The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I just read where the state is pushing to keep out all of Trayvons history including bringing up Martin's personal life, including his school records, previous suspension from school, fights, text messages sent prior to his death and even his toxicology report out of the trial.

I know this is a formality but it got me to thinking ... should they be allowed to paint a picture of the dead person using their history knowing full well they are going to be using history to paint a  picture of the defendant? I think the average person would say yes but since there is nothing average about this case it got me to wondering.

I think that it should be admissible in cases where it is relevant.  In this case, Zimmerman knew nothing of Treyvon, so it doesn't matter.

If Treyvon and Zimmerman knew each other and Zimmerman knew Treyvon to be a threat based on previous instances, then it would matter.  But in this case, it does not.

It would only be relevant if this history somehow directly led to his death.

It is called character evidence, it is not admissible.  Likewise the state can't use zimmerman's history either. 

I personally think both are relevant. If Zimmerman has a history of violence and Martin has a history of making peace that would be a big deal. If it was reversed it would be a big deal.  I'm not sure how you can make a judgement call without knowing the mindset behind the person you are making the judgement call on.

Without "knowing" the mindset, or without "speculating" about the mindset? You could argue that the chance of 100% accurately knowing Treyvon Martin's mindset died at about the same time that he did.

Just because you got a speeding ticket, that doesn't make you a wife beater.

Obviously I'll never know his mindset 100%.

I look at this way. If you meet someone you immediately get a mental picture of how that person is based on your past experiences with similar looking people.  Now once you get to know them that changes but until you know about their past it's impossible to anticipate how that person is going to react to your joke, compliment, complaint or whatever.  If the person has a history of violence does it mean they were violent tin this case? No ... but the mindset would be coming from a person with violent tendencies more than one who is known for helping strangers.

For instance, I know my one brother would react completely different and way more aggressive than my oldest brother if he was confronted by an "unmarked" security person. Although siblings and come from similar backgrounds their history would show completely different people. One would just as soon pound your head in while the other would introduce you to Jesus.

I have no idea what that means.

So should we be asking Zimmerman what his experiences have been with people that looked similar to Trayvon?

What does a person's actual history have to do with whom they look similar to?

I don't think Martin's school records, etc., are relevant.  However, his text messages immediately prior to the fight, and his toxicology reports are relevant.  Likewise, Zimmerman's prior history isn't relevant, unless it shows a pattern related to this case.

In short, we don't put victims on trial.

^^^ When self defense is in play we do and should. At what point does an offender become a victim in a case like this and vice versa? That is what has to be determined.

Here's the thing:

If we are to look at Trayvon's history to judge whether he was the aggressor, are we also to look at Zimmerman's history to judge the same?

I'm no lawyer but I don't know if it's legal to convict someone of a crime that happened yesterday because they were violent a year ago.  That being said, what's good for the goose...

If I recall the rules of evidence correctly (and I might not).

The ball is in the defendants court regarding character evidence.

In the state's case-in-chief the state may not introduce character evidence either about the victim (e.g. the victim was a peaceful person) or the defendant (e.g. the defendant was a violent person).

The defendant may introduce good character evidence about the defendant or bad character evidence about the victim.  But if he does then the state may rebut this by also introducing character evidence.   

^^^ Correct as far as I know. If Zimmerman's lawyers open the door the state can present evidence that contradicts his character claims.

If a whore dies during a rape, do we excuse the rape because she's a whore? No. That's why we don't (shouldn't) put victims on trial. "They had it coming" is not an excuse for a crime.

That is quite a bit different. 

If the defendant's defense is he was acting in self-defense, than the conduct of the victim is highly relevant.

If a an LSD addict trips out and enters your house by accident at night thinking it is his own and you shoot him thinking he is a burglar: Do we excuse the murder because the victim a worthless druggy?  NO!  We excuse the crime b/c you were acting in self defense. 

The question in this case is did Martin act in such a matter on that day as to place Zimmerman to make Zimmerman reasonable apprehension of serious harm.  To that extent Martin's conduct is on trial.  Whether Martin smoked dope at some point in his life, however, is not relevant to answering that question.     

