George Zimmerman Trial

[Booslum31]

According to CNN a big part of the case will be that Travon Martin went for the gun first while it was holstered on his right side and that's when it escalated to life and death........... interesting... obviously no evidence of that occurring.

You lost me at CNN. LOL! But I do think that's the crux of the whole case.

 

[IrishLax]

You lost me at CNN. LOL! But I do think that's the crux of the whole case.

Hahaha they've had live coverage all day while I work from home... first time I've turned that channel on in.... ever?

 

[Irish Houstonian]

According to CNN a big part of the case will be that Travon Martin went for the gun first while it was holstered on his right side and that's when it escalated to life and death........... interesting... obviously no evidence of that occurring.

I think you can make the self-defense case without it. The neighbor testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman doing the "ground and pound" (funny how MMA has entered the public lexicon...).

And if I'm on the ground getting hammered, and there's no indication that the dude's going to stop, I think it would be pretty reasonable for me to believe I'm at risk of serious physical injury or death.

 

[NDTampa]

This trial seems to be absolutely pointless in my view.

Zimmerman was clearly the reason Martin is dead. He profiled him and he was TOTALLY WRONG---he had high confidence Martin was some kind of deadbeat , robber, unsavory character. He was TOTALLY wrong again. He didn't listen to the police , he was clearly looking for trouble based on his own comments about martin when he set out after him, followed him and clearly uspet and freaked out the youngster. It was unnecessary and WRONG and precipitated the events that cost martin his life.

All that said---there is a small possibility that Zimmerman could be convicted IN A STATE OTHER THEN FLORIDA for some kind of manslaughter charge based on his aggressive behavior and his disregard of the police instructions. STILL a difficult case to get a conviction of manslaughter but possible.

A second degree murder charge--in a "stand your ground state allowing concealed weapons" from an all white jury---and with virtually NO EVIDENCE to seriously contradict Zimmermans story makes a conviction ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE.

Now I have no idea what happened during the altercation--and apparently their is little to no evidence about that----and I DO NOT THINK MUCH OF THE DEFENDENT ---but I have to say......

Of all the high profile public trials since say OJ----many of those verdicts as big a joke as the Casey Anthony acquittal---I HAVE NEVER SEEN A WEAKER CASE FOR A MURDER CHARGE!

Prosecutors must have been either pressured or drunk to think they should make this charge not voluntary or involuntary manslaughter but 2nd DEGREE murder---- its ALMOST AS STUPID A MOVE AS THE INFAMOUS " TRY ON THE GLOVES MANUEVER" we all remember from the OJ case.

This should be an involuntary manslaughter case and maybe, maybe , mr Zimmerman would get some punishment for being so aggressive and so wrong in his assumptions and behavior that it cost a young man his life.---

But a murder charge is just a waste of time.

Jury will acquit within two days of the trials end.
And Zimmerman will likely do something else that gets him some karma justice within 2 or 3 years of the trials end.

What Police instruction did he not follow?

 

[ND NYC]

Aloha: is this really an all white jury?

 

[Emcee77]

I think you can make the self-defense case without it. The neighbor testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman doing the "ground and pound" (funny how MMA has entered the public lexicon...).

And if I'm on the ground getting hammered, and there's no indication that the dude's going to stop, I think it would be pretty reasonable for me to believe I'm at risk of serious physical injury or death.

+1. Don't think it really matters whether Martin was reaching for Z's gun.

If I'm a juror, the key issue is just whether, watching Z testify and answer questions on cross-examination and evaluating his credibility, I believe his story that Martin, not Zimmerman, was the initial aggressor. As others have pointed out, the fact that no one saw Zimmerman initiate the physical confrontation doesn't mean he didn't do it.

And unless I'm missing stuff there doesn't appear to be much other evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, so he'd have to look like a real slimeball for me to vote guilty.

 

[ND NYC]

How is Zimmerman NOT the "intitial aggressor" here?

think logically people!

All these TV pundits and lawyers dwelling on legalese while common sense seems to have been thrown out the window.

do you guys really think Trayvon was the one who approached Zimmerman and was the "initial agressor" in all of this? and Zimmerman was the victim? Unreal. Just unreal.

