I could just as easily say it’s proof that he fought back when Zimmerman accosted him.
They will not allow any facts to get in the way of the narrative. That this type of ridiculous argument isn’t laughed out of existence demonstrates how low our society has fallen.
Why is it ridiculous? Martin is being followed by some strange dude. He has no duty to retreat and the same right of self-defense as Zimmerman.
Um, no.
Half of all people on the street are in front of you, half are behind you. Of the half behind you, half are walking the same way you are. You don’t have a right to attack a fourth of the people on a public street in a furious assault, just because they were following you.
If you doubt this, try it and then argue your position in front of a judge. You’ll probably get an extra long sentence for being a danger to the general public.
It is ridiculous because… Really Chris? I have to explain this to you?
Because the wounds both have, while they say nothing about what happened before, say that Martin attacked Zimmerman with absolutely no wiggle room for any other conclusion. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
You can continue to argue about before as I’m sure you will but then there is another uncontested fact. They were not in a physical fight until they were; which bares repeating, shows one inescapable conclusion. Martin attacked Zimmerman.
He has no duty to retreat
Yes, as opposed to assault and battery, he does.
I’d like to buy a copy of your space pirates book but this illogic gives me pause.
Ken, I don’t agree with that there is one inescapable conlusion that Martin attacked Zimmerman. But it simply doesn’t matter. Witnesses claim Zimmerman was injured. At least one claims Treyvon was punching Zimmerman and on top of him. I fight occurred. Who started it is, from what I’ve seen, inconclusive; which is just another way of saying reasonable doubt exists that Zimmerman criminally murdered Treyvon.
Chris,
You do not have the legal right to commit assault and battery on someone simply because they follow you and ask you a question that makes you uncomfortable.
Look up your states criminal code at your Seceratary fo States website and review the section on what constitutes simple and agrivated assault as well as battery. I can follow you all day long in a public space and be 100% legal. As soon as you turn and attack me, you are legally bought and paid for.
It appears that Martin followed Zimmerman after Zimmerman broke off pursuit and attacked him. Likely for ‘disrespecting’ him.
Not only did he assault and batter Zimmerman, he continued to do so after Zimmerman was on the ground and had ceased being a threat.
Zimmerman likely at this time believed he was being beaten to death by a person he believed was in the neighborhood casing it for a future robbery attempt. This belief was reinforced by the agressivenes fo Martin’s attack. He was on the ground being pummeled. He was at the mercy of his assailant (whom he believed he had interruped in a criminal act) and likely felt he had one chance to free himself before he risked being knocked unconsciencous. He excersized his only option to defend his life against what he percieved as a credible mortal threat and used his pistol before he was knocked unconscienous and lost control of hsi weapon.
If you are simply being followed with no verbailized or implied therat (someone smacking a bat ro club or drawing a weapon) then the apropriate response is to flee and call 911. If you end up defending yourself after that, it makes your position much more in line with what a ‘reasonable man’ would be expected to do.
They do, however, pretty much indicate Zimmerman didn’t approach with his gun out. You don’t waste your first, best punch on a guy’s nose when he’s got a gun out. Even a freaking moron should know that.
Which, actually, is the only serious line that has any hope of being considered ‘not self-defense’.
And “accosted” is not “assaulted”. “Hey you, get off my lawn!” is accosting someone. It is a confrontation. It is not, however, -assault-. Particularly with the gun not drawn or brandished.
So Zimmerman punched Martin in the fist with his nose, and then shot him. And the recoil caused him to fall over backward. Still hangs together for me…
No, He punched him in one fist with his nose and then punched him in the other fist with his lips. Because there was blood on both of Trayvon’s delicate little hands. Facts man! You gotta pay attention to the facts.
until today, all we had is Zimmerman’s word that he was in a fight. His word is suspect, since if he wasn’t in a fight he was headed straight for jail.
Now we have evidence of a fight. We still don’t know who started it or why. That’s what a jury should decide.