Well you really went to the extreme there. My example was meant to mean more like, what if she specialized in role play of the act of rape and was accidentally choked for too long. Is someone still responsible for her death, well yes. Was it planned, not really.

I really don't think this is even quite on par with what I meant but I wanted to stay with your example.

The best way to really get what I mean is not take it out of context anyway. I specifically said when self defense is in play and you either glanced over that or ignored it.

Yes ... why wouldn't you? And I don't mean just towards blacks but towards people in general. Does he have ahistory of threatening people with a gubn. does he have a history of pushing things farther they need to go. Pretty much ... what patterns exist in his life?


I was using looks only as a means. Most of us, but I'm quite sure not you, create stereotypical profiles of people when we see them.  Those profiles change as we get to know them either by reputation or experiences directly with them. If I am going to have to make a judgement call on something you may have or didn't do you might want me to think you are generally a decent person.

Actually on those facts it would not be murder.  Either manslaughter or negligent homicide. 

So yes, if the victim consented to be choked and the victim specialized in role playing rape and choking, that would be highly relevant.   


I missed that part.  But than what you said is irrelevant to the discussion because self defense is in play. 

I  can attest that a favorite quote if his at one point was "Say hello to my little friend."

Yes, my "whore" analogy was extreme. To prove a point. Trayvon was shown to have traces of THC in his system (according to toxicology reports). So how are his school records relevant? They're not. I'm also biased in believing that marijuana use doesn't make one violent. The young man had traces, which doesn't even prove he used that night. So how is his alleged marijuana use relevant? Its not. Just like the fake gold teeth argument. Now, I will agree that marijuana may make you paranoid. But why would a young man have a reason to be paranoid on a Sunday evening in a private neighborhood? Maybe someone following him may have had something to do with that?

None of what you quoted me on was directed at you. Your response came as I was addressing Diablo originally.

Judge ruled inadmissible as it runs afoul of the hearsay rules.

Somewhat inadmissable. She left the door open. It cannot be used in opending statements but there are circumstances where it can still come out.

If they can get around the hearsay rules. The door is left ajar, but unless they can do a better job of verifying the "evidence" it will not survive legal scrutiny under the hearsay rules.
The defense is trying to blame the victim here. Zimmerman's own criminal record of violence as an adult is worse than the things Martin supposedly did as a minor. It also does nothing to establishing the claim of self defense since Zimmerman chose to pursue an unarmed minor.

^^^ That is a bit of a slipperly slop though. I went down an isle in the store the other day and I didn't even need to be on that isle because I saw a cute girl. That isn't illegal. The state would need to prove Zimmerman actually did something other than walking.

If the girl ended up getting raped after she came out of the store, and you were somehow on tape saying on the phone, "Man, I think I'm gonna follow this girl around the store for a minute," you might have a problem on your hands if you don't have an alibi.

I certainly would as does Zimmerman. This problem doesn't mean there is enough evidence for conviction though. I am actually looking forward to this thing starting and can't wait until it plays out.

I know of at least 2 people who got jury notices. There's probably more considering how many they are going to vett but I've found out about two of them.

But unlike Zimmerman, Martin did not have multiple instances of violence towards others, nor was not arrested and pled out. The defense has to prove Martin did something besides try and walk home after going to the store.

I thought the prosecution is the one that has to "prove" it was murder?

Exactly CF. The defense doesn't have any burden of proof in the US court system. I'm not sure what bsmooth was thinking with that.

^^But this would imply that you are innocent until proven guilty in our courts. That runs completely contradictory to the media, so that can't be right.  >:D

Well in the court of public opinion, everyone is guilty.

They don't have the burden of proof.  Technically the defense doesn't have to do anything.  But it would be wise for them to discredit the evidence against Zimmerman.  Proving Martin was up to no good that night would do just that.