 

[Emcee77]

How is Zimmerman NOT the "intitial aggressor" here?

think logically people!

All these TV pundits and lawyers dwelling on legalese while common sense seems to have been thrown out the window.

do you guys really think Trayvon was the one who approached Zimmerman and was the "initial agressor" in all of this? and Zimmerman was the victim? Unreal. Just unreal.

Logically, either could have started the physical confrontation. It's not a matter of who provoked whom; we know that Zimmerman provoked Martin. It's a matter of who started the PHYSICAL confrontation. That we don't know, and it's not established conclusively by the testimony of the occurrence witnesses. If I'm a juror, my vote will depend greatly on how Zimmerman looks on the stand ... whether he's sweating bullets or seems composed, whether he seems like he's making up lies on cross-examination or whether he seems to have all the answers, whether he seems sorry or seems defiant, etc.

 

[Wild Bill]

How is Zimmerman NOT the "intitial aggressor" here?

think logically people!

All these TV pundits and lawyers dwelling on legalese while common sense seems to have been thrown out the window.

do you guys really think Trayvon was the one who approached Zimmerman and was the "initial agressor" in all of this? and Zimmerman was the victim? Unreal. Just unreal.

Yes, I think it's plausible. I really don't know, though. You seem certain Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. Why?

 

[SaltyND24]

Holy crap...now this is finally some reasonable logic, when someone is following you you have a choice confront, confront physically or head home or somewhere safe. A person following you not chasing you is not attacking or threatening.

I'm sorry but the last place I'm heading if someone is following/creeping on me is home...I wouldn't feel safe knowing that some creep now knows where I live. Now, I'm not saying that physically confronting someone is the smartest thing, mainly because you don't know what that person is capable of...BUT, why couldn't TM have felt threatened by the actions of GZ?? Guarantee you that if this story played out with a man following a girl, everyone would say the girl would've/should've felt threatened...just my opinion on that specific argument being made

 

[ND NYC]

Logically, either could have started the physical confrontation. It's not a matter of who provoked whom; we know that Zimmerman provoked Martin. It's a matter of who started the PHYSICAL confrontation. That we don't know, and it's not established conclusively by the testimony of the occurrence witnesses. If I'm a juror, my vote will depend greatly on how Zimmerman looks on the stand ... whether he's sweating bullets or seems composed, whether he seems like he's making up lies on cross-examination or whether he seems to have all the answers, whether he seems sorry or seems defiant, etc.

i see zero chance of this guy taking the stand in his own defense.
if he does, his lawyer should be fired

 

[GoIrish41]

I think you can make the self-defense case without it. The neighbor testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman doing the "ground and pound" (funny how MMA has entered the public lexicon...).

And if I'm on the ground getting hammered, and there's no indication that the dude's going to stop, I think it would be pretty reasonable for me to believe I'm at risk of serious physical injury or death.

Here is something that has bothered me ever since I heard Zimmerman's side of the story. He claims that, and the testimony of the eyewitness today (the one who knew who was on top and who was on bottom even though he can't conclusively say if punches were being thrown because it was too dark) Martin was straddling Zimmerman raining punches down on him. Eventually, according to Zimmerman, the punches stopped and Martin began bashing his head into the concrete sidewalk. While all of this was happening, Zimmerman contends that Martin was trying to go after the gun that was holstered on Zimmerman's hip.

Here's the part the bugs me ... If Martin's right leg is over one side of Zimmerman's body and his left leg was over the other side, we can all agree that Martin was in a dominant position. I can envision Martin going after the gun, although not at the same time he was relentlessly pointing on Zimmerman's face. But that isn't even the thing that bothered me. It was that the guy in the dominant position, with his legs blocking a clear path to the weapon strapped in a holster to Zimmerman's side would have had a much easier time getting the weapon than Zimmerman, no? If Zimmerman pulled the weapon only after getting beaten, it would mean that he had to reach around the leg of a guy who was beating the crap out of him, then back toward his body, having the incredible dexterity in his fingers to not only reach the gun, but to pull it back toward the butt of Martin to pull it out of the holster, position the gun in his hand so that it could shoot, pull it back around Martin's leg and pull the trigger, all while Martin was supposed to be going for the gun himself from the dominant position in the fight and/or pounding Martin's head into the concrete. Either Zimmerman had the hand dexterity of a magician and the flexibility of a contortionist, or this story does not seem plausible.

