http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...dy-nose-photo/
Does the photo of Zimmermans injuries change your stance on that case in any way? If so how?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...dy-nose-photo/
Does the photo of Zimmermans injuries change your stance on that case in any way? If so how?
Zimmerman claimed he had the back of his head slammed into the ground so I would like to see proof of that!!
This and the Memphis Three thread.
CSI:jazzfanz
You are cordially invited: www.bongofanz.com
racialism?
Originally Posted by Zulu
Go to second 28...
when i first heard of this story i thought it was racialism. then, i thought, maybe it's reverse-racialism.
discuss.
None of this "evidence" changes the fact that this deluded **** stalked a kid who likely (wouldn't you?) felt in danger.
I'm sure Martin was worried that some weird creepy dude was following him aroun but that is not a crime.
The issue is did Zimmerman have "justifiable cause" for shooting Martin. Did it go from Zimmerman being some weird wanna be cop following him to Martin whoopin that ass to the point Zimmerman felt his life was in danger. These photos certainly help his case.
I think what I've decided is that while Zimmerman is the reason he is dead he had no intention of killing or even harming Martin. I think he gets manslaughter or is let off.
He killed him, but he was also getting his ass beat, it will be tough if not impossible to convict him of anything above manslaughter.
That is where I am at as well.
http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blo...on-martin.html
Doesn't change based on this.
Interesting read. I disagree with some of your terminology and what not but you bring up interesting points. I think at most they will get him for manslaughter.
If it wasn't murder then it wasn't manslaughter. If he was defending himself, with Florida's "stand your ground" laws, he will not be convicted of anything. Despite the possibility he was the aggressor there's simply no way to prove that to the extent required for a murder/manslaughter conviction, especially since he did suffer injuries and there's no one alive to provide a first hand account to counter Zimmerman's story.
Zimmerman will walk, I'd put money on it.
He'll definitely walk, but the prosecution has 0% chance if they go for anything other than manslaughter.
I just read your blog. Just a technical point I'd like to make, guns don't "go off," they're fired. To be certain, Zimmerman fired his gun at Martin with lethal intent.
There is a question in all this I don't really know the answer to. If Zimmerman was the aggressor and your story is fairly accurate, at what point does Zimmerman surrender his right to self-defense? If I can make a loose analogy, just because a girl is making out with you and wearing provocative clothes (or not wearing clothes) she retains the right to say "no" at any point. So, even if Zimmerman was following Martin and harassing him, does that mean he has surrendered his right to defend himself should Martin react to the harassment by attacking Zimmerman? Unless Zimmerman struck first Martin would have committed a crime by physically attacking Zimmerman, correct? So doesn't Zimmerman have the right to protect himself from an illegal physical attack?
Now, to me this is actually a big problem for supporters of individuals' right to self defense and by extension the right to use firearms for self defense. If I can basically taunt someone, sort of like the big brother poking at his little brother while saying "I'm not touching you, I'm not touching you," then when the person being taunted responds I pull out my firearm and kill them and claim justified self defense. That's not okay in my book, even though I'm a very avid supporter of a person's right to defend them self. I think that's what may have happened in this case. I think a clearer guideline needs to be established based on this case.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote