BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

iBoaterer[_3_]

In article ,
says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 6/29/13 10:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

Not what the law experts on TV are saying this morning, but I'm sure
that rec.boats FOX watchers know more than they do! It IS
interesting,
that's for sure. But Zimmerman needs to persuade the jury (if that
is
the direction this is going) that he was in life-threatening danger.
He
also needs to prove that he was NOT the aggressor, which may be
pretty
hard seeing how he was following Martin to the point of Martin
asking
him what and why he was doing what he was doing. Everyone seems to
avoid
or not realize the fact that Martin had the right to defend himself
in
when he perceived he was in danger as well!!!

--------------------------------------

You have it backwards. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything.
The
prosecution does and has to do so "beyond any reasonable doubt".

Have you read the transcripts of Zimmerman's interview with the
police
following the incident? He may be lying .... or he may be telling
the
truth.

In summary, here's Zimmerman's account of what happened as contained
in
the first police interview:

In the interview, Zimmerman wasn't "following" anyone. He was in
his
car, heading for the grocery store when he noticed Martin walking
down a
street, appearing to be looking at the townhouses. Zimmerman pulled
over to the side of the road but remained sitting in his car and
witnessed Martin going between two of the townhouses.

Zimmerman called the non-emergency number at the police station to
report this. As he was doing so, Martin re-appeared and circled
Zimmerman's car. He then disappeared again between the townhouses.
The
dispatcher asked Zimmerman for the street name and address and where
Martin went.
Zimmerman didn't know the address, so he exited his car to read a
street
sign and to see if he could determine where Martin went. This is
when
the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that" and told
Zimmerman
that an officer was on his way. Zimmerman said, "Ok" and started
to
return to his car. Martin suddenly appeared from some bushes and
challenged Zimmerman, asking him "What's your problem, homie?"
Zimmerman replied, "No problem" but was suddenly hit in the nose by
Martin, which knocked him down. Martin then proceeded to get on top
of
Zimmerman and started to hit him in the face and bang his head on a
concrete walkway. At one point Zimmerman felt that Martin was
going
for his gun and that's when he shot him.

It's not up to Zimmerman to prove that this is what happened. It's
up
to the prosecution to prove that it didn't happen that way.

I wonder if Z will take the stand. Interesting that a neighborhood
watch
guy in a very small neighborhood would not know the names of the
streets
in that very small neighborhood.

--------------------------------------

I wondered about that also but it could be that Zimmerman was trying
to determine the street *address* because at some point he told the
dispatcher he "was near the clubhouse".

Obviously only two people knew what actually happened and one of them
is dead. My point to iBoaterer is that Zimmerman is not required to
*prove* anything. His responsibility is to defend himself from
allegations made by the prosecution. The prosecution is burdened
with proving "proof" of their version of how it all happened.

I hope iBoaterer is never selected as a jury member for a serious
trial.

I already have. You are wrong about that, if it turns to "self defense"
he would need to prove that it was warranted. Add to that that self
defense is "reasonable force", which is up to the jury to decide,
therefore he'll have to prove that was the case as opposed to just plain
aggression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-de...in_English_law