You're not presenting evidence. You're speculating based on points that have no bearing on the case, trying paint GZ as being aggressive. I could take the same points (following someone, etc.) and paint GZ as a vigilant person who cared about the safety of his neighbors and their property.
Eyewitness testimony, injury reports (the only REAL, hard evidence in this case) points to Zimmerman's story being true. At the very least it provides grounds for acquittal based on reasonable doubt.
In regards to "legal ignorance", I've seen much more ignorance of legal procedure on the anti-Zimmerman side than among his supporters. Yes, some of his supporters are racists. Most, however, myself included, are concerned that a.) a man is being railroaded by the media and the justice system in a case that was clearly self-defense and b.) the implications that a guilty verdict could have on the right to self-defense.
I am not indifferent to Trayvon's death. I don't belittle him. I don't doubt that his family has suffered a lot during the past year and a half. However, the facts presented in this case so far strongly lean on the side of the defendant.
In response to Jim Collins:
"Fact: Zimmerman was NOT a Captain with the local Neighborhood Watch like he claimed."
If true, so what? It has no bearing on the case, just like Trayvon's past should have no bearing on the case.
"Fact: The local Neighborhood Watch was only to observe and report ANY irregularities and suspected criminal activity in the area. They were not authorized to interfere UNLESS a life was in danger, per police procedure."
The policy of a neighborhood watch has no bearing on self-defense law. If he violated the policy, that's the business of the neighborhood watch. He didn't commit a crime by violating the policy. Your point is irrelevant.
"Fact: Zimmerman was instructed NOT to exit his car and NOT to pursue Mr. Martin."
No, he wasn't. He was told "We don't need you to do that" by the DISPATCHER, who is not a police officer and has no authority. Again, he did not break any law.
"Fact: By the act of pursuing, Zimmerman DID become a stalker, and was in violation of his Neighborhood Watch procedures. The act of stalking is considered an aggressive act, and hence, Martin was entitled to defend himself."
Apparently we are now unable to follow someone who we find to be suspicious. I would like for you to point to the Florida law or court precedent that states that pursuing someone to help police determine their location makes you a "stalker", and that being a "stalker" is an aggressive act that forfeits your right to self-defense.
"Fact: There is NO evidence that Zimmerman"s head was repeatedly pounded on the sidewalk, as he has repeatedly claimed. There were cuts on his scalp, but the Medical Examiner declared they were inconsistent with his claim. There was also a complete absence of blood and/or flesh on the sidewalk."
The medical examiner you are referencing only looked at photographs. She did not examine the injuries first hand. Her testimony also contradicts that of medical responders who were at the scene. You're also forgetting his black eyes and bloody nose.
"Fact: Zimmerman failed to walk away from and avoid any potential confrontation, as were his instructions via the Neighborhood Watch."
Again, it doesn't matter what the neighborhood watch says. They do not have the force of law and it is not illegal to violate their policy. And it has nothing to do with the self-defense aspect of this case.
"Fact: Considering he was being stalked by a suspicious person in the dark, who was aggressive in both speech and act, Mr. Martin was entitled to legally protect himself as he saw fit. Mr.Martin had NO weapon except a can of tea and a bag of skittles, was NOT the aggressor, and had a perfect legal right to be in the neighborhood."
"Fact: Zimmerman had NO knowledge of Mr. Martin's legal history nor knew anything
except Mr. Martin was BLACK."
He also knew that he had never seen him in the neighborhood before. Even if he did find him suspicious because he was black, that is NOT a crime. It is not illegal to be a racist and it's not illegal for private citizens to racially profile someone. The race aspects of this case are completely irrelevant to the issues before the court.
"Given that the only other witness to the altercation in it's entirety is dead. Unless there is any other evidence we are not aware of, Zimmerman is guilty in the least of manslaughter due to his aggressive and unlawful activity in direct violation of Neighborhood Watch policy and Police instruction, IMHO!"
Again, who cares if he violated NW policy. And I've already shown that he was not instructed to stop pursuing Martin. "We don't need you to do that" does not mean "do not follow him."
"White Trash Sheriff"? Excuse me?
John R, thanks. Still not taking sides either way (doesn't matter to me), was just curious. Kudos.
Can someone tell me the reason why people think gast/bobsguns/zoombah are actually one person? Not taking a side either way, I'm just curious as to the evidence.
"Not much faith in that God, huh?"
Not much respect for other peoples' faith, huh?
2 million incidents of defensive gun usage per year. 63% of which occurred outside the home.
All Comments »
The SouthComm Set
The City Paper |
LEO Weekly |
Medical News Papers
All contents © 1995-2013
City Press LLC, 210 12th Ave. S., Ste. 100, Nashville, TN 37203. (615) 244-7989.
All rights reserved. No part of this service may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of City Press LLC,
except that an individual may download and/or forward articles via email to a reasonable number of recipients for personal, non-commercial purposes.
Powered by Foundation