Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: Zimmerman Bloody Photo emerges...Murder 2 in doubt? (331 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I said (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that Zimmerman is the one who picked having the whole thing occurring. Have he not pursued there would not have been any problem. If I recall Martin says in the phone something like here he comes.  If that is so it 'll be clear that Zimmerman started the contact after pursuing. Past that unless there are whiteness we are to the mercy of the SYG laws that give Zimmerman all the possible legal advantages.

    •  The legal standard is not "had he not pursued" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sharon Wraight

      there is nothing legally wrong with walking behind someone.  We do have evidence Z was walking behind M.  Certainly, legally, walking behind someone is not starting a physical altercation.  That is not "starting the contact."  

      Z's story, apparently, is that he stopped walking behind M, turned to go back to his car, and then M initiated the physical contact.  His story is that M was on top of him, hitting his head on the cement, when he shot.  I don't know if that story is true, or not.  The two salient facts will be, I think (1) who actually initiated the physical contact -- that is, who either " threw the first punch" or made the first overt credible threat, like if Z pulled his gun on M and threatened him; and (2) whether Z was in fear of great bodily harm (if M was hitting Z's head on concrete) when Z shot.  If Z decides to take the stand and testifies that "his story" is what happened, for example, the prosecution is going to have to have evidence to prove that Z is not truthful, and evidence to prove that something else happened.

      The "legal advantage" here is that (1) Z, like any other defendant in any other state), can argue traditional self-defense (shot because he was in fear of serious bodily harm) (this is not the SYG portion of the law); and (2) like any other criminal case of any kind, the prosecution has the burden of proof with evidence.

      I completely understand that you have your own beliefs as to what happened that night.  And perhaps you are correct.  However, none of that matters unless the prosecution can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt with credible evidence admissible in court - the same legal advantage afforded to every defendant in this country.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (182)
  • Community (72)
  • Civil Rights (51)
  • Baltimore (44)
  • Elections (41)
  • Bernie Sanders (38)
  • Culture (38)
  • 2016 (34)
  • Economy (34)
  • Texas (32)
  • Law (31)
  • Labor (29)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Environment (27)
  • Rescued (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Politics (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site