Actually, there was a picture of blood pouring down the back of Zimmerman’s head taken by his neighbor 3 minutes after the shooting, so the period of doubt was about three minutes, less if you consider that one of the neighbors saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top of him and was calling 911 when the shooting occured.
All the witnesses confirmed that Zimmerman was in a fight, as did the EMT’s and police. We can be almost certain who started it from the statements of Trayvon’s girlfriend, who said Trayvon screamed at Zimmerman and then moved to confront him. Zimmerman, about to finish a course in criminal justice, would be highly unlikely to start a fist fight while he had a gun in his waistband and police on the way.
Zimmerman had wounds consistent with getting pummeled. Trayvon had wounds consistent with delivering a pummeling, and apparently no wounds consistent with being hit even once by Zimmerman, or the coroner would’ve produced that evidence when he released the information that Trayvon’s knuckles were bloody.
So to a juror, who must decide in Zimmerman’s favor if there is a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder, the preponderance of evidence says that Zimmerman isn’t even guilty of simple assault. There’s not even enough evidence to convict him of harrassment or intimidation, as there is still no evidence that he ever said a cross word to Martin prior to Martin charging at him.
And you’d have to establish those things to even get a chance at making a manslaughter charge stick, much less murder, because the shooting is a seperate issue from who initiated the confrontation. For example, you’re drunk at a bar and a cop or bouncer starts to confront you, even rising to assault to throw you out. If you knock him to the ground, pummel him, and try to grab his gun, he can shoot you and it doesn’t matter a bit that he started the altercation. You were putting his life in danger, he stopped you, end of story.
Every piece of evidence that comes out supports Zimmerman’s version of events. None supports the claims made against him. A jury doesn’t have to decide who started the fight, all they have to decide is that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started it, and as of yet there doesn’t seem to be a shred of evidence that he did, weighed against plenty of evidence that he probably didn’t. And that’s just for a charge of assault. Making a murder charge stick is ludicrous.
We still don’t know who started it or why. That’s what a jury should decide.
Why is completely irrelevant. If nobody (except Zimmerman, who can’t be compelled to testify against himself, and Treyvon, who is dead) knows who started it, then the jury’s decision should be a reasonable doubt exists and exonerate Zimmerman. That’s what the jurors instructions compel to them to do.
until today, all we had is Zimmerman’s word that he was in a fight.
Again with the failed narrative… from the beginning a witness claimed to have saw Treyvon on top of Zimmerman beating him in the face. Local television reporters interviewed the witness. That a fight occurred is old news.
Zimmerman can follow Martin all he wants, he can even say nasty things to him…. until Zimmerman initiates some kind of physical assault Martin can not assault Zimmerman with out being the aggressor. Once Martin makes the confrontation physical and bloody fists on martin say he did…. then if at any time Zimmerman feels his life is at risk of bodily harm then it is within his rights to shoot Martin. The quote “an armed society is a polite society” is not a joke. When the society is armed simple battery risks your own life, as it should. Use of physical force FIRST should never be condoned in a civilized society. The evidence seems to show that Martin received no injuries other than the gun shot wound, and that he did inflict injuries on Zimmerman, that’s all one needs to know to put Zimmerman in the clear.
The evidence of a fight does not prove who started the fight. Zimmerman was convicted of assaulting a police officer, fired from a security job for being too forceful, and had a restraining order against him. Using the Marine Corp rule (once =accident, twice = coincidence, three times = enemy action) Zimmerman has a tendency to be hot-tempered and physically violent.
There is, in short, no reason to believe that Zimmerman quietly went up and said, “pray tell, young sir, what brings you to these parts?” There is reasonable suspicion that Zimmerman grabbed or otherwise tried to detain Martin.
M. Puckett and Ken Anthony – you both are simply wrong on the law. In Florida (and my home state, Illinois), you can stand your ground. Martin had every lawful right to be where he was. There was no duty for Martin to “flee and call 911.”
Leland – the jury may indeed decide, based on reasonable doubt, to find Zimmerman not guilty. But that’s a call for a jury to make, not a State’s Attorney. And that is what the protesters have been calling for – a jury trial.
