Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always want to say this. If you think your feeble mind can remotely compare to those lawyers who wrote the law, you are seriously think too high of yourself.
The SYG law, actually, just a self-defense law has been written a long time ago and has accumulated millions of test cases. It's well established in our legal systems and thoroughly tested.
If you say SYG gives immunity for prosecution, well, we are immune to prosecution if we aren't doing anything wrong anyway.
Before SYG, assume Martin threw the first punch, Zimmerman would be required to turn around and run if he could do so safely. If he didn't, then he would be prosecuted for manslaughter. After SYG, he didn't have to run - he could choose to run but not necessarily. He could throw a punch back to match Martin's force with force. He couldn't shoot him just because of being punched in the face - I would personally disagree but in the eyes of the court, we can't do that yet. Now, once Zimmerman was pinned down and his head was smashing the concrete, justification for deadly force became apparent.
On important factor that many ignore is this happened in a gated community where Zimmerman has a right to be. Of course, it would matter that much if it were public street but does give Zimmerman more leeway.
Following someone is not a crime, particularly in a gated community. It won't be seen as provocation either. This actually negates any legitimacy of Martin's use of any force whatsoever.
Unless the prosecution team can prove Zimmerman killed Martin on purpose, they don't have a case for murder. At best, they can convict him for manslaughter. I personally don't see that happening either but under political pressure, weird things do happen.
Florida's SYG law was passed in 2005 and certainly has not had "millions of test cases." It is not well established and thoroughly tested. If that were true, why would the Gov. of Florida have a task force studying the law to determine what the flaws are. You should read this link to see what's actually going on in Florida regarding SYG.
Also, Florida was the first state to pass such a law in this country, and that was in the year 2005. The problem with SYG is that it is far, far too broad. Good thing that there is a task force appointed to study the ramifications of it. The people who wrote this law were politicians, with the help of a powerful former NRA president who lives in Florida; she was the first woman president of NRA.
So, Z's testimony doesn't matter? TM is dead and the ony thing we have to go by is Z's account and witnesses accounts, so what do we do?
Z's testimony does matter. His problem is that he may have made contradicting or inconsistent statements, which WILL affect his perceived credibility. He actually testified that he thought Trayvon was just a couple years younger than he, but when talking to the dispatcher on the phone he described him as a teenager.
You may say, well, maybe when he got closer he thought Trayvon was older; that won't matter because the state will still attempt to impeach him with all the conflicting statements he has made from the time of the incident until the time of trial or hearing. When a judge or jury are shown multiple times a witness or a defendant has changed their story, it does have a negative effect and damages the credibility of a witness. THAT is why attorneys advise their clients to SHUT UP and not say a word about the case to anyone other than their legal team; the legal team has attorney client privilege.
Zimmerman has already demonstrated that he does not listen to his attorneys or he ignores their advice, therefore, he said too many things to too many people. There's a record out there of things he has said.
Yes, but even if what "John" the anonymous witness says is true, that he saw the struggle and said "Stop, I'm calling 911" why isn't there a 911 call saying "I was outside and saw a man on top of another man and he's banging his head into the sidewalk" or something of that nature? People are assuming that one of the several 911 calls that were available on the Sanford Police web site (I listed to all of them) was from this person. Maybe, maybe not. However, not one of them said anything close to "I was just outside and..." The call that everyone says is John only says that there are 2 men fighting and then he hears a shot. He said "I'm not going outside." Where does he say that he was already outside?
So many people defending Zimmerman say this "new witness" said Trayvon Martin was on top. Okay, he did tell that to a reporter the next day. In fact, he said he passed by them fighting and went inside, locked the door, and then called 911. I saw this on a local news channel. What was surprising is that the reporter who talked to "John" was walking on the grass and there was no crime scene tape or anything to indicate a boy had been shot.
I listened to the calls, not edited calls, but the original 911 calls, and NOBODY called the police and said he was outside and saw a fight and ran inside to make a call or describe clothing colors, etc.
Don't forget that while on the phone to 911 Zimmerman said Trayvon ran off and that he would go back to the car to meet the police.
(Of course YOU ALWAYS ask the police to come if you intent to do a crime).
On the way back Trayvon appeared again, managed to break Zimmerman's nose, have witnesses say trayvon was swinging on Zimmerman on his back, and lastly Trayvon was shot dead when Z had no where to withdraw and felt his life was at risk.
