Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Interesting except for the witness testimony from the neighbour or 7-11 clerk of Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top and Zimmerman screaming for help.
|
Could you point out which testimonies those were? Andrew Gaugh is a listed clerk on Wikipedia, but his testimony seems to be questionable, and there are a lot of neighbours listed...reading it in the early morning (3 AM) wasn't a good idea for name recognition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
And the minute that Martin had control, if he would have stopped and contained then that would be fine. But the fact that he was battering Zimmerman's face and banged Zimmerman's head into the concrete at least twice, wasn't self defense, it would have been considered an assault. And come on, banging a guys head off the concrete isn't a self defense act especially if you do it multiple times.
|
I am pretty on your side when you mention that. Defining where the fight ends and assault begins is huge in this case. I haven't been able to hear the expert's opinion on Martin's options in full, though I do recall the humorous Chuck Norris/Pee Wee Herman comment. If even someone like Martin could have contained Zimmerman until police arrived (and it was obvious that he could), then it's assault. I'm not sure where self-defence would stand if Martin didn't seem capable of being able to restrain Zimmerman. What does self-defence proclaim you capable of doing if you can't restrain the guy in question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
The jury can't think about intentions unless there is testimony to that effect, Martin is dead, Zimmerman didn't testify. So intention becomes irrelevant.
Its cold but there was reasonable doubt in the jurys mind both foe murder two and manslaughter.
Getting into intentions is irrelevant.
|
Fair enough. If it wasn't raised, then it's dropped. Decisions have to be made with presented evidence.