If Treyvon had a cell phone and felt threatened, why did he call his girlfriend instead of dialing 911?
I thought his girlfriend called him.
Nope. There is no record of her ever calling 911.
Jiminator’s question was why did Martin not call 911. He didn’t call because he was on the phone with his girlfriend who had called him.
How did his girlfirend in the Miami area call Sanford 911?
There is no evidence she called them at all. A cell phone log would end that controversy easily.
Okay. Then why didn’t he tell her “Can’t talk. I am being attacked, I gotta call 911 now” or beg her to call 911 on his behalf?
Leland – the jury may indeed decide, based on reasonable doubt, to find Zimmerman not guilty. But that’s a call for a jury to make, not a State’s Attorney. And that is what the protesters have been calling for – a jury trial.
Are you against prosecutorial discretion?
I’m not against prosecutorial discretion. I don’t like it, but I understand it. For example, let’s say, as seems increasingly apparent, that Zimmerman gets exonerated based on the Prosecutor Correy’s inability to prove 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Later someone comes forward with solid evidence that Zimmerman and Martin had a previous confrontation on another date, neither were strangers to each other, and during that confrontation, Zimmerman threatened to kill Martin if he ever saw him again. Now we have evidence sufficient for 1st degree murder. But wait a moment, Angela Correy already tried Zimmerman for this crime and a jury exonerated him. The new evidence is moot, because Zimmerman can not face double jeopardy.
Alas, Zimmerman is in Florida, so my family is safe from him. If the taxpayers of Florida want to waste money with trials based on flimsy evidence, go right ahead. If they get lucky and take a registered Democrat off the streets and away from the polls; that’s just a bonus. But I’m still pissed the federal government wasted money investigating the potential of a hate crime for black on black violence. I blame AG Holder for this stupidity.
Leland, I bet Zimmerman is now no more of a Democrat than you are. He got mugged.
“M. Puckett and Ken Anthony – you both are simply wrong on the law. In Florida (and my home state, Illinois), you can stand your ground. Martin had every lawful right to be where he was. There was no duty for Martin to “flee and call 911.” ”
Where am I wrong on the law? You do understand that althought I am not a convetional LEO, I am Law Enforcement and do know a thing or two about the law and apply it on a near-daily basis. Writing up a report right now in fact where I cite the law violated.
Yeah, he could have just stood there and be 100% legal. Mabey not smart but legal. When he chose to assault Zimmerman, as the preponderence of physical evidence now supports, is when he broke the law. Martin had no right to assualt someone for simply following him.
If I am in a situation that I think could escilate to the use of force, you can dam sur ebet I am going to call 911 first if I can safely do so and get my story on record whether I am legally obliged or not. This can only help me.
And I doubt it goes to a Jury Trial, the Judge will likely end up throwing this out at the preliminary hearing. The requirement is not Zimmerman prove his innocence, it is the state prove his guilt and it is becoming increasingly apparent that they did not even meet the necessary burden to support charges in the first place. The whole thing reeks of prosecutorial misconduct.
“The evidence of a fight does not prove who started the fight. Zimmerman was convicted of assaulting a police officer, fired from a security job for being too forceful, and had a restraining order against him. Using the Marine Corp rule (once =accident, twice = coincidence, three times = enemy action) Zimmerman has a tendency to be hot-tempered and physically violent.”
The evidence shows Martin had lacerations on his hands consistant with using them to commit battery. Other than the gunshot wounds, there were not other apparent injuries. This strongly infers that he iniates the physical contact.
And again, Zimmerman does NOT have to prove he did not start the fight, the state has to prove that he did and there are absolutely no witnesses nor a scintilla of physical evidence to support he did.
You are correct as to the burden of proof. You are incorrect in assuming that Martin chose to assault Zimmerman. We don’t know who chose to assault who first, nor do we know when Martin became aware of Zimmerman’s gun. Remember from Zimmerman’s apology in court – he assumed Martin was armed.
You are also correct in saying that the smart tactical thing to do would have been for Martin to run home. There is no legal burden for him to do so. Stand Your Ground means exactly what it says.