This coupled with the other incredible inconsistency I spoke about earlier, when he said he didn't think he hit him when he shot and when Martin fell backwards (presumably getting off his chest to do so because he was so startled by the gunshot from the weapon he already knew existed because he was "going for it") and Zimmerman jumped on top of his chest (several witnesses saw him in this position) and held his hands to the ground. However, when police arrived Martin was face down in the grass. Did he flip him back over and forget to tell anyone?

Zimmerman's story is consistent with a guy who killed someone and came up with the most plausible story he could on the fly (perhaps while he was pacing back and forth at the crime scene (as witnessed by the homeowner in the adjacent unit) with his hands on his head. Zimmerman's story is really, really hard to believe.

This is to say nothing about the fact that there wouldn't have been a confrontation in the first place if Zimmerman didn't follow Martin (ignoring the dispatcher).

 

[Emcee77]

i see zero chance of this guy taking the stand in his own defense.
if he does, his lawyer should be fired

I don't know how else they can provide evidence of a valid self-defense claim. He has to testify, unless the State just happens to bring in pre-trial statements of his which tell the same story. It's not a matter of the lawyer's discretion; it's a matter of getting that evidence into the record.

 

[Wild Bill]

Here's the part the bugs me ... If Martin's right leg is over one side of Zimmerman's body and his left leg was over the other side, we can all agree that Martin was in a dominant position. I can envision Martin going after the gun, although not at the same time he was relentlessly pointing on Zimmerman's face. But that isn't even the thing that bothered me. It was that the guy in the dominant position, with his legs blocking a clear path to the weapon strapped in a holster to Zimmerman's side would have had a much easier time getting the weapon than Zimmerman, no? If Zimmerman pulled the weapon only after getting beaten, it would mean that he had to reach around the leg of a guy who was beating the crap out of him, then back toward his body, having the incredible dexterity in his fingers to not only reach the gun, but to pull it back toward the butt of Martin to pull it out of the holster, position the gun in his hand so that it could shoot, pull it back around Martin's leg and pull the trigger, all while Martin was supposed to be going for the gun himself from the dominant position in the fight and/or pounding Martin's head into the concrete. Either Zimmerman had the hand dexterity of a magician and the flexibility of a contortionist, or this story does not seem plausible.

Does the evidence suggest Martin's legs blocked Zimmerman's arms?

 

[GoIrish41]

Does the evidence suggest Martin's legs blocked Zimmerman's arms?

I haven't heard this brought up by anyone, but it would seem to me that logic would dictate that if you are straddling a person, your legs would block them something like taking a weapon out of a holster. I think common sense would suggest that his arms would be obscured from getting easily to the gun.

Edit: The conclusion I could draw from my previous post is that the gun had already been out, in case I wasn't being clear.

 

[ND NYC]

did they have these witnesses "recreate" what they saw...(like Ray Lewis with the stabbbings) or was it just verbal testimony?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

im sorry for having a different opinion than you do....i guess since you were there, you know the whole story and everyone else is just wrong.

No my objection is to what you had to say about TM. You don't know what kind of kid he was. He was absolutely slandered in the media, and among guns rights activists, as well as by racists. It was said that he was a regular drug user, that he was a gangbanger, etc., etc. When every one of the pos TM rumors were run down, turns out they were false.

And I don't care. I don't care if he fought; and I don't care if he didn't. I feel bad for any kid with a 'creep' following him, and I refuse to call TM names to fit things into a box. I feel bad for GM, too. He was poorly trained, psychologically ill equipped and sent out with little chance of results other than the catastrophe. I have repeatedly said all I am willing to pass judgment on is the HOA, management at the complex, and the police trainers.

