I'm shocked its not necessary for Zimmerman to take the stand in a self defense case. It's unheard of where I come from.
Do you live outside the US? In this country, a defendant has the right not to self-incriminate himself on the stand.
I'm shocked its not necessary for Zimmerman to take the stand in a self defense case. It's unheard of where I come from.
No, I believe you misunderstand something very important. Zimmerman is not assumed to be innocent, nor is it assumed that he is telling the truth.
Zimmerman killed an unarmed teen. He has admitted to doing so. Killing unarmed people is against the law. However, Zimmerman is claiming that he had no choice but to kill this kid, and that therefore he should be excused from the normal penalties that might apply.
Zimmerman is the one making this claim. It is his job to provide some evidence to justify his choices. The prosecution's job here is not to prove what happened, but to show that Zimmerman's version of events is not necessarily believable. Every questionable statement Zimmerman has made, every flaw in his various stories, the lack of any meaningful injuries, all these must be weighted by the jury. They are not weighting the prosecution's case -- as there is no question that Zimmerman pulled the trigger -- they are weighting Zimmerman's excuse.
The reason for this is simple. If the law did not work in this way, virtually any time a murder took place away from witnesses the defense could claim self-defense. Yes, I stopped the woman at gunpoint, but I never planned to kill her -- she grabbed for my gun! Prove me wrong! Yes, I followed this kid around with a gun, but I never planned to kill him -- he attacked me, he went for my gun! Prove me wrong!
See how that works? Zimmerman is the one making the claim, and it's a bloody big one. We have an unarmed dead teen, a teen who (by the defendant's own admission) was attempting to get away. Getting from that to "I had to kill him" is a mighty big leap, and Zimmerman's story has quite a few holes.
IMO
O/TIm not saying I don't believe you but I have had more than one root canal, Wisdom teeth extractions and have never looked like I have been beaten up like GZ was.
And it was painful. I had a root canal in my front tooth.3 times.
WHERE DO YOU LIVE? because here in AMERICA we are all presumed innocent of charges until they are proven.
Still waiting for evidence that proves GZ started the fight....
Don't forget it was raining and DNA evidence doesn't last in rain or when sealed wet in plastic bags. There is no way to know if there was any DNA, and the shoddy collection practices benefit the defense. They get the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty.
:twocents::twocents::twocents:MOO:twocents::twocents::twocents:
WHERE DO YOU LIVE? because here in AMERICA we are all presumed innocent of charges until they are proven.
Once again!
GZ did start this altercation that ended up in cold blooded murder.
And I Quote
"WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT"
Not once but TWICE.
Please tell me what is so un-understandable about that.
I think this guy had more acting classes than legal training.
IMO
Fortunately no one is saying that. You left out quite a few very important details.
Zimmerman, an armed adult, pursued an innocent teen because he thought walking home in the rain, at dinnertime, was suspicious. He pursued him to the clubhouse, he pursued him around the corner and down the street, he pursued him until the teen panicked and ran behind some buildings to escape the "creepy" guy following him. He then exited his vehicle, and against LE advice, pursued him further still.
At some point they met, a tussle occurred, and the teen was gunned down. Zimmerman is claiming that he had no choice but to kill this kid, and he has offered several conflicting versions of events as justification. He has failed to offer a consistent version of what took place leading up to the physical conflict, and his version of what happened during the fight has changed as well -- and none of his versions match the physical evidence found at the scene.
Trayvon Martin is dead. His killer, a man with a history of violence and lying under oath, has offered nothing but inconsistent excuses and stories in his defense. The right to defend yourself is not on trial, George Zimmerman is, and he damn well aught to be found guilty.
IMO
Guy sounds schmaltzy and phony, imo, after hearing O'Mara's more natural, style and tone. Guy sounds rehearsed and stilted, and overly dramatic, imo.
here we go again.... calling a full grown young man a child.
might as well show pictures of Trayvon when he was 10.
JMO
Apparently not according to posters here - you can even shoot them dead.
IMO
No, I believe you misunderstand something very important. Zimmerman is not assumed to be innocent, nor is it assumed that he is telling the truth.
Zimmerman killed an unarmed teen. He has admitted to doing so. Killing unarmed people is against the law. However, Zimmerman is claiming that he had no choice but to kill this kid, and that therefore he should be excused from the normal penalties that might apply.
Zimmerman is the one making this claim. It is his job to provide some evidence to justify his choices. The prosecution's job here is not to prove what happened, but to show that Zimmerman's version of events is not necessarily believable. Every questionable statement Zimmerman has made, every flaw in his various stories, the lack of any meaningful injuries, all these must be weighted by the jury. They are not weighting the prosecution's case -- as there is no question that Zimmerman pulled the trigger -- they are weighting Zimmerman's excuse.
The reason for this is simple. If the law did not work in this way, virtually any time a murder took place away from witnesses the defense could claim self-defense. Yes, I stopped the woman at gunpoint, but I never planned to kill her -- she grabbed for my gun! Prove me wrong! Yes, I followed this kid around with a gun, but I never planned to kill him -- he attacked me, he went for my gun! Prove me wrong!
See how that works? Zimmerman is the one making the claim, and it's a bloody big one. We have an unarmed dead teen, a teen who (by the defendant's own admission) was attempting to get away. Getting from that to "I had to kill him" is a mighty big leap, and Zimmerman's story has quite a few holes.
IMO