The physical evidence is consistant with Martin starting the fight.
The only injuries he incurred was to his kunckles and the gunshot wound that ended the confrontation. There is no evidence that Zimmerman otherwise struck him.
Zimmerman showed two black eyes, a broken nose and wounds to the back of his head strongly indicating that he was being battered repeatedly.
Actually, one of the witness reports now out says that Martin attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle after getting a street number for the 911 operater, with a punch to Zimmerman’s face that Zimmerman said broke his nose (and his doctor confirmed that his nose was broken). The police tape then records Zimmerman calling for help 11 times before the gun was fired, and one of the witnesses confirms that Zimmerman was down, being beaten, and calling for help.
George, scroll down to the bottom of the thread and find my post labeled 3:39.
I’ve posted twice in response to you Leland, but they don’t seem to be getting through.
What was the response? It’s not like I’m deleting them.
I was replying to a lowest level nest (that has a reply link) and they just didn’t post.
I don’t agree with that there is one inescapable conlusion
Your point is clear and I was just beating the weeds.
I figured. Also, I wrote my comment without knowing the information about Treyvon’s autopsy. The autopsy adds a lot more credibility that the fisticuffs part of the fight was by Treyvon only. If your response was along those lines, then you are right; I missed it.
Trayvon Martin had drugs in his system. This farce is getting more absurd by the day.
“Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, had the drug THC [marijuana] in his system the night of this death, according to new information obtained by ABC News.”
This is a travesty. Angela Correy should be disbarred for Prosecutorial Abuse. She needs to be Nifonged.
“One resident told the investigator that he heard a commotion and when he investigated, “he witnessed a black male, wearing a dark colored “hoodie” on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help. He elaborated by stating that black male was mounted on the white or Hispanic male and throwing punches “MMA (mixed martial arts) style.” He stated he yelled out to the two individuals that he was going to call the police. He then heard a “pop.” He stated that after hearing the “pop,” he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the black male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass.”
I could just as easily say it’s proof that he fought back when Zimmerman accosted him.
They will not allow any facts to get in the way of the narrative. That this type of ridiculous argument isn’t laughed out of existence demonstrates how low our society has fallen.
Why is it ridiculous? Martin is being followed by some strange dude. He has no duty to retreat and the same right of self-defense as Zimmerman.
Um, no.
Half of all people on the street are in front of you, half are behind you. Of the half behind you, half are walking the same way you are. You don’t have a right to attack a fourth of the people on a public street in a furious assault, just because they were following you.
If you doubt this, try it and then argue your position in front of a judge. You’ll probably get an extra long sentence for being a danger to the general public.
It is ridiculous because… Really Chris? I have to explain this to you?
Because the wounds both have, while they say nothing about what happened before, say that Martin attacked Zimmerman with absolutely no wiggle room for any other conclusion. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
You can continue to argue about before as I’m sure you will but then there is another uncontested fact. They were not in a physical fight until they were; which bares repeating, shows one inescapable conclusion. Martin attacked Zimmerman.
He has no duty to retreat
Yes, as opposed to assault and battery, he does.
I’d like to buy a copy of your space pirates book but this illogic gives me pause.
Ken, I don’t agree with that there is one inescapable conlusion that Martin attacked Zimmerman. But it simply doesn’t matter. Witnesses claim Zimmerman was injured. At least one claims Treyvon was punching Zimmerman and on top of him. I fight occurred. Who started it is, from what I’ve seen, inconclusive; which is just another way of saying reasonable doubt exists that Zimmerman criminally murdered Treyvon.
Chris,
You do not have the legal right to commit assault and battery on someone simply because they follow you and ask you a question that makes you uncomfortable.
Look up your states criminal code at your Seceratary fo States website and review the section on what constitutes simple and agrivated assault as well as battery. I can follow you all day long in a public space and be 100% legal. As soon as you turn and attack me, you are legally bought and paid for.
