can I as a homeowner detain a trespasser while the police are en route?
Don't know if he was holding or just tagging along and shooing him out.
We'll never know points 2 or 3. Zimm would never admit either.
Highly unlikely that it points towards premeditation, and zero - zero - chance Zimmerman is convicted of murder rather than manslaughter on that basis alone (if there is indeed evidence that Martin was on the ground and shot by a standing Zimmerman while begging for his life, that would be a different story.Most people who would have a legit claim of self defense are rarely following someone they have already acknowledged as dangerous and potentially a criminal. The notion of self defense is based to some extent on initiation of contact. In this case everything points toward Zimmerman initiating as part of his mind set as neighborhood watch, carrying a gun and pursuing after calling it into police. Might that point not just away from self defense but toward pre-meditation?
In any event, no. It really has nothing at all to do with self defense, because I am entitled to follow you wherever I damn well please while in public, even if I'm armed, and even if the police say its unnecessary. There's no forfeiting a right to self defense arising out of that.
That's my point. You can't look at the physical evidence and say "oh, this must have happened" - which makes the people screaming "Zimmerman is clearly innocent" as ridiculous to me as the ones screaming that he's obviously guilty.We'll never know points 2 or 3. Zimm would never admit either.
Let's let all of the evidence come in and decide from there. And "decide" will likely mean nothing more than saying either "he probably didn't do it, but he might have" (not guilty, not civilly liable, but always under suspicion) or "he probably did it, but I'm not sure" (not guilty but civilly liable).
Anyone who is looking for a definitive ending from this is probably going to be disappointed.
TBH I am no longer following the case. This will become a small scale OJ trial and no matter the evidence the court of public opinion will never be swayed one way or the other. Just hope that it doesn't pollute the jury.
The only thing I am still trying to figure out is what a White Hispanic is. And is there a such thing as a Black Hispanic?
What you obviously didn't read is that he did not break the LAW by following Martin. That's what matters here. Not what some dingbat says are RULES.
Was he possibly a little more harrassing than he needed to be? Maybe. But certainly still does not constitute breaking the law or any rules.
Did his power possibly go to his head and he was a cop "wannabe" as the article states? POSSIBLY. But only possibly and that still does not constitute breaking the law or any so called RULES.