So I am sorry if I wasn't clear. I was and will attack unfounded gossip. (That was one thing Jesus did actually align himself against.) But in no way did I mean to attack you, or your opinion. If you want to say, TM was the aggressor, that is fine, by my account about 30 to 40 percent of the posters feel that way, fine, I haven't attacked them; I won't attack you.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Yes, I think it's plausible. I really don't know, though. You seem certain Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. Why?

Because they met. If GZ had broken it off at any point they never would have met. Even if GZ would have gotten out of his car, asked TM what he was doing from more that a couple feet away, GZ could have retreated to his car. Nobody, especially someone street wise, would have chased someone like that back to their car, without having a weapon at the ready. We know TM didn't have a weapon.

 

[GoIrish41]

did they have these witnesses "recreate" what they saw...(like Ray Lewis with the stabbbings) or was it just verbal testimony?

not sure if you are talking to me, but like I said, I'm not basing this on any testimony but Zimmerman's statement. I've not even heard this come up anywhere, which is kinda shocking tome. I presume that it will come up if Zimmerman takes the stand.

 

[ND NYC]

not sure if you are talking to me, but like I said, I'm not basing this on any testimony but Zimmerman's statement. I've not even heard this come up anywhere, which is kinda shocking tome. I presume that it will come up if Zimmerman takes the stand.

no, not directed at anyone...i was just wondering if people who saw these witnesses on TV today knew or not. i didnt see it/watch it.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I think you can make the self-defense case without it. The neighbor testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman doing the "ground and pound" (funny how MMA has entered the public lexicon...).

And if I'm on the ground getting hammered, and there's no indication that the dude's going to stop, I think it would be pretty reasonable for me to believe I'm at risk of serious physical injury or death.

Actually, and nobody made a big thing out of this, but the neighbor who saw the most, and actually still identified TM as on top, recanted everything he said about blows being rained down, etc., because he was warned that he was on the record as saying it was too dark to even distinguish shapes, to tell that their were too men in a scuffle. He couldn't say that blows were being landed because he already said it was too dark to see. And when the PA that examined GZ the next day, and the pathologist that autopsied TM hit the stand, his potential perjury would have been exposed.

I liked the PA. She was the best witness in the trial. She made it really clear that there were no serious wounds and that the basis for GZ's upset tummy was psychological. Her testimony will do more to convict GZ than any other evidence at this point. Another point. As I said earlier in my posts, there was no 'proof' of a broken nose. Or a closed fracture; or anything else. He refused an x-ray the only diagnostic tool that would confirm a broken nose. And there was no evidence of a deviated septum. GZ's wounds were successfully shown by the prosecution to be superficial. And further, from the testimony of the PA they can start to emphasize the narcissistic component to GZ's personality. Kind of like Elmer Fudd, "I'm gonna shoot me a wabit!"

 

[IrishLax]

Actually, and nobody made a big thing out of this, but the neighbor who saw the most, and actually still identified TM as on top, recanted everything he said about blows being rained down, etc., because he was warned that he was on the record as saying it was too dark to even distinguish shapes, to tell that their were too men in a scuffle. He couldn't say that blows were being landed because he already said it was too dark to see. And when the PA that examined GZ the next day, and the pathologist that autopsied TM hit the stand, his potential perjury would have been exposed.

I'm sorry but I watched his entire testimony (and about 4 straight hours of trial today while working from home) and that was not my interpretation. It sounds like you watched it also? How did you come to this conclusion from what was said? What he corrected to was that he saw "downward arm movements" but couldn't state with certitude that fists actually connected with flesh. So he was still pretty emphatic and precise that TM was on top making "downward arm movements" which to me is very far from recanting what he said and doesn't deviate very far from his initial statement. You're right that it does matter in the long run because one could easily interpret punches being rained on someone's head to be "life threatening" whereas it's hard to really make that jump from "downward arm movements."

I liked the PA. She was the best witness in the trial. She made it really clear that there were no serious wounds and that the basis for GZ's upset tummy was psychological. Her testimony will do more to convict GZ than any other evidence at this point. Another point. As I said earlier in my posts, there was no 'proof' of a broken nose. Or a closed fracture; or anything else. He refused an x-ray the only diagnostic tool that would confirm a broken nose. And there was no evidence of a deviated septum. GZ's wounds were successfully shown by the prosecution to be superficial. And further, from the testimony of the PA they can start to emphasize the narcissistic component to GZ's personality. Kind of like Elmer Fudd, "I'm gonna shoot me a wabit!"

