Quote from Lucrum:
I guess I missed that part.
How so? See pspr's statement, again.
I guess so, within the context of the alleged crime, relevant laws, rules of evidence bla bla bla.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Zimmerman followed Martin" So? Unless you can PROVE Zimmerman initiated the escalation that led to the shooting, it does not matter. Legally speaking.
"Martin was not observed doing anything illegal" So? He didn't get shot while he "was not doing anything illegal". He was shot during the commission of a felony battery.
" The police dispatcher asked Zimmerman not to pursue on foot...Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and pursued on foot" Undisputed, but so what? Can you show where Zimmerman is required by law to follow directions from a dispatcher?
"What started the confrontation when the two met no one here knows" True and again undisputed. This happens to be the only relevant fact you mentioned.
If you could prove Zimmerman was in anyway responsible for the escalation in the confrontation leading to the shooting, he's guilty of manslaughter. Without it or at least evidence he's lying about it you got nothing, the prosecutor has nothing. Like I said he should never have been charged.
"Zimmerman is a liar" You said yourself this won't matter and it shouldn't.
The fact he's lied in the past in no way proves he's lying now.
LOL Lucrum I stopped reading this BS about two sentences into your blathering. Just admit it you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. When a real lawyer states something about the law they state their view as a legal opinion and often different lawyers also very qualified can have a different opinion. Yet the great intellectual law mind of Lucrum states the final unarguable facts of law. And the great Lucrum does this with no law degree or training nor years of hands on experience. I love the comedic value of your posts man. Keep it up dude, go Bulldogs.