I don't really see how that helps his case since what they really would like to prove is that Zimmerman was defending himself. Even if Martin was attempting to break into a home that's no reason for Zimmerman to try to stop him and it's also no reason for Martin to do anything but flee from Zimmerman. How does that help his case?

If I'm the defense the only "evidence" I'm bringing up is if there is evidence that Zimmerman was defending himself. I would think the 911 calls where you can hear someone screaming for help would be the more likely "evidence" that the trial would center on since whomever was screaming for help was most likely acting in self defense and that's really what is on trial here.

I actually agree with Pappy.  Even if Trayvon is a scumbag, it doesn't give Zimmerman any more right to kill him.  I think that introducing all of these other things only helps the prosecution's narrative.  As the defense, you're not trying to make the case that Zimmerman killed Trayvon because he was bad.  It was that he killed him because he had to in order to protect his own life.

I don't think the idea of the defense wanting to bring this stuff up playes in line with some of this discussion. I don't think it is to say simply Martin is bad. I think they are trying to raise reasonable doubt. If you know that Martin had a propensity for violence it helps to raise reasonable doubt because he could have very well been the agressor. It helps to link to their position that Martin started the agressive behavior.

You're forgetting something: it's easier to convict someone who the jury hates (even if the facts aren't terrible) and it's easier to lose a conviction if the jury likes someone (even if the facts are pretty damning).

If the jury hates Trayvon, then, even if the facts against Zim are pretty bad, that'll weigh in Zimmerman's favor. If the jury hates Zim, then, they'll likely convict him, even if the facts against him are only mediocre.

Two points: One, the prosecution can't bring up past bad acts, generally. They can't have someone come in and say that Zimmerman was a thief and liar. However, they can bring in "pattern" evidence. So, if he has a pattern of violent acts... that may be able to come in. The trouble is, if the defense puts up some testimony that Zim's a good guy, and wouldn't hurt someone, then, that opens the door for the prosecution to respond.

Two: I would be really interested to see if anyone makes a Batson motion in this case. If someone strikes a juror on the basis of race or gender, and can't give a race- or gender-neutral reason for the strike (negative law enforcement contacts, bad guy, appears unable to focus, blah, blah, blah) then, they lose that strike and the juror they struck can be empanelled. That'll be a show, I promise you, given the racial overtones of this case.

My bet: end of the day, unless Zimmerman has some very strong evidence that leads people to believe that he shot the kid because he was being attacked (and he might, given his scarred up face on the night of the killing) the jury will convict on a lesser included offense than the one charged. Maybe manslaughter or something.

There's one other thing to consider when talking about bringing up "character" evidence.

Jury's tend to be more sympathetic to a corpse then to a defendant. If the defense brings up character issues about Trayvon, then the state will definately bring up character issues about Zimmerman. Generally speaking it's bad form trying to bring up character issues on a dead guy, just looks like you are spitting on his grave. Defendants on the other hand, especially those that are going to be testifying in front of the jurors, tend to get no such sympathy. Makes it looks like the facts don't support his case.

I still say that if I'm Zimmerman's lawyer, I don't want ANY character issues being brought up at trial about either of them.

Having said that, I don't think a toxicology report is bringing up "character" evidence. I think if you can prove diminished capacity that's a completely seperate issue that I would persue. "He's not a bad guy, he just was on this drug which clouded his judgement".

I think Zimmerman's best defense is not to try and question Treyvon, but stick very much to facts.  Just keep insistent that Treyvon was probably a very nice kid, but from the limited interaction we had, he attacked me for whatever reason, I feared for my life because he was on top of me pummeling me, and I responded.

Trying to badmouth Treyvon may only add fuel to the fire about the preconceived ideas Zimmerman had.

^^^ I have to say I agree for the most part. The only way I would want to get into that realm is if there were clear cut cases of agression on Martin's part. A school suspension for pot would sound petty. School records showing repeated fighting may be a bit more on target.

That is true to a point.  The prosecution has the burden of proving every element of the crime. 