Didn't think PA was that damning to Zimmerman at all. You're right that the severity of injuries is a BIG deal in determining potential guilt. But there are a lot of other factors that can make her testimony basically irrelevant.

 

[jmurphy75]

Just out of curiosity, why is it so absurd to ask why TM just didn't say "hey man what's the problem? My dad lives here". Everyone seems so intent on GZ's choices that he made, well TM made some choices also.

 

[Redbar]

The more I think about this case the more I realize how right Bogtrotter was. This case highlights a flawed law "stand your ground". It is flawed because it extends the right to self defense, (which no one is arguing against here) to non life threatening situations, and tries to wrap possessions in the same blanket as personal defense. That is what police and insurance are for. I am not saying people should not try to deter crimes against property, and a well trained neighborhood watch can do this, but the protection of property alone should not be afforded the same status as the protection of life. So this is my problem with this case. The law created George Zimmerman, and will create a lot more George Zimmerman's it will also create a lot more TM's. I hate what he did, but in a way he is a victim too. This is how average people commit horrific atrocities, they are reassured by the authority figure or the law that something vicious and cruel is acceptable, sanctioned, even encouraged by society and they are too numb?, dumb??, ill equipped??? to think it through for themselves. GZ is either a sociopath who knew he could use this law as cover or he unwittingly allowed a sociopathic law to be his justification instead of his own conscience being his justification. If it is the latter, then in a way, certainly not to the extent of TM, but in a way he is a victim of this law too.

 

[no.1IrishFan]

We're getting way too wrapped up in possible scenarios/reasons for what happened. None of which really matter that much from a legal standpoint. They make great topics for discussion and may add to courtroom drama, but are of little consequence to the actual law.

Here is all that really matters:

1.GZ made a decision to pursue someone(with a loaded firearm) that had committed NO crime. Assuming he has taken the same Florida mandated course to conceal/carry a firearm that I've taken, he KNOWS he cannot do this. Looking suspicious to someone is not a crime.

2. The SECOND he makes the choice to follow TM he has given up the right to claim self defense. He was not in danger of his life because HE was the agressor.

3. TM had every legal right to stand his ground after being pursued by GZ(think about it, how long would you let someone chase you before you stopped running and defended yourself?).

You see, it doesn't matter how many homes in the neighborhood had been broken into in the past, or how "suspicious" TM looked to GZ. I live in a great neighborhood, I see people all the time that look somewhat suspicious to me, but I don't pursue them with a loaded firearm, I let the police do what they are paid and trained to do.

Trouble is the only thing you'll find 100% of the time you go looking for it.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

We're getting way too wrapped up in possible scenarios/reasons for what happened. None of which really matter that much from a legal standpoint. They make great topics for discussion and may add to courtroom drama, but are of little consequence to the actual law.

Here is all that really matters:

1.GZ made a decision to pursue someone(with a loaded firearm) that had committed NO crime. Assuming he has taken the same Florida mandated course to conceal/carry a firearm that I've taken, he KNOWS he cannot do this.

2. The SECOND he makes the choice to follow TM he has given up the right to claim self defense. He was not in danger of his life because HE was the agressor.

3. TM had every legal right to stand his ground after being pursued by GZ(think about it, how long would you let someone chase you before you stopped running and defended yourself?).

You see, it doesn't matter how many homes in the neighborhood had been broken into in the past, or how "suspicious" TM looked to GZ. I live in a great neighborhood, I see people all the time that look somewhat suspicious to me, but I don't pursue them with a loaded firearm, I let the police do what they are paid and trained to do.

Trouble is the only thing you'll find 100% of the time you go looking for it.

Good post.

 

[drayer54]

We're getting way too wrapped up in possible scenarios/reasons for what happened. None of which really matter that much from a legal standpoint. They make great topics for discussion and may add to courtroom drama, but are of little consequence to the actual law.

