Stand Your Ground: George Zimmerman Charged

Re: Stand Your Ground

That's what I thought.

The entry wound on a point blank shooting will be different compared to shooting down a runner - extreme close range means the victim catches the discharge from the weapon?

And in particular, the way the body fell tells us everything about where the shooter was standing, and whether the victim was moving towards the shooter or away.

If you shoot a running target in the back at 20 yards, the forensics/ballistics are never going to align with a different story.

 

Re: Stand Your Ground

If that gun is now in a drain somewhere - it might actually be hard to prove who shot the victim

 

Re: Stand Your Ground

Don't know what that is sorry

 

Re: Stand Your Ground

Well I was half taking the piss, but any prosecutor would be most upset if the gun has gone walkies.

At least in NZ it was drummed in to us that unlike on television, you must prove the Actus Reus before jumping in to the exciting stuff.

In other words - can you prove that the shooter put the bullet in the boy?

The usual way is to match the bullet with the gun and the gun with the shooter.

Also great is for someone to see it happen.

With neither of those things you are left with what?

A statement? I don't know US criminal law too well but a proper confession requires a signed waiver does it not?

Anyway - no doubt you can overcome it but you are making your case way harder right there because now you have no direct proof of the identity of the shooter.

 

Re: Stand Your Ground

In actuality I don't disagree with you in regards to the handling of this case and everything associated with it but something tells me most of what you are saying is simply being pulled out of your ass. I'm going to be that guy and ask you to provide links that back up your claims. The link I'm most interested in is the one that actually states they sent him on his way with gun in pocket.

The only reason I ask is because in the police report from the night in question, it clearly states that the weapon was taken in to possession (very common and likely the norm in any police or civilian shooting) as evidence. It also states Zimmerman was handcuffed, put in to a patrol car and taken to the police station for questioning prior to his being released. Nowhere does it states he was given his weapon back and since this is being reviewed by a grand jury the weapon is still likely in evidence.

Also, labeling an entire group as racist is pretty sad. Do you really believe that the Sanford PD while as inept as they appear is involved in institutionalized racism? That's quite a stretch in part due to the Blacks and Hispanics on the force but also because you yet again have done absolutely nothing to support any of your ridiculous rhetoric. Valium and deep breathing friend.

Oh and here is the link to the police report ( I haven't been able to validate it but it's a lot more then I think you'll provide)

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

I don't know if it's stupid or just contradictory to what happened in this case and one other that I am somewhat familiar with. It's not just one author of this law but at least two. Both agree with my stance which is that once you take pursuit you have become the aggressor you give up the right to claim you were scared. The overwhelming number of folks when faced with fear tend to do anything to avoid it. Ultimately the problem is in how the law is and isn't worded. Something as simple as one or two sentences can royally ******** up what should be a slam dunk murder charge.

What evidence do you think is likely gone and how relevant could it have been? For starters, it's not like Zimmerman is denying he shot the kid to begin with so even if the gun is missing like it is in Chico's little world of angst nobody is disputing whether he shot him or not. I'm sure they still have Trayvon's clothing which forensically can tell a lot coupled with 911 calls and witnesses. I think overall this was just the PD being extremely lazy and taking a poorly worded clause in a law at face value.

Breath dude breath!!!

 

Re: Stand Your Ground

Well again - I was half taking the piss here but the burden is in fact on the prosecution to prove Z shot the victim.

With no gun and no witness, the only way the police know that it was Z's gun that shot the bullet is his own statement.

Should Z be unwilling to provide that testimony in Court, what evidence do you plan to introduce?

Did he provide a sworn statement that he was the shooter?

Anyway - no doubt they do in fact have the gun. It would be an incredible blunder not to have it.

 

Re: Stand Your Ground

One case I remember from common law, is that where you unreasonably create the scenario such that the victims actions are reasonable, you cannot claim self defence.

The specifics were a bank robber who took a shotgun into a bank heist and shot a teller who struggled with him.

He later claimed he never planned to use the gun, but was forced to do so because he was attacked by the teller

The court held that the robber was responsible for the circumstances created.

I am not sure if there is any similar line of cases in the US.