BUT (and this is significant in this case) for an affirmative defense -- such as self-defense, insanity, involuntary intoxication etc.  The burden shifts to the defense. 

Exactly. They are claiming he had no choice bu to use deadly force. That is an issue the defense must establish beyond a reasonable doubt.
Zimmerman has claimed self defense since day one.

Your still going to extremes. He "only" has to create reasonable doubt that it wasn't murder. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Absolutely the wrong standard. I am not sure if in Florida it is clear and convince or preponderance, but it is not beyond a reasonable doubt. 

On a side note, the defense lawyers had to apologize for incorrectly labeling video evidence to the media.

Today the defense released a video Martin took of two men fighting. It was previously described as Martin's friends beating up a homeless man, but they had to admit that was a lie.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/09/18866221-on-eve-of-zimmerman-trial-in-trayvon-martin-killing-new-video-becomes-public?lite

Trial begins today.  I wonder how long it will last

If we could go back to the days of "Trial by Combat"...this would already be over.

Tons of media and police. Not so much protesters and gawkers as I guess the checkpoints deter most people.  I just had to go through them to get gas. Then again it's just jury selection.

I have been watching our local news coverage of the jury selection this morning. George's brother is giving a press conference (I guess that is what you would call it) and the Latino interest in this case is overwhelming based on the number of questions he has received in Spanish.

I'm surprised no one is talking about this case. I'm also surprised the prosecutors played all those 5 tapes yesterday trying to act like George was a vigilante against blacks. In every call he sounds very relaxed and in fact said when asked about what one guy was doing ... ""I don't know what he's doing, I don't want to approach him, personally," . Seems to me I would have used those tapes for the defense and not prosecution.

On a more personal note and my Facebook is lighting up by my black friends (some of which believe Zimmerman is guilty) that are very happy the girl on the phone isn't from Sanford. As Tracie Turner Jackson put it ... " Trayvon should have called his main chick because this sideline girl don't have it".  As well she makes it very clear that Trayvon "is" a racist with his "crazy ass cracker" comments.

I've been contemplating posting some things as I've watched the trial daily. I have not been impressed by a single prosecution witness. Their case is going down the toilet if you ask me but you never know what the jury members are thinking. I was very surprised by how many of the potential jurors claimed little knowledge of the case, or maybe we just had much more discussion here than the general public. It could be loaded with people whose mind was already made up.

What exactly is causing their case to go down the toilet? The main point still to be proven is that Zimmerman was acting in self defense. I thought the girl did a good job of showing that Martin was being pursued, and was ultimately confronted by the person chasing him.

Was the person chasing or following him? I would think what it boils down to is that the person who initiated physical contact first is to blame.

The start witness confessed it wasn't a "person" following or chasing him. It was a "creepy-ass cracker" and "n*****" following him.

So let me get this straight. The state produced a tape that has George stating he doesn't want to confront a person when asked for more information from the 911 operator. A witness who showed its difficult to look for street signs and addresses. A witness who doesn't even recognize George in the picture taken immediately afterwards because of his injuries. Then their star witness shows that Trayvon was in a fearful, racist state of mind?

This is the first case where I keep forgetting who's side the prosecution is on.

OK, first of all you are absolutely incorrect in how it works. The main point to be proven is that Zimmerman was an agressor and initiated physical contact. Following someone is not against the law. No one has to prove self defense. As for Zimmerman following him, did you see the operator's testimony (keep in mind I am listening to the entire trial except for when I have work calls)? The defense did a pretty good job of showing that regardless of the operator saying, "We don't need you to do that" in regards to following him (which he has no authority to give an exact order anyway) the operator also kept asking to know what Martin was doing next. You can't have it both ways. You either want to know what he is doing or you want the person to not keep an eye on them.

Which girl? The girl who was on the phone with Martin? Did you watch or are you just getting sound bites? She has very little credibility as a star prosecution witness. #1 She lied about her age #2 she left parts of the story out depending on who and when she was talking #3 She lied about her name at times. Being caught as a three time liar under circumstances related to the trial takes your credibility away if I am on the jury. I will leave out her repated testimony that she does not watch the new before her slip where she admitted to seeing something on the news. She covered that by saying she knew an exact date when she started paying attention.