There is no evidence supporting anything else.
Maybe, based on what you know at this point, that could be true. You certainly have a right to believe that. HOWEVER, the problem is that you simply don't know what "facts are in evidence" in this case because those facts have not been released to the public at this point. Most likely, Zimmerman's attorney does not even know all the facts at this time. He will know them, but probably does not yet know all the "facts."
Also, Florida was the first state to pass such a law in this country, and that was in the year 2005. The problem with SYG is that it is far, far too broad. Good thing that there is a task force appointed to study the ramifications of it. The people who wrote this law were politicians, with the help of a powerful former NRA president who lives in Florida; she was the first woman president of NRA.
Unfortunately, since Rick Scott is our Governor, I don't have much faith in the task force mentioned in your post. In 2010 when he campaigned, he got a big thumbs up from the NRA.
By the way, I'm sure you know that even the authors of Florida's SYG law say that it doesn't apply in this case. I've posted links several times to quotes from the politicians who signed this bill into law, including former Governor Jeb Bush.
The response from several posters on this forum was that the people who wrote the law didn't know what it really said or means!
Unfortunately, since Rick Scott is our Governor, I don't have much faith in the task force mentioned in your post. In 2010 when he campaigned, he got a big thumbs up from the NRA.
By the way, I'm sure you know that even the authors of Florida's SYG law say that it doesn't apply in this case. I've posted links several times to quotes from the politicians who signed this bill into law, including former Governor Jeb Bush.
The response from several posters on this forum was that the people who wrote the law didn't know what it really said or means!
This is an interesting article on SYG laws; I hadn't considered this perspective.
What I find somewhat amusing and at the same time sad, is that the same people on here that would proclaim Zimmerman guilty only on the evidence handed to them (and altered) by the MSM would be the same people that would be screaming bloody murder if they were in his shoes. I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or innocent, but I do still believe in our courts, and as such, I will wait and watch the trial before I make my own personal judgement.
Unfortunately, since Rick Scott is our Governor, I don't have much faith in the task force mentioned in your post. In 2010 when he campaigned, he got a big thumbs up from the NRA.
By the way, I'm sure you know that even the authors of Florida's SYG law say that it doesn't apply in this case. I've posted links several times to quotes from the politicians who signed this bill into law, including former Governor Jeb Bush.
The response from several posters on this forum was that the people who wrote the law didn't know what it really said or means!
I'm one of the posters who's said the sponsors are a rotten source for what syg means in a courtroom. Anyone who's been around legislators will tell you they don't always understand the implications of everything they sponsor, especially unintended consequences. Find a single court case that supports the position that because gz left his car syg can't apply. Prosecutors, who generally opposed syg in 2005, knew the legal results would be bizarre sometimes.
You can bop yourself in the head all day long. With luck, it'll knock some sense into you.
Z's testimony does matter. His problem is that he may have made contradicting or inconsistent statements, which WILL affect his perceived credibility. He actually testified that he thought Trayvon was just a couple years younger than he, but when talking to the dispatcher on the phone he described him as a teenager.
You may say, well, maybe when he got closer he thought Trayvon was older; that won't matter because the state will still attempt to impeach him with all the conflicting statements he has made from the time of the incident until the time of trial or hearing. When a judge or jury are shown multiple times a witness or a defendant has changed their story, it does have a negative effect and damages the credibility of a witness. THAT is why attorneys advise their clients to SHUT UP and not say a word about the case to anyone other than their legal team; the legal team has attorney client privilege.
Zimmerman has already demonstrated that he does not listen to his attorneys or he ignores their advice, therefore, he said too many things to too many people. There's a record out there of things he has said.
Until the alleged conflicting statements are public, I'll consider them 'alleged.' Anyone who's had a car accident or fight or even a bad argument understands that details can be fuzzy. Then again, when a suspect's multiple statements are always the same, the state claims they are rehearsed.
gz did make a mistake in not getting a lawyer sooner. Though if he had, the he's guilty crew would clamor that he 'lawyered-up,' and consider it evidence of guilt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You certainly have a right to believe that. HOWEVER, the problem is that you simply don't know what "facts are in evidence" in this case because those facts have not been released to the public at this point. Most likely, Zimmerman's attorney does not even know all the facts at this time. He will know them, but probably does not yet know all the "facts."