It appears that Martin followed Zimmerman after Zimmerman broke off pursuit and attacked him. Likely for ‘disrespecting’ him.
Not only did he assault and batter Zimmerman, he continued to do so after Zimmerman was on the ground and had ceased being a threat.
Zimmerman likely at this time believed he was being beaten to death by a person he believed was in the neighborhood casing it for a future robbery attempt. This belief was reinforced by the agressivenes fo Martin’s attack. He was on the ground being pummeled. He was at the mercy of his assailant (whom he believed he had interruped in a criminal act) and likely felt he had one chance to free himself before he risked being knocked unconsciencous. He excersized his only option to defend his life against what he percieved as a credible mortal threat and used his pistol before he was knocked unconscienous and lost control of hsi weapon.
If you are simply being followed with no verbailized or implied therat (someone smacking a bat ro club or drawing a weapon) then the apropriate response is to flee and call 911. If you end up defending yourself after that, it makes your position much more in line with what a ‘reasonable man’ would be expected to do.
They do, however, pretty much indicate Zimmerman didn’t approach with his gun out. You don’t waste your first, best punch on a guy’s nose when he’s got a gun out. Even a freaking moron should know that.
Which, actually, is the only serious line that has any hope of being considered ‘not self-defense’.
And “accosted” is not “assaulted”. “Hey you, get off my lawn!” is accosting someone. It is a confrontation. It is not, however, -assault-. Particularly with the gun not drawn or brandished.
So Zimmerman punched Martin in the fist with his nose, and then shot him. And the recoil caused him to fall over backward. Still hangs together for me…
No, He punched him in one fist with his nose and then punched him in the other fist with his lips. Because there was blood on both of Trayvon’s delicate little hands. Facts man! You gotta pay attention to the facts.
until today, all we had is Zimmerman’s word that he was in a fight. His word is suspect, since if he wasn’t in a fight he was headed straight for jail.
Now we have evidence of a fight. We still don’t know who started it or why. That’s what a jury should decide.
Actually, there was a picture of blood pouring down the back of Zimmerman’s head taken by his neighbor 3 minutes after the shooting, so the period of doubt was about three minutes, less if you consider that one of the neighbors saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top of him and was calling 911 when the shooting occured.
All the witnesses confirmed that Zimmerman was in a fight, as did the EMT’s and police. We can be almost certain who started it from the statements of Trayvon’s girlfriend, who said Trayvon screamed at Zimmerman and then moved to confront him. Zimmerman, about to finish a course in criminal justice, would be highly unlikely to start a fist fight while he had a gun in his waistband and police on the way.
Zimmerman had wounds consistent with getting pummeled. Trayvon had wounds consistent with delivering a pummeling, and apparently no wounds consistent with being hit even once by Zimmerman, or the coroner would’ve produced that evidence when he released the information that Trayvon’s knuckles were bloody.
So to a juror, who must decide in Zimmerman’s favor if there is a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder, the preponderance of evidence says that Zimmerman isn’t even guilty of simple assault. There’s not even enough evidence to convict him of harrassment or intimidation, as there is still no evidence that he ever said a cross word to Martin prior to Martin charging at him.
And you’d have to establish those things to even get a chance at making a manslaughter charge stick, much less murder, because the shooting is a seperate issue from who initiated the confrontation. For example, you’re drunk at a bar and a cop or bouncer starts to confront you, even rising to assault to throw you out. If you knock him to the ground, pummel him, and try to grab his gun, he can shoot you and it doesn’t matter a bit that he started the altercation. You were putting his life in danger, he stopped you, end of story.
Every piece of evidence that comes out supports Zimmerman’s version of events. None supports the claims made against him. A jury doesn’t have to decide who started the fight, all they have to decide is that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started it, and as of yet there doesn’t seem to be a shred of evidence that he did, weighed against plenty of evidence that he probably didn’t. And that’s just for a charge of assault. Making a murder charge stick is ludicrous.
We still don’t know who started it or why. That’s what a jury should decide.
