Oh Boy! Another newb who hasn't researched a single available fact beyond what MSLSD, HuffPo, Nancy Grace, Piers Morgan, CNN, the LA and NY Times and Al "Tawanna Brawley" Sharpton has spoon fed him.
Pursue innocent people that are walking in our neighborhood when there's no threat.
This is the only point that you make about the Zimmerman/Martin case that has a fair amount of validity to it. But....
You have to ask, ” What is the intent of GZ action?” He called the police, they said they'd handle it.
You don't have to ask what his intent was before he and Trayvon actually met up. From that point on, the three or four minutes previous are irrelevant to what's being decided in the trial. The jury will be charged with determining what his intent was at the point he pulled the trigger. His answer is self defense. The state's answer is 2nd degree murder. Two
very important points here though. The state itself is who put the evidence of self defense on the record, thus doubling their own burden of proof. In FL, self defense is an affirmative defense, meaning that as long as there is prima facie evidence of the shooter suffering great bodily harm or death if he doesn't escalate the level of force in response, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it
wasn't self defense. It is assumed that he (Zimmerman) had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger, and unless the state proves otherwise, he walks before the jury even gets to murder 2.
So let's fantasize that there is a scintilla of evidence that would disprove Z's claim of self defense, the jury decides it's not, and they move on to murder 2. Then the state has to prove to them beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's actions demonstrated ill will and a depraved mind without regard for human life. Taking a beating for at least 45 seconds before drawing and firing his weapon hardly approaches that threshold of the law.
But it literally doesn't matter, as long as the jury follows the law, because if they do, there is no evidence to hang their hats on that the burden of proof that it wasn't self defense has been met by the state. Game over. The following, the referring to Trayvon as an a-hole or f'ing punk on the non-emergency call he made doesn't speak at all to whether or not he had a reasonable belief at the time he pulled the trigger that his life was in danger, but his injuries and consistent recounting of how he got them speaks volumes to that point.
In chl/ccw class we are taught to not engage unless your life or someone elses is threatened. There's was no threat. So what was GZ intent?
I think it's safe to say that as Trayvon was bouncing his head off the concrete trying to crack it open like an eggshell, that Zimmerman's intent was to save his own life. Unless the jury thinks that Zimmerman quickly gave himself those injuries before the neighbors started coming out with flashlights and the cops got there just a few seconds later, all because he's such an evil genius that he anticipated that he'd need injuries to sustain a claim of self defense, I think proving beyond a reasonable doubt that self defense is not an available defense in this trial has already been blown completely out of the water. And the ironic thing is, it was the prosecution that brought much of that evidence out.
I don't want some vigilantly taking the law into their own hands. GZ did fine until he stopped listening to the 911 dispatcher when told not to pursue.
And the evidence that's on the record that he did, indeed, pursue Martin is what again? Between the time that Z lost sight of M, when he said, "Sh!t, he's running" and finished the call with the dispatcher, more than two full minutes had passed when Martin could have been walking straight down the same sidewalk where the altercation took place to where he and his father were staying that night. Instead, he stayed in the area, or came back to it as the case may be, and even the friend-girl on the phone with Trayvon says that
he made the first verbal contact with Zimmerman, saying, "What are you following me for?" That was seconds after Z had hung up with dispatch, and more than two minutes after losing sight of Martin. The circumstantial evidence is much more weighted towards the premise that Martin laid in wait for Zimmerman as he was returning to his truck.
And hey, don't take my word for it,
listen and time it for yourself.
I honestly would be shocked if he doesn't serve prison time.
And I honestly would have been shocked if you hadn't said that, considering how ill-informed you are about the available facts and circumstantial evidence.
Yes, very well.
What a circus side show. The show clouded the truth.
Not really. For one thing, the two cases aren't comparable at all. OJ had no claim at all of self defense, valid or not. Zimmerman never was a beloved celebrity, and of course now, never will be.
Aside from that though, there is a similarity between the two cases. Both reveal(ed) the incompetence of the respective prosecutor's offices. In this case, the prosecutors introduced the evidence that made it a self defense case after getting a freebie from the defense by their declining to force a "Stand Your Ground" hearing. In OJ's case, the prosecution fought tooth and nail to force Simpson to put the bloody gloves on, and guess what? They didn't fit! Not even close! Take the rubber gloves off, and they still wouldn't have even been close. BOOM! The prosecutors introduced reasonable doubt in just that one bungled demonstration, but there were lots of other problems that they brought upon themselves.
Other than that, there is no relationship to the facts of the two cases. It's really a poor juxtaposition.
Simply look at motive & intent.
Indeed. You might try to take your own advice in that regard before posting again on the subject.
Blues