You can also take into consideration that she definitely sounded influenced by someone if you listen to her testimony. She thought that Zimmerman shooting Travon was racially motivated because Martin called his follower a "Crazy ass cracker" but did not feel referring to anyone as a "Crazy ass cracker" was racially motivated.

Now we have a witness testifying Trayvon appears to have been  "ground and pounding" Zimmmerman before the gun shot. Seriously? It's becoming more and more obvious that the state filed charges only because of mob pressure.

So we now know that the injuries to Zimmerman were due to the contact between the two. We also know that except for the fatal gunshot wound, Martin was injury free. In my opinion, that points to an ambush type attack. In the beginning of this, everyone was crying about how big a man Zimmerman was and how small of a kid Martin was. So if that's the case, are we to believe that a big man initiated contact with a small kid and couldn't get a shot in somewhere or do any damage? That doesn't make sense.

Also, even though the defense probably won't bring it up or try to say Martin was doing anything wrong before the encounter. Who's to say he wasn't casing houses. I mean who really walks almost 2 miles at night in heavy rain to go get some candy? That is strange behavior in my opinion.

^^^ To be fair, the rain caught him I believe. He didn't look to be wet from the store videos. Not sure where you are from but rain can come in rather quick around here.

Seriously. How does someone perform a "ground & pound" and not land a single punch? How does someone perform a "ground & pound" and not add damage to a broken nose? Hoe does someone repeatedly slam someone's head against the concrete and not have any blood or DNA on their hands, fingernails or clothing? Remember George had hardly any hair and it was raining.
As far as eyewitness accounts, no one can account for right before the shot visibly.
After the shot, eyewitnesses say, along with George, say GZ was on top. George claims (during the reenactment video) he did so to "disarm" his assailant. The same assailant that hit him once in the nose with his non dominant hand. Yet somehow managed to land several other blows without leaving a mark on GZ or himself.
The state has a long way to go to prove GZ's "state of mind" prior to the altercation. I know what I feel. But the state still has to prove that. If the state fails to do that, GZ will be acquitted. Even if the state does prove that, there's a chance he could be acquitted. This is why I feel this way. I'm not seeing this jury identifying with the feeling of being treated like a criminal, when you're not a criminal. If you have to ask what that means, then you don't understand either. That's the adverse effect of profiling.

Exactly. And you walk when you don't have a car. That's what did when I was a teenager in central Florida.

IANAL, but I think that if you kill someone (and admit to the killing), you actually do have to prove that it was self-defense.  If you fail to prove that point, then you have essentially confessed to committing some form of non-justifiable homicide.

I'm no attorney but I would assume that what this case comes down to is that whoever physically assaulted the other one first is the responsible party here. The evidence shows that Zimmerman has physical injuries consistent with being assaulted. Martin on the other hand has no injuries. Which in my experience, is consistent with someone throwing the first punch or initiating the contact. That is an important point in my opinion.

Spider, it probably varies by state law. In Florida, we have very lenient gun laws and self defense laws. The prosecution would have to prove Zimmerman had been performing some illegal activity or that the shooting itself was illegal. That still puts burden of proof on them. Innocent until proven guilty stands in all cases.

Modifying to add, I looked up jury instructions for self defense in Florida and while skimming the latest Supreme Court ruling, it appears burden of proof still falls to prosecution.

I also found this article which summarized the instructions they received.

Florida's gun and self-defense laws will be a central focus of the trial and Zimmerman's lead defense attorney, Mark O'Mara, said repeatedly as he wrapped up questioning as part of the voir dire process early on Thursday that the state had the burden to prove that Zimmerman had not acted in self-defense.

"They (the prosecution) have to disprove that it was self-defense," he said.