Why is completely irrelevant. If nobody (except Zimmerman, who can’t be compelled to testify against himself, and Treyvon, who is dead) knows who started it, then the jury’s decision should be a reasonable doubt exists and exonerate Zimmerman. That’s what the jurors instructions compel to them to do.
until today, all we had is Zimmerman’s word that he was in a fight.
Again with the failed narrative… from the beginning a witness claimed to have saw Treyvon on top of Zimmerman beating him in the face. Local television reporters interviewed the witness. That a fight occurred is old news.
Zimmerman can follow Martin all he wants, he can even say nasty things to him…. until Zimmerman initiates some kind of physical assault Martin can not assault Zimmerman with out being the aggressor. Once Martin makes the confrontation physical and bloody fists on martin say he did…. then if at any time Zimmerman feels his life is at risk of bodily harm then it is within his rights to shoot Martin. The quote “an armed society is a polite society” is not a joke. When the society is armed simple battery risks your own life, as it should. Use of physical force FIRST should never be condoned in a civilized society. The evidence seems to show that Martin received no injuries other than the gun shot wound, and that he did inflict injuries on Zimmerman, that’s all one needs to know to put Zimmerman in the clear.
The evidence of a fight does not prove who started the fight. Zimmerman was convicted of assaulting a police officer, fired from a security job for being too forceful, and had a restraining order against him. Using the Marine Corp rule (once =accident, twice = coincidence, three times = enemy action) Zimmerman has a tendency to be hot-tempered and physically violent.
There is, in short, no reason to believe that Zimmerman quietly went up and said, “pray tell, young sir, what brings you to these parts?” There is reasonable suspicion that Zimmerman grabbed or otherwise tried to detain Martin.
M. Puckett and Ken Anthony – you both are simply wrong on the law. In Florida (and my home state, Illinois), you can stand your ground. Martin had every lawful right to be where he was. There was no duty for Martin to “flee and call 911.”
Leland – the jury may indeed decide, based on reasonable doubt, to find Zimmerman not guilty. But that’s a call for a jury to make, not a State’s Attorney. And that is what the protesters have been calling for – a jury trial.
If Treyvon had a cell phone and felt threatened, why did he call his girlfriend instead of dialing 911?
I thought his girlfriend called him.
Nope. There is no record of her ever calling 911.
Jiminator’s question was why did Martin not call 911. He didn’t call because he was on the phone with his girlfriend who had called him.
How did his girlfirend in the Miami area call Sanford 911?
There is no evidence she called them at all. A cell phone log would end that controversy easily.
Okay. Then why didn’t he tell her “Can’t talk. I am being attacked, I gotta call 911 now” or beg her to call 911 on his behalf?
Leland – the jury may indeed decide, based on reasonable doubt, to find Zimmerman not guilty. But that’s a call for a jury to make, not a State’s Attorney. And that is what the protesters have been calling for – a jury trial.
Are you against prosecutorial discretion?
I’m not against prosecutorial discretion. I don’t like it, but I understand it. For example, let’s say, as seems increasingly apparent, that Zimmerman gets exonerated based on the Prosecutor Correy’s inability to prove 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Later someone comes forward with solid evidence that Zimmerman and Martin had a previous confrontation on another date, neither were strangers to each other, and during that confrontation, Zimmerman threatened to kill Martin if he ever saw him again. Now we have evidence sufficient for 1st degree murder. But wait a moment, Angela Correy already tried Zimmerman for this crime and a jury exonerated him. The new evidence is moot, because Zimmerman can not face double jeopardy.
Alas, Zimmerman is in Florida, so my family is safe from him. If the taxpayers of Florida want to waste money with trials based on flimsy evidence, go right ahead. If they get lucky and take a registered Democrat off the streets and away from the polls; that’s just a bonus. But I’m still pissed the federal government wasted money investigating the potential of a hate crime for black on black violence. I blame AG Holder for this stupidity.
Leland, I bet Zimmerman is now no more of a Democrat than you are. He got mugged.
