Well, that, and the fact that the case consisted of the defense having actual evidence with the only real witness in the entire case (John Good) be on their side (despite being the prosecution's witness) and the the prosecution basically having no case whatsoever. The Prosecution's case was basically "That poor kid, he was killed and we owe it to him to put a guy in jail even if there's no evidence he had malice aforethought, negligence and the victim had about 4 minutes to run 100 yards but somehow ended up fighting the guy about 30 yards away from his car."
And just think, in a week, of all the folks throwing a ***-fit over this, noone will care anymore once the new "trendy" case hits their attention.
This kind of stuff happens all the time, and it's been going on for a long time. It's not that no one will care, it's just that the next big case just like it will come soon enough.
And just think, in a week, of all the folks throwing a ***-fit over this, noone will care anymore once the new "trendy" case hits their attention.
This kind of stuff happens all the time, and it's been going on for a long time. It's not that no one will care, it's just that the next big case just like it will come soon enough.
Kind of exactly what im saying. It sets a very horrid precedent in states that have these types of laws. All im saying is dont do anything remotely "suspicious" as now you can be shot for it.
And no, i dont need to be flamed for this idea, as you know well as i this case will be used as justification in many "self defense" cases yet to come.
There's been plenty of cases in the past where a claim of self-defense was found to be not valid. This case had a defendant who was seen on the ground with a man on top of him by the only actual witness. He had wounds on his face and the back of his head. When exactly do you consider self-defense to be valid? Did his wounds have to be more severe? How would someone in the middle of the fight be able to determine this when there have been people in the past that have died from internal bleeding even though they felt just fine outside?
If he shot Martin because he "looked suspicious", then there wouldn't have been a fight at all.
If you want argue about the fact that this is a high profile case and thus matters more, I find the line of thought that a man that has not been proven guilty should be found guilty because it would set a better "precedent" pretty disquieting.
Not being pegged with murder I can see but involuntary manslaughter seems pretty appropriate here. He ignored the orders of trained professionals to go play wannabe cop and assumes zero culpability for his actions after shooting a kid who wasn't armed.
Doubtful. It's high profile doesn't change the lack of evidence/testimonies capable of eliminating reasonable doubt. Despite the hype, this is as by-the-numbers as most cases go.
EDIT: That gif makes me hope there's a "PS4vsXboxOne" version out there.
There weren't any orders given, only suggestions. It's just another example of the vocabulary being manipulated in this case. 911 dispatchers arn't trained to give orders because that makes them responsible for what happens. Even if they gave orders, 911 dispatchers don't exactly have any authority whatsoever.
Involuntary manslaughter demands that he was acting in a criminally negligent manner. After he lost the kid it should've just ended then, but somehow he ended up getting into a fight with the kid as he was walking back to his car when the kid should've been back in his dad's home playing video games by then?