New information in treyvon martin case

Post Reply New Topic

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... k-teenager

According to this article, the local constabulatory have eyewitness accounts of the young black man on top of Zimmerman and beating on him, Zimmerman calling for help.

I wonder how the media is going to handle this after pushing for the crucifixion of this guy.

Hmm, interesting, let's see where this goes.

I think it may bring the truth to light, but that is for a court of law to decide.

a court of law has nothing to do with truth... OJ still walks free

However one should not overlook the fact that should this have been the case, then Treyvon may have been within his right as he may have felt threatened being followed by a strange man. He may have also been within his right to reach for the gun upon seeing it as he likely felt his life was in danger as he did not know why this man was following him or why he had a gun.

This very well may have been a case of poor decisions and self defense on the part of both Zimmerman and Martin. Zimmerman should not have left his car to pursue a "suspicious" individual and Martin should not have initiated a fight when he had the option of fleeing.

UUUhhh...OJ is in jail in Nevada for armed robbery.

okay... reworded... Oj would not have been free to commit armed robbery

Sorry to say, that with the "stand your ground" thing (a florida law that allows the use of deadly force if a person BELIEVES he is in danger) Zimmerman is technically home free. In reality this is probably just the beggining because something like this isn't going to blow over for some time (maybe a week) and now that the SYG law is in the forefront, people will realize that it is a dangerous,vaguely worded and stupid law.

Finding the defendant not guilty is not a criminal deterrent.

I know... which is why earlier in the thread I had said the following:

The prosecution failed to prove the charges against OJ.

ruveyn

Exceptions do not necessarily disprove the rule. Every system we have is prone to human mistakes. The fact that the system fails sometimes doesn't mean it's purpose "has nothing to do with truth." Though it is true that reality doesn't always match stated altruism.

It's what we've got though, and most of us would prefer not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Which is exactly my point... The court system only exists to make facts fit a scenario outlined by the prosecution. In many cases, this has nothing to do with truth.

There are many documented cases of the guilty going free and people being exonerated later.

Some legal experts suggest that, if the case goes to trial, the prosecution may be able to use the SYG law to show that Martin had the right to stand his ground with Zimmerman, and protect himself from Zimmerman, with force. If so, Zimmerman may not be able to successfully use self defense, as a legal defense for shooting Martin, depending on the full presentation of evidence in the case.

The law is already being scrutinized in Florida with some of the legislative body demanding the repeal of the law. If not repealed, the law may be modified because as it stands now it appears to give unreasonable immunity for the prosecution, of some, per the example of this case.

There is also a push to require back ground checks for people involved in organized neighborhood watch groups, to weed out individuals that have a background of violence in their criminal record, as Zimmerman did.

It has been reported that justified homicide in Florida has more than doubled since the law went into effect; it is possible that there are more cases like this that haven't been scrutinized like this one has been, because of the racial context of the incident.

I have yet to see the interpretation of the law that says you have a right to attack someone for following you.

Information necessary for this line of argument is covered in this video.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTOODPf-iuc[/youtube]

and this article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... y-accuracy

Most court cases involve very little forensic evidence. Most of the information used in these cases is Eyewitness testimony, which is based on the faulty machinery of the brain. The cases are built on the testimony of people, not fact, but the subjective reality that the witnesses present to the court.

Truth: a verified or indisputable fact. Without forensic evidence, video or the like... there is none of that...

Conclusion, The court system is based on words, not truth.

It sounds like you are describing burden of proof, which is a process of the court system, dependent on evidence, which does not always provide a verdict that reflects what actually happened, depending on the credibility of the evidence and the adjudicative entity before which the evidence is presented.

The court system allows the prosecution the ability to attempt to provide credible evidence/facts to fit the scenario, in hopes that they will be judged accordingly, but the court system can do nothing to make that evidence/facts fit a scenario outlined by the prosecution, if those facts/evidence are not judged as credible or significant to the prosecution of the case.

There are no guarantees that the court system as it is designed will arrive at the truth of what actually happened, in a case presented, but determining the "truth" of what actually happened through the presentation of evidence judged as credible/not credible, is a goal of the court system. Part, of the reason why an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is part of the process.

While it is a fact that the truth is not always arrived at through the court system, it is a fact that truth plays a part in the way the courts system is designed, as there is a penalty for perjury.

Pretty good definition here of why courts exist:

http://www.nacmnet.org/cccg/cccg_1_corecompetency_purposes_cg1.html



It not a perfect system, but it least in the US, it is continuously redefined, with what are understood as rational guidelines.

http://courts.uslegal.com/burden-of-proof/



http://courts.uslegal.com/jury-system/jury-instructions-and-their-purpose/