homeagain wrote: PS......I don't believe I indicated he did NOTHING wrong......I see MANY things wrong....."Stand your Ground" needs re-tooling...
I believe the law is way too broad in it's interpretation.....JMO
Zimmerman waived his right to a pretrial "Stand Your Ground" hearing where if successful, he could of avoided a trial. This is now more of a self-defense trial. So I'm not clear what you are referring too.
PERHAPS reviewing the REASON this is AT TRIAL would be appropriate..my understanding...the INITIAL investigation found NO
wrong doing BECAUSE OF STAND YOUR GROUND...they did NOT investigate the case any further and THAT IS THE REASON for
the outcry and the subsequent charges that Z is NOW facing......the CORRUPTION within law enforcement was rampant and
the Florida community did NOT trust,respect,nor BELIEVE that M. was given FAIR treatment (after death).....DO THE RESEARCH.
homeagain wrote: PERHAPS reviewing the REASON this is AT TRIAL would be appropriate..my understanding...the INITIAL investigation found NO
wrong doing BECAUSE OF STAND YOUR GROUND...they did NOT investigate the case any further and THAT IS THE REASON for
the outcry and the subsequent charges that Z is NOW facing......the CORRUPTION within law enforcement was rampant and
the Florida community did NOT trust,respect,nor BELIEVE that M. was given FAIR treatment (after death).....DO THE RESEARCH.
I think you are referring more to the wild speculation that happened after Zimmerman was not charged. Many people speculated Zimmerman would use the Stand Your Ground option (including people here), but he didn't. I don't recall law enforcement ever making a decision based on it.
Watching the testimony, I've only seen stand your ground brought up one time. There was testimony that Zimmerman learned about the law (and self-defense laws) in a class he took. But I don't see stand your ground being any part of the self-defense case in this trial.
If you believe Zimmerman's story, he didn't have an opportunity to flee since he was on his back getting hit. And if you are attacked you have a right to defend yourself. The right to use deadly force may have different rules based on jurisdiction. If you don't believe Zimmerman and think he started the fight, I don't see any evidence presented to indicate he saw a threat (I'm making the assumption he didn't get attacked). So again, I don't see how stand your ground applies to the self-defense part of the trial.
So far as why Zimmerman wasn't initially charged, I think it just came down to the initial prosecutor's not thinking they had enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt (rightly or wrongly). We'll see if the jury proves them wrong. But again, where do you see stand your ground being a significant part of this trial?
If so, that's a blogger's opinion and I don't see what supports it. And it's clearly biased as well...
When police arrived, George Zimmerman was found standing over Trayvon Martin and was released because the Stand Your Ground Law protected George Zimmerman, a vigilante killer, from being charged with a crime.
Where did the police or prosecutors say he was released due to the stand your ground law? But this isn't even my main point. I thought we are talking now about the trial, and the trial is about self-defense and that is a defense that can be used in any jurisdiction (with varying rules for use of deadly force). I don't see stand your ground being part of the trial.
Watching the trial and hearing the police testimony, it was clear to me that Zimmerman was released that night because they still hadn't figured out just what happened other than Zimmerman's story (and the little they knew at the time either supported it, like his injuries, or didn't contradict it enough at the time to arrest him) and they didn't even know who the dead person was at the time. Again, rightly or wrongly.
Well, that link is from Mother Jones back in March 2012 and has nothing to do with your first link (did I correctly post what your first link was?). I think we've learned a lot since March 2012.
For instance, that article has pure speculation (which some here speculated as well) which has been proven false in the trial with photos (not sure I even need an IMO here, there are clear photos). For instance, the videos of Zimmerman's injuries...
In other developments, as Kevin Drum noted earlier today, questions continue to swirl around police video footage of Zimmerman from the night of the shooting—did he or didn't he have head wounds? An "enhanced" version of the video from ABC News seemed to indicate that he did; a version aired more recently by MSNBC suggests the opposite
There were photos presented in the trial taken just minutes after the shooting clearly showing Zimmerman's head injuries. That wasn't known to the public back then. If you haven't seen them, I can easily find them. The videos referred to in the Mother Jones article were low resolution and were taken after Zimmerman's wounds had already been cleaned up. So much for MSNBC reporting. And that is a long article that, sorry, I don't have time to read all of it right now. Enough said that it is from Mother Jones in March 2012.
Again, I thought we were talking about the trial. And I still don't see how stand your ground applies. If you want to talk about March 2012, fine. But that isn't what I was replying to in the first place.
APPARENTLY being informed of the BACKGROUND to a case is not important..... The PRESENT CASE stems from
a lack of follow thru by the PD of Sanford......that follow thru was circumvented by the STAND YOUR GROUND law....the OTHER
background issue is the Sanford PD it's self (DOJ was brought into investigate).....the community of Sanford did NOT trust,respect
believe it had a PD that was protecting it....the BACKGROUND to this case it the REASON we are at this juncture in court....I
do NOT comprehend why that is so hard to grasp....being INFORMED does take effort and research.....IF you want the WHOLE
picture.....
homeagain wrote: Sidenote.....the defense contemplated bringing in toxicology report on Martin( residual MJ in blood).......BUT thought better of it
when they realized that Z's ADERALL RX would be problematic..... (ya' think).....let's see mellow,munchies,minding
own business.....vs. Fear,anxiety,restlessness.......THIS is why I would NOT make a good juror....THAT information should have
been available to the jury....JMO....I would be pissed that the information was excluded.....
Would you also be pissed that information related to Trayvon's use of Lean was excluded? Ever heard of lean homeagain? It's made from over the counter cough syrup containing dextromethorphan, candy and sugary drinks and Trayvon's autopsy showed liver damage consistent with its use/abuse. Ever wonder why the media chose to report that Martin bought Arizona "Iced Tea" instead of Arizona Watermelon fruit cocktail? Did the jurors get to see the contents of Martin's texts where he talked about making/selling/consuming lean? Ever wonder what the effect of MJ and lean taken in concert would be on a teenage boy's cognitive abilities? Might that be why Zimmerman first reported that Martin appeared to be on drugs or something?
You have to open your eyes and see more than you want to see home - this attempt to portray Martin as some little innocent boy who was shot for no good reason isn't holding much water these days.
PS.......don't think I posted he was a sweet innocent teenager. YES, I DO BELIEVE that all information SHOULD HAVE BEEN
available to the jury for BOTH Martin and Zimmerman......because when I make a decision, I ATTEMPT to research,understand and
view the WHOLE picture.
I believe in THIS case the Sanford PD was negligent in pursuing all the facts and instead fell back on STAND YOUR GROUND and
took the easiest route to close this case.......THAT is my reasoning for bringing forward STAND YOUR GROUND.....the family of this
teenager wanted/deserved JUSTICE......let the jury decided and THAT option was DENIED them initially, Put yourself in this
mother and father's shoes......WALK A MILE IN THEIR MOCCASINS. IF it were YOUR brother,father,cousin,son,grand-son and the
STAND YOUR GROUND law swept THEIR DEATH under the carpet.....without a COMPLETE AND COMPREHENSIVE investigation, WHAT
would YOU do????? The jury will decide this case (and I commend Z for taking STAND YOUR GROUND out of the equation)BUT the
family was DENIED this BASIC justice and THAT is why this case is NOW at trial and we are at this juncture.....My personally
belief is what I posted initially, SOME charges should be brought and YOU indicated involuntary manslaughter and I AGREED.
The PRESENT CASE stems from