Judge Nelson drove home the same point in her instruction on "justifiable use of deadly force" during the final phase of jury selection. She also made a pointed reference to Florida's so-called "Stand Your Ground" law, under which the use of lethal force is deemed lawful if an individual fears grievous bodily injury or death in a confrontation with an assailant.

"The danger facing the defendant need not to have been actual," Nelson told potential jurors. "However, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force.

"If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense, you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty," the judge added.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/us-usa-florida-shooting-jury-idUSBRE95J12620130620?feedType=RSS

He must really like skittles ;)

George is guilty.

Of carrying a gun when he was not supposed to. Neighberhood watch.The parents cashed in on that before the kid was put in the ground. So far prosecution has not shown a case and this will cost us all a lot of money.

How is he guilty of carrying as gun? He had a permit and he wasn't working in any capacity that wouldn't allow him to carry. He was a resident on his way to run an errand when a person peaked his interest.


The more I watch this the more I think the prosecution is going through the motions.  They don't even seemed to be surprised.

Modified to add some of the posts I just saw on the TV station ...

So GZ wasn't acting on his role with the neighborhood watch that night. He was just a concerned resident/citizen who called the non emergency line for the heinous crime of walking. I seem to forget the legality of walking. My bad.

No ... you seem to forget the facts.

-George was heading out on an errand.
-The neighborhood has had break-ins.
- George noticed a person kind of meandering in the rain and not walking to a destination. According to prosecution's witnesses,  Trayvon hadn't made it home in 40 minutes from a store about a mile away. Oddly even in the rain he wasn't in a hurry.
- George called the police as he had been instructed several times before.
- Trayvon referred to George as "creepy-ass cracker" **but wasn't racially predjudiced**
-George is on record as saying he doesn't want to confront anyone when asked by an operator for more information in a previous call
- This operator said "you don't have to do that" yet continued to ask George for more information that he needed to seek out
- Prosecution witness says he sees George getting beat up on the bottom and when he went to call police heard the shot
- prosecution witness didn't recognize George in the picture taken immediately afterwards to see if she could identify him because of the swelling to his face

Lot's of things you seem to forget

Regardless of what you think about how bad his injuries are or him being a racist etc., this one thing is grounds enough in Florida to use deadly force .
- Prosecution witness says he sees George getting beat up on the bottom and when he went to call police heard the shot

Nice talking point but it is all just blah, blah, blah. It has no relevance to the shooting itself.

I am tired of hearing he wasn't neighborhood watch but was on an errand. As soon as he involved himself with treyvon he was acting as neighborhood watch.I have no problem with what he did or the fact he was carrying. I am sure he was trained for the watch program. Off duty cop goes in store and some one comes in to rob it he pulls his ankle piece and subdues them technically he is a cop.Training etc.
All in all I can't tell who is the defence.Prosecution has made a case for self defence and they are prosecuting him for it.What a joke and waste of tax payer money.Heck I think I could have defended George on this one lol.

Actually I want to correct something I may have mistaken. I'm not sure and someone correct me if I'm wrong. But I think that I remember the coroner report saying that Martin had some scrapes on his knuckles, which would be consistent with assaulting someone if those are the only injuries.

As you seem to have your facts twisted.

Trayvon wasn't walking "in a straight line" destination. True. He was also on the phone at the time.
 
There had been break ins. True. Trayvon wasn't involved in any of them. He just "fit the description".

It took Trayvon 40 min to complete a two mile trip. Maybe. Personally I walk about a mile in 12 min. That's 24 min walk time round trip. He was in a store and on the phone.

George said in one 911 call that he "didn't want to get involved". Yet on this one he was very much involved.

Trayvon did use a racial term in a private conversation. Full context to say this person is following me. The same person he saw in a car earlier following him.

A witness did say she couldn't recognize George in a picture shown to her on a cell phone. True. Not because of the injuries. She said he had a lot going on with his face. In reference to the injuries. George had lost weight. And does not look the same slimmer with less hair.