“M. Puckett and Ken Anthony – you both are simply wrong on the law. In Florida (and my home state, Illinois), you can stand your ground. Martin had every lawful right to be where he was. There was no duty for Martin to “flee and call 911.” ”
Where am I wrong on the law? You do understand that althought I am not a convetional LEO, I am Law Enforcement and do know a thing or two about the law and apply it on a near-daily basis. Writing up a report right now in fact where I cite the law violated.
Yeah, he could have just stood there and be 100% legal. Mabey not smart but legal. When he chose to assault Zimmerman, as the preponderence of physical evidence now supports, is when he broke the law. Martin had no right to assualt someone for simply following him.
If I am in a situation that I think could escilate to the use of force, you can dam sur ebet I am going to call 911 first if I can safely do so and get my story on record whether I am legally obliged or not. This can only help me.
And I doubt it goes to a Jury Trial, the Judge will likely end up throwing this out at the preliminary hearing. The requirement is not Zimmerman prove his innocence, it is the state prove his guilt and it is becoming increasingly apparent that they did not even meet the necessary burden to support charges in the first place. The whole thing reeks of prosecutorial misconduct.
“The evidence of a fight does not prove who started the fight. Zimmerman was convicted of assaulting a police officer, fired from a security job for being too forceful, and had a restraining order against him. Using the Marine Corp rule (once =accident, twice = coincidence, three times = enemy action) Zimmerman has a tendency to be hot-tempered and physically violent.”
The evidence shows Martin had lacerations on his hands consistant with using them to commit battery. Other than the gunshot wounds, there were not other apparent injuries. This strongly infers that he iniates the physical contact.
And again, Zimmerman does NOT have to prove he did not start the fight, the state has to prove that he did and there are absolutely no witnesses nor a scintilla of physical evidence to support he did.
You are correct as to the burden of proof. You are incorrect in assuming that Martin chose to assault Zimmerman. We don’t know who chose to assault who first, nor do we know when Martin became aware of Zimmerman’s gun. Remember from Zimmerman’s apology in court – he assumed Martin was armed.
You are also correct in saying that the smart tactical thing to do would have been for Martin to run home. There is no legal burden for him to do so. Stand Your Ground means exactly what it says.
The physical evidence is consistant with Martin starting the fight.
The only injuries he incurred was to his kunckles and the gunshot wound that ended the confrontation. There is no evidence that Zimmerman otherwise struck him.
Zimmerman showed two black eyes, a broken nose and wounds to the back of his head strongly indicating that he was being battered repeatedly.
Actually, one of the witness reports now out says that Martin attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle after getting a street number for the 911 operater, with a punch to Zimmerman’s face that Zimmerman said broke his nose (and his doctor confirmed that his nose was broken). The police tape then records Zimmerman calling for help 11 times before the gun was fired, and one of the witnesses confirms that Zimmerman was down, being beaten, and calling for help.
George, scroll down to the bottom of the thread and find my post labeled 3:39.
I’ve posted twice in response to you Leland, but they don’t seem to be getting through.
What was the response? It’s not like I’m deleting them.
I was replying to a lowest level nest (that has a reply link) and they just didn’t post.
I don’t agree with that there is one inescapable conlusion
Your point is clear and I was just beating the weeds.
I figured. Also, I wrote my comment without knowing the information about Treyvon’s autopsy. The autopsy adds a lot more credibility that the fisticuffs part of the fight was by Treyvon only. If your response was along those lines, then you are right; I missed it.
Trayvon Martin had drugs in his system. This farce is getting more absurd by the day.
“Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, had the drug THC [marijuana] in his system the night of this death, according to new information obtained by ABC News.”
This is a travesty. Angela Correy should be disbarred for Prosecutorial Abuse. She needs to be Nifonged.
“One resident told the investigator that he heard a commotion and when he investigated, “he witnessed a black male, wearing a dark colored “hoodie” on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help. He elaborated by stating that black male was mounted on the white or Hispanic male and throwing punches “MMA (mixed martial arts) style.” He stated he yelled out to the two individuals that he was going to call the police. He then heard a “pop.” He stated that after hearing the “pop,” he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the black male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass.”