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.
Of course, the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly points to the physical confrontation being started by Martin. No case, folks. We got a political lynching here.
The proscution has said they have no evidence who started the fight. It appears you aren't keeping up. Also the circumstances lean Zimmermans way than anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
circumstantial evidence. It appears you may think that there has to be direct evidence for everything.
Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.
The proscution has said they have no evidence who started the fight. It appears you aren't keeping up. Also the circumstances lean Zimmermans way than anything else.
One thing everyone should agree on because it's in the law books for all to see. A person who initially provokes the use of force against himself may Still use deadly force if he reasonably believes that he's in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm And has exhausted every reasonable means to escape.
So even if gz threw the 1st punch or shoved tm, IF tm then got gz to the ground and was banging his head, self defense is still in play.
If tm's girlfriend testifies, she could say what she told the prosecutor, that she heard somebody bump tm, she could hear the grass, and that tm said 'get off, get off.'
One thing everyone should agree on because it's in the law books for all to see. A person who initially provokes the use of force against himself may Still use deadly force if he reasonably believes that he's in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm And has exhausted every reasonable means to escape.
So even if gz threw the 1st punch or shoved tm, IF tm then got gz to the ground and was banging his head, self defense is still in play.
If tm's girlfriend testifies, she could say what she told the prosecutor, that she heard somebody bump tm, she could hear the grass, and that tm said 'get off, get off.'
And GZ's credibility still plays an important part in convincing a jury that he was in fear for his life.
The proscution has said they have no evidence who started the fight. It appears you aren't keeping up. Also the circumstances lean Zimmermans way than anything else.
It appears that you think investigation stops at the probable cause affidavit ...
There is at least one witness who can testify to things she heard in her telephone conversation with TM that indicate Zimmerman started the fight. Clearly, you are refusing to "keep up" and to see or acknowledge anything that disagrees with your personal view of what happened that night.
Doesn't sound like you get how circumstantial evidence works, or for that matter what it really is.
I agree charging Z-man with any crime here is a gross miscarriage of justice.
You should call the defense team and give them your proof; surely, they would like to get this case thrown out immediately since Zimmerman has to turn himself in and go to jail today.
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.