MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
We know that Zimmerman took the life of an unarmed minor after he was advised by a professional not to approach him. While that in no way changes the legal assumption of innocence - it does warrant a thorough and complete investigation to determine if Z is telling the truth.
We know that Zimmerman took the life of an unarmed minor after he was advised by a professional not to approach him. While that in no way changes the legal assumption of innocence - it does warrant a thorough and complete investigation to determine if Z is telling the truth.
Zimmerman admits shooting and killing someone. You must have a reason for doing that, so yes, he must prove his 'innocence' in that respect (that his use of force was justified).I don't disagree with that Haymarket. What it doesn't warrant, is making Zimmerman prove he's innocent.
I think it has already been investigated to the extent possible (edit: well, to the extent that it will make any difference). Zimmerman will walk due to the SYG law, barring a purely political prosecution, or a surprise witness.I think this is where the problem is. Had the police completed a thorough investigation and concluded there was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges, the situation would have been considerably different than it is now. As a consequence of failing to investigate, the current situation beckons speculation. There is something I find rather repugnant about people choosing sides on this issue. Everyone should be outraged that this was not investigated like it should have been [...]
Who requested the analysis?
I have hard time believing an "expert" if the "news" organization was the ones who requested it. I mean... just look at all the advertising that guy's firm got in that story......
I think this is where the problem is. Had the police completed a thorough investigation and concluded there was insufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges, the situation would have been considerably different than it is now. As a consequence of failing to investigate, the current situation beckons speculation. There is something I find rather repugnant about people choosing sides on this issue. Everyone should be outraged that this was not investigated like it should have been, but instead people seem to be more interested in going with their initial emotional reactions and personal intuitions about the events.
I agree with you reservedly, but it is good of you to point it out. I really don't believe that news institutions (for the most part) go out seeking to press a specific point of view, and will generally present evidence like this regardless of the outcome. First of all, news organizations are more biased toward the sensational than anything else, including over liberal or conservative. Related: This would have been news everyone wanted to read regardless of the outcome. Second, the Sentinel is accused of being liberal by conservatives, and conservative by liberals, so they are probably doing a better job than MSNBC or Fox news of truly being 'fair and balanced'. Third, the guy's firm would have gotten the free advertising regardless of his conclusions: This is a hot issue on both sides. Finally, would the analysts stake their reputations on conclusions that they felt were likely to be different than the official ones?
That said, reading the way it is written, it looks like the Orlando Sentinel requested the analysis. The effect of what the paper has done here is to force the hand of prosecutors. They will be forced (and should be forced) to have their own expert analysis done. They may have already been planning to, but the newspaper has made certain that it will now happen.
And in the end, you are right that this is not the conclusion of the official investigation. I concede that we should all bear these things in mind when looking at the 'evidence'.
And the State may not have done an analysis because the results cannot be accurate due to him SCREAMING as compared to just Talking.
In as far as news institutions don't go seeking a specific point of view....
NBC Deceptively Edits Zimmerman 911 Call; Implies Racist Motive
Yes, as I granted through implication, I do think it does happen. I think Fox and MSNBC are the ones that typically do this sort of thing on occasion. I just don't agree that it generally happens. We are talking about the Orlando Sentinel, not MSNBC.
You're correct. So if the bullet came form Zimmerman's gun and Zimmerman told police what he did, and we all think this is correct then Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. So the proof is needed by the government to prove that Zimmerman didn't follow all provisions in the SYGL that allow Zimmerman to kill Martin.I don't disagree with that Haymarket. What it doesn't warrant, is making Zimmerman prove he's innocent.
You're correct. So if the bullet came form Zimmerman's gun and Zimmerman told police what he did, and we all think this is correct then Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. So the proof is needed by the government to prove that Zimmerman didn't follow all provisions in the SYGL that allow Zimmerman to kill Martin.
Yes, Zimmerman's defense attorney can use any law on the books he thinks will work.Not even necessarily SYG law.
This incident is covered under regular ass self-defense.
Yeah, if. There is no reason to even speculate such nonsense.Yes, Zimmerman's defense attorney can use any law on the books he thinks will work.
But, then no, because if Martin was several feet away form Zimmerman when shot and if Zimmerman pursued Martin at all, the regular self-defense law probably won't be sufficient. Read it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?