![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsI'm kind of surprised that we haven't had a post about the Zimmerman trial over the last few weeks, but the jury enters its second day of deliberations today, first full day. We could, theoretically, have a ruling today on the case.
A few links for those who may not have been following closely. I will happily add any other recommended sites for daily analysis of the case if they're posted in the comments.
FROM THE RIGHT:
* Legal Insurrection.
FROM THE LEFT:
* TalkLeft.
A few links for those who may not have been following closely. I will happily add any other recommended sites for daily analysis of the case if they're posted in the comments.
FROM THE RIGHT:
* Legal Insurrection.
FROM THE LEFT:
* TalkLeft.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/13 16:45 (UTC)More to the point, why on earth would you confront someone who is armed if you're not? Not really relevant to the legal issues at play, but that's pretty stupid if that's what you think happened.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/13 17:07 (UTC)Is there evidence other than Zimmerman's testimony that supports that?
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/13 17:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/7/13 17:33 (UTC)If so, then there is equally nothing to support the idea that Zimmerman had his gun effectively concealed when confronting Martin.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/13 17:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 13/7/13 18:35 (UTC)You assert, perhaps correctly, that there is zero evidence that Zimmerman brandished his weapon at any point. If so, it logically follows that there is likewise zero evidence he had it effectively concealed until discharge.
Citing the evidence would be an effective rebuttal, I'd think.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/13 19:21 (UTC)How does that work?
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/13 19:42 (UTC)2.) To suggest the weapon is concealed is a positive assertion requiring evidence.
To assert there were no witnesses for evidence of #1, it follows there were also none for #2.
The witnesses were pretty poor. They were far away at night. They debated who was on top because they couldn't clearly discern the difference, so its unlikely they got a good enough look to be credible on the brandish/concealment issue either way.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/13 20:03 (UTC)No, there were no witnesses who saw evidence of 1. Also, you're proving "A implies B" by saying "A and C" implies B.
If it was "brandished", Martin would have seen it, and unless he was crazy, he would have likely ran away.
(no subject)
Date: 13/7/13 17:30 (UTC)Exactly. He had no choice. I can tell when someone is packing fairly easily, its not at all a certainty that he didn't know Zimmerman was armed.