The dispatcher did say, "we don't need you to do that (follow)". He did ask, "which way did he go?" He did not say, "Could you find a way to track down the suspicious person?" He also asked George if he wanted the police to meet him at his truck. What was George's response? "Could you have them call me, so I can tell them where I'm at?"

Regardless of how you feel GZ is justified in this situation, I obviously believe differently. I don't see GZ as a racist. I don't believe that he set out to kill someone. I do believe he set out to make an example. He made over 50 911 calls. Not all were emergencies. The last 6, fit a similar pattern. With the same reference to "break ins". How many arrests? None. That's where the statement of "these assholes always get away" comes from. He profiled and pursuited what perceived to be a potential criminal. That's the problem. He perceived a kid, minding his own business to be a criminal. Based on...other crimes. Not what this kid did. No, what others did. That's where the depraved mind comes into play.

I will correct you. He had ONE small mark on the ring finger of his left (non dominant) hand. He has no injuries consistent with delivering the life threatening injuries George claims to have had.

Diablo, small correction. Those calls were not 911 calls. 911 is an emergency line. The vast majority of the calls were to the non-emergency line reporting suspicious persons or activites. According to the police liason who conducted the Neighborhood Watch meeting/training those are what they tell the people to do. Granted it still sounds excessive to me, but at least categorize it correctly if you are trying to be factual.

Also, none of what you are saying has anything to do with proving agression by either party. You are playing on emotions rather than evidence. I sure as hell hope you would not be on my jury if I ever faced a similar circumstance.

I was at the courthouse at about 5:30 when court let out. It was dead except for the media and even that has thinned out quite a bit. It really seems like everyone is quickly losing interest in this story.

It really isn't fair to a lot of people if this story continues as its going and no one hears about it.  This town was badly abused last year because of this case. Good people who did absolutely nothing wrong were abused day-in and day-out and many, many others were left feeling unsafe.

modified to add ... I did watch the opening of the local CBS news team and they opened with "It appears to have been another good day for the defense"

Calling the cops is what they are taught if the see something. I am not saying George is right in everything he did. Long story short Treyvon decided to beat the sh1t out of the cracker that was following him and got lead poisoning for his trouble.I do believe Trayvon initiated the fight.Therefore it is self defense. I missed something today was the EMT saying she removed a can with holes poked in it"pipe" and she heard a plastic noise "baggie"in his sweater? I missed it about the can I heard her say she removed a can and set it aside. And that she knows what it was now.And no I am not saying if he had weed on him he should have been shot. Heck he should have been relaxed and easy going Yo man are you following me what you want a hit of this crippy let's go between the house's

The only real victim I know of is the Sanford chief of police.I hope he sues tho I am sure he is not allowed to.And do we get to take away this special prosecuters license who came in and decided this should be tried in court?It is easy to come into a diff county and say spend the money.Not to mention George may have grounds.
I still can not tell the defense apart from the prosecution.

Correction. When I said "not all were not emergencies", I meant he used the non emergency line.

On a separate note. That's the second time in which you've not wanted me on your "jury". I would say, don't follow an unarmed teen in the dark with a gun, and you've got nothing to worry about. That would be infusing emotion. I would hope you would be willing to have someone see the whole picture. And not just the black & white aspect of who threw the 1st punch. But to each their own. If you accept a reason to fire a weapon, I would hope you would accept a reason to throw a punch. Again, to each their own. There is relevance into reasons of an act. That's why there are degrees of murder. I don't see how GZ was on a mission to kill that night. That's why I wouldn't go for a 1st degree murder charge. It has not been proven that Trayvon acted with malicious intent either. Who threw the 1st punch doesn't prove who the aggressor was either. But somehow profiling & pursuing in the dark, against an innocent person isn't an aggressive act?

take your racism elswhere We dont have room here.As I follow a hispanic man was beat down and he shot a black man. I think I covered .the news made a fortune off this

diablow  you have to answer questions  ;D

Interesting. Every legal class I have taken that covered criminal law has said that self defense is an affirmed defense, which requires the person claiming it to prove the defense. Zimmerman is claiming self defense. Does FLorida hace different self defense requirements for producing a defense?