Here is all that really matters:

1.GZ made a decision to pursue someone(with a loaded firearm) that had committed NO crime. Assuming he has taken the same Florida mandated course to conceal/carry a firearm that I've taken, he KNOWS he cannot do this. Looking suspicious to someone is not a crime.

2. The SECOND he makes the choice to follow TM he has given up the right to claim self defense. He was not in danger of his life because HE was the agressor.

3. TM had every legal right to stand his ground after being pursued by GZ(think about it, how long would you let someone chase you before you stopped running and defended yourself?).

You see, it doesn't matter how many homes in the neighborhood had been broken into in the past, or how "suspicious" TM looked to GZ. I live in a great neighborhood, I see people all the time that look somewhat suspicious to me, but I don't pursue them with a loaded firearm, I let the police do what they are paid and trained to do.

Trouble is the only thing you'll find 100% of the time you go looking for it.

It doesn't matter that GZ pursued, got out of the car, ignored the call, whatever. None of that matters. I can go up to people who pass my house with my CCW permit and weapon in my IWB holster like I usually have and not be even remotely close to breaking the law. Your point 2 couldn't be further from the truth.

If TM was the aggressor.... Self defense.

Even if GZ was initially the aggressor then retreated and TM pursued... Self Defense.

If TM was on top of GZ and pummeling him, he isn't standing his ground anymore....

 

[no.1IrishFan]

It doesn't matter that GZ pursued, got out of the car, ignored the call, whatever. None of that matters. I can go up to people who pass my house with my CCW permit and weapon in my IWB holster like I usually have and not be even remotely close to breaking the law. Your point 2 couldn't be further from the truth. If TM was the aggressor.... Self defense.

Even if GZ was initially the aggressor then retreated and TM pursued... Self Defense.

If TM was on top of GZ and pummeling him, he isn't standing his ground anymore....

My bad, I assumed you would understand the context of the situation. I have also approached people while armed, however, I was not chasing them in an attempt to detain them, and they were not running from me. I'll be clearer next time...

 

[IrishLax]

We're getting way too wrapped up in possible scenarios/reasons for what happened. None of which really matter that much from a legal standpoint. They make great topics for discussion and may add to courtroom drama, but are of little consequence to the actual law.

Here is all that really matters:

1.GZ made a decision to pursue someone(with a loaded firearm) that had committed NO crime. Assuming he has taken the same Florida mandated course to conceal/carry a firearm that I've taken, he KNOWS he cannot do this. Looking suspicious to someone is not a crime.

2. The SECOND he makes the choice to follow TM he has given up the right to claim self defense. He was not in danger of his life because HE was the agressor.

3. TM had every legal right to stand his ground after being pursued by GZ(think about it, how long would you let someone chase you before you stopped running and defended yourself?).

You see, it doesn't matter how many homes in the neighborhood had been broken into in the past, or how "suspicious" TM looked to GZ. I live in a great neighborhood, I see people all the time that look somewhat suspicious to me, but I don't pursue them with a loaded firearm, I let the police do what they are paid and trained to do.

Trouble is the only thing you'll find 100% of the time you go looking for it.

Unless there is something special in Florida law there is nothing illegal about following someone in your neighborhood. To #2, that's not how self defense works. If I'm following someone and they attack me... it's still self defense. Period. To #3, that's not how the stand your ground law works at all.

Bottom line is being followed gives you no right to attack someone. This is common sense. Everything you just posted seems either flat out wrong or irrelevant to what would actually convict Zimmerman. At least from what I've read and been told by lawyers but I don't live in Florida and am not one myself.

 

[IrishLax]

It doesn't matter that GZ pursued, got out of the car, ignored the call, whatever. None of that matters. I can go up to people who pass my house with my CCW permit and weapon in my IWB holster like I usually have and not be even remotely close to breaking the law. Your point 2 couldn't be further from the truth.

If TM was the aggressor.... Self defense.

Even if GZ was initially the aggressor then retreated and TM pursued... Self Defense.

If TM was on top of GZ and pummeling him, he isn't standing his ground anymore....

This.