this just shot the prosecutions case right in the ass. the only things they have left are the miniscule amount of forensics available and the mindset of the jury. this should be a better theatrical show than the OJ trial.
Not necessarily. The recent report about Zimmerman's injuries make clear that no 'life and death' struggle took place. Also, the last witness characterizes Zimmerman's reaction after the shooting as being pretty callous.
the report about injuries alone clearly provides logical reasoning that someone could be in fear of their life or serious bodily injury, so SYG should apply. In the event of a conviction, the appeal will will force the trial judge to accept that and have him retried. and if lack of crying/sobbing/tears is an indicator of depraved indifference, I will make sure I say nothing until i'm in a closed room, should I ever have to shoot anyone.
yes, it does depend on who the aggressor/initiator is, but then we're back to having to prove that zimmerman chased down martin, which at this point is still only wildly based speculation at best.SYG depends on who boxed in or chased who.
yes, it does depend on who the aggressor/initiator is, but then we're back to having to prove that zimmerman chased down martin, which at this point is still only wildly based speculation at best.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.there is no question that he was following Martin.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
as I said, nothing but wild speculationYou're correct, which is why the testimony of Martin's girlfriend about her phone call with Martin will be key, as is the fact that Zimmerman chose to pursue Martin against the advice of the dispatcher, his track record of making numerous 9/11 calls, his profiling of and obsession with young black males in the neighborhood, and the fact that he was armed.
Yes, all of that will figure in.
this just shot the prosecutions case right in the ass. the only things they have left are the miniscule amount of forensics available and the mindset of the jury. this should be a better theatrical show than the OJ trial.
Three changed their stories in ways that may damage Zimmerman.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
following is not a crime, nor is it an element establishing culpability in the confrontation. It's all about intent in initiating violent confrontation and that cannot be proven with the evidence we've heard about so far.
as I said, nothing but wild speculation
as is the fact that Zimmerman chose to pursue Martin against the advice of the dispatcher,
his track record of making numerous 9/11 calls,
his profiling of and obsession with young black males in the neighborhood,
and the fact that he was armed.
from the article
???
Don't get your conclusion[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]
and all of this is circumstantial. I've called 911 before. I carry a gun. I'm obsessed with gorgeous curvy redheads: corroborated by my gorgeous curvy redheaded wife. none of this means that I'm the person responsible for the redhead murders in Kentucky.Wrong again.
The numerous 9/11 calls: documented
The dispatcher asking Zimmerman not to follow: recorded
The fact that Zimmerman was armed: proven
His obsession with young black males: corroborated by neighbors questioned
'Wild speculation'.
Keep trying.![]()
unless the prosecution has physical evidence we haven't heard of yet, they had to have based at least part of their case on being able to substantiate part of the witness testimony. Now that several have changed their stories, even if their testimony now goes against zimmerman, the defense can pretty much convince a jury to ignore all eyewitness testimony, since none of it has been consistent. that means that physical evidence is going to be the determining factor in the case.