All Zimm needs to do is state that he perceived himself to be in
danger.
The extent of his injuries is irrelevant but do make a plausible
case
for him being concerned for his safety.
--------------------------------------------
Yup, your right. I remember our safety instructor for the gun
classes telling us to never concede that you felt anything less than
in immanent danger of great bodily harm or death.
This is a very interesting and well conducted trial so far, IMO.
Both sides are doing their jobs and are seeking the truth. So far
the
only major contradiction to what happened was by Martin's girlfriend
who's only access to what was going on was via a cell phone. She
wasn't there.
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".
He certainly does IF his lawyers choose the self defense route.
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.
Yes, I have. But, we don't have an interview from Martin, do we?
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.
Again, in order for him to use the self defense approach, that puts the
burden of proof on HIM to prove that self defense was the case.
![iBoaterer[_3_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
here you go JPS...
Threaded Mode
