Posted on 06/30/2013 8:14:48 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The issue for the DA is not that GZ was justified to shoot TM, but GZ following TM provoked a fight that ended with a shooting that could have been avoided. CCW need to understand this nuance of the law when using a gun. Why this law exists is to prevent armed people from saying or doing things that they normally will not do if unarmed. Example a hothead armed with a CCW Glock, goes to a bar and starts an argument with a bigger guy, which results in a fight, a fight he is losing and then he shoots his bigger and stronger attacker and claims self defense when the cops come. In a drawn out event, self defense is valid if the gunowner did not start the fight, and did everything to de escalate the situation before he had to shoot. Jentel was a bad witness but she established one thing, TM noticed GZ was following him. Question to jury, is that legally considered a provocation? Non of the witnesses so far can account for the events after the cellphone call and neighbor who saw TM on top of GZ. What transpire can determine GZ guilt or innocence. When GZ decided to follow TM after the 911 operator told him it was not necessary he entered a legal no man’s land. GZ claim that he was confronted and attacked by TM while he was heading back to his SUV. Heading back to the SUV is considered a de escalating action. If TM felt threaten by GZ following him, he can attack if GZ was following him. If GZ was heading back to his SUV, TM cannot follow and attack GZ for the perceived threat. There no witness to back up GZ claimed he was attacked after he was heading for his SUV, and TM is dead and cannot tell his side of the story. Unless the DA has evidence or witness that GZ lied, GZ is most likely to be off the hook. IMHO who is right or wrong depends on the back and forth between the two men. This trial is not so clear cut.
He appears to have stopped following once he was told that. Earlier I think he had been encouraged to watch where TM was going--the point being for the police to be able to locate TM when they got there.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JulisonCom
“@JulisonCom: Julison Comm is proud to be a part of International Media Coverage in support of Travon Martin’s family. #justice pic.twitter.com/OEzXkmDs”
But that testimony could get complicated. Mr. Serino later told the F.B.I. that he had been pressured to make an arrest. He told the federal agents that he did not think there was enough evidence for a manslaughter charge.
He'll be sweating bullets as his attorney Jose Baez watches from a distance.
High-ranking officials in the Sanford Police Department and the original state attorney in the case agreed: they decided not to arrest or charge Mr. Zimmerman in February and March because they felt they lacked enough evidence to rebut self-defense.
Right about now Angela Corey and this prosecution team wished that they had listened to them and just gone to the Grand Jury because now they will have to pay the piper.
Another person chimed in and said:
It has been obvious from the start that Cory is the instigator for all of this. Alan Dershowitz got it exactly right when he called her filing of these charges against Zimmerman “irresponsible and UNETHICAL”.
I think the farm is up on the County auction block ...
No evidence or witness to contradict Zimmerman's testimony, and therefore he is presumed innocent in the eyes of law. The burden of proof is on the state, and they don't have the big cheese or the key facts in the case.
My last sentence said as much
Scott’s statement when he decided to prosecute.
Child Murder Suspect Cristian Fernandez's Case Sparks Outrage
Over zealous prosecution? Angela Cory charged a 12 yr old as an adult. (video 4:20)
The media are full of half-wits and are too busy being liked to be objective.
Yes. They will.
And, certainly, dissed!
Methinks the lawless DOJ will charge Zimmerman with some sort of “civil rights violation” immediately after he wins his case against Florida.
While I understand what you're saying here, there might just be another reason why Mr. Zimmerman did not deploy his concealed firearm earlier. He had just taken several hard shots to the head, and was, doubtless to me, perhaps not thinking quite as clearly as he would have otherwise, possibly even to the point of not remembering he even had it, until it became visible in the scuffle.
That said, the fact that he only fired a single round is, even as you said, a demonstration of remarkable restraint, under the circumstances he was in at that moment in time...
the infowarrior
You are swallowing the prosecution Kool Aid there, Fee.
There is NO evidence to suggest that the "following" continued after GZ was told that it wasn't necessary for him to observe where TM had gone. Evidence suggests that this is in fact the point where GZ began to return to his vehicle.
the infowarrior
I question two points:
I don’t believe one is justified in attacking anybody just because they think they are being followed. That would allow someone to attack a person simply traveling the same direction - not rational.
Just because a 911 dispatcher tells me something, I am under no obligation to comply. Not complying with the directions of someone without actual knowledge of the situation in no way implicates a person of anything.
Zimmerman’s lawyer should make mincemeat of any prosecution strategy reliant on your two claims.
However, there are a few in the media who are looking at this and seeing that this case has trouble. Experts are correct in saying that this case was overcharged from the get go, and now we have stories coming out that law enforcement was pressured to file charges.
The burden of proof rests with the state. Their star witness made them look bad; in fact for all purposes it seemed like she was helping the defense. We know know that her interview took place in front of the Martin family, which is highly unprofessional by the prosecution.
I was once involved with a case that had similarities on a smaller scale; overzealous prosecution, lack of evidence, huge credibility issues with the complainant, possible racial motivations, etc. The police and head detective eventually testified on behalf of the defendant, who was overwhelmingly found not guilty. Heck, in that case prosecution withheld crucial evidence from the defense for over a year, and it would not surprise me here if that happens too. (such as grand jury testimony not being released because a witness may have seen something that exonerates Zimmerman, for example).
LOL. You forgot celebrities. I don't know what to think about all this, so I'm googling to find out what Barbara Streisand has decided.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.