Today I was watching part of the closing arguments of the Zimmerman trial. At first I was really into the trial, but as witnesses went from being different throughout the day, to some getting grilled for hours upon end, I kinda zoned out, knowing that the end was eventually near. The end is near, and whatever happens will happen. For years I've read some good advice from others, and have agreed that when a person finds themselves in a deadly force situation, they need to contact an attorney ASAP. Hopefully everyone is learning from the Zimmerman incident. Some of the bigger issues that come to me are:
-Your words can come back to haunt you. Calling people names, posting nasty stuff on Facebook, Twitter, etc. can clearly be used against you. In this case, for some reason, only what Zimmerman wrote can be used against him. Stuff that Martin wrote, either through words or photos (remember, a picture is worth 1,000 words), isn't allowed to be presented.
-Even innocent statements that are a bit different can come back to haunt you. When Zimmerman tells the cops at one point Martin was "in the bushes," but at another point that he just came out of the darkness, I don't see an issue with that. It is clear that area is almost pitch black. "Hiding in the bushes" is such an engrained phrase in this country, it can almost be used generically for someone who is in the darkness, the shadows, lying in wait.
-The biggest issue for me, which has been debated here, is getting involved in the first place. And I'm talking all involvement, not just direct. Look at how many people indirectly involved themselves in this case and had to deal with testifying, cross-examination, and who knows how many depositions. The state tried to save face in this aspect, saying it was OK to dislike criminals, OK to call the cops and get involved, but to them, Zimmerman got too involved, oh and he hated criminals too much and made a snap decision to play police. Watching that initial argument about how 'Oh, it's OK to get involved. It's good to call the police.' made me roll my eyes. We have police administrators get on TV begging citizens to be snitches, that the "don't snitch" mentality makes it very hard for homicides to get prosecuted. We have the Department of Homeland Security putting posters up all over the country that proclaim "See something, say something." There are numerous examples of police agencies proclaiming that anything that makes a person suspicious, for whatever reason, call them. If you call on someone and say they are acting suspicious, they are a suspect. Zimmerman correctly referred to Martin as a suspect, but of course in that incident, the state is saying that is a bad thing. They claim that Zimmerman is trying to paint himself as scared, but he got out of his car and followed a suspect. They claim the mere fact of wearing a gun is good, it's constitutional, but of course in this case, it was bad considering all the other things Zimmerman did.
What is everyone else now thinking about getting involved? In another thread a poster somewhat took me to task for suggesting that civilians should really not get involved in third party issues. If the suspect isn't stealing your stuff, why even call at all? If you don't know if the person losing a fight started it or not, why intervene? There are some instances where I believe many people would get involved, issues that involve young children. Even then, if someone ends up shooting someone and claims self-defense for themselves and/or a third party, the mere fact the person ran toward danger could clearly come back to haunt the person.
The state's closing was pretty good. If it pointed out one thing, it was that Zimmerman was too involved in trying to do the right thing. It will be very interesting to see what happens. I really hope that emotion, or fear of riots, doesn't factor into the verdict. The Casey Anthony case is one of those verdicts that seem to show the jury didn't vote on emotion "Oh, a small child died, someone needs to be held accountable. Guilty!"
-Your words can come back to haunt you. Calling people names, posting nasty stuff on Facebook, Twitter, etc. can clearly be used against you. In this case, for some reason, only what Zimmerman wrote can be used against him. Stuff that Martin wrote, either through words or photos (remember, a picture is worth 1,000 words), isn't allowed to be presented.
-Even innocent statements that are a bit different can come back to haunt you. When Zimmerman tells the cops at one point Martin was "in the bushes," but at another point that he just came out of the darkness, I don't see an issue with that. It is clear that area is almost pitch black. "Hiding in the bushes" is such an engrained phrase in this country, it can almost be used generically for someone who is in the darkness, the shadows, lying in wait.
-The biggest issue for me, which has been debated here, is getting involved in the first place. And I'm talking all involvement, not just direct. Look at how many people indirectly involved themselves in this case and had to deal with testifying, cross-examination, and who knows how many depositions. The state tried to save face in this aspect, saying it was OK to dislike criminals, OK to call the cops and get involved, but to them, Zimmerman got too involved, oh and he hated criminals too much and made a snap decision to play police. Watching that initial argument about how 'Oh, it's OK to get involved. It's good to call the police.' made me roll my eyes. We have police administrators get on TV begging citizens to be snitches, that the "don't snitch" mentality makes it very hard for homicides to get prosecuted. We have the Department of Homeland Security putting posters up all over the country that proclaim "See something, say something." There are numerous examples of police agencies proclaiming that anything that makes a person suspicious, for whatever reason, call them. If you call on someone and say they are acting suspicious, they are a suspect. Zimmerman correctly referred to Martin as a suspect, but of course in that incident, the state is saying that is a bad thing. They claim that Zimmerman is trying to paint himself as scared, but he got out of his car and followed a suspect. They claim the mere fact of wearing a gun is good, it's constitutional, but of course in this case, it was bad considering all the other things Zimmerman did.
What is everyone else now thinking about getting involved? In another thread a poster somewhat took me to task for suggesting that civilians should really not get involved in third party issues. If the suspect isn't stealing your stuff, why even call at all? If you don't know if the person losing a fight started it or not, why intervene? There are some instances where I believe many people would get involved, issues that involve young children. Even then, if someone ends up shooting someone and claims self-defense for themselves and/or a third party, the mere fact the person ran toward danger could clearly come back to haunt the person.
The state's closing was pretty good. If it pointed out one thing, it was that Zimmerman was too involved in trying to do the right thing. It will be very interesting to see what happens. I really hope that emotion, or fear of riots, doesn't factor into the verdict. The Casey Anthony case is one of those verdicts that seem to show the jury didn't vote on emotion "Oh, a small child died, someone needs to be held accountable. Guilty!"