Every law I have seen says the state must prove it was not.You are guilty till you are proven guilty.If you have had any contact with the law you will know what I meant If not don't worry they will get around to you.

I know my understanding but I looked it up to confirm and this is what I found. Here is the case example

All he has to do is to create a "reasonable doubt" as to whether he acted in self-defense.  Now Florida Jury Instructions makes that perfectly clear.
 
In 2011 the Fifth District Court of Appeal quoted this language from  Murray and followed the same rule in the case of  Montijo v. State, 61 So.3d 424 (Fla. 5th Dist, 2011). In  Montijo the trial judge had instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving that he acted in self-defense "beyond a reasonable doubt." Montijo's attorney did not object to the jury instruction, but the appellate court found that the trial judge had committed a "fundamental error" by giving that instruction and ordered a new trial for the defendant. The Fifth District Court of Appeal stated:

The inclusion of the phrase 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in the jury instruction placed the burden upon Montijo to prove   self-defense, depriving him of a fair trial and rising to the level of fundamental error. Accordingly, we reverse.

In my opinion that has already been established by witnesses. I really don't know how you could prove otherwise even if it wasn't true unless Zimmerman testifies and just totally gets ripped to shreds.

What's going on with this case? The prosecution is proving the case for the defense. I'm beginning to think they brought the case to trial because of all the crap that was being stirred up. Did the state proceed with the case just to show that the shooting was justified?

If Zimmerman is convicted in order to placate all the potential rioters it may set a precedent that you may not use a weapon against an unarmed attacker no matter what. Even if he is sitting on your chest pounding your head into the pavement. Conversely, if Zimmerman is acquitted look for the "watchdogs of the oppressed" to go into total meltdown. It ain't gonna be pretty.

I was going to post a poll but couldn't find how to do it, must be an administrative option. I would be interested to see from people that can be objective and haven't already decided this case through the media. With only the evidence given in court in the past week would you

A. Not guilty
B. Guilty
C. Not guilty, but would have been guilty if charged with a lesser charge, ie manslaughter

Reasoning?

If Zimmerman is convicted (which necessarily means that the jury found that he initiated the scuffle) then it will set a precedent that you don't get to start altercations just because you're armed.

It's been awhile since I read up on this case, but wasn't Trayvon trespassing because it was a gated community?

If, and I say if, the prosecution has a bombshell to drop or something of relevance to turn this trial around then you may have a point. The majority of the evidence up to now should in no way convict Zimmerman. If the trial keeps going the same way it has been going and he is still convicted. It will not be because the jury found that he initiated the scuffle, it will be to placate the rioters. Keep in mind, if these people riot, they are the same ones that said that all they wanted to see Zimmerman have his day in court. But if Zimmerman prevails, mysteriously that won't be good enough. With some people you just can't win

If being the son of a resident is trespassing, then yes.

Even though I haven't seen any evidence that Zimmerman initiated the violence ... I don't even think it even matters any longer who started it. Jonathan Good testified that Trayvon was on top and throwing blows (although legalistically he didn't actually see them connect) and he tried to stop the fight but they wouldn't. That's when he went in to call the police to stop it and he heard the gunshot.

It's my understanding that even if you can use violence when threatened you must stop once you have reached a point of control or else risk battery charges. You can shoot a burglar but you can't just beat him to death even if they did just break into your home. Once Mr. Goodman came out and screamed for them to stop while standing next to them I would think it's rational to believe Travon was safe to stop fighting.

For the record when I was seventeen I probably wouldn't have stopped either. As well ... if I was being followed by some "want-to-be cop" even if I was in the wrong,  I'd have probably fought him too.

We had a security guard at an apartment complex that we used to terrorize ... even rigging a forklift to drive straight at him while he was sleeping in his car. Had he cornered me I would have certainly hit him. In fact "hit first" has always been our motto.  My mindset as a young hoodlum certainly wasn't what it is today but that doesn't mean I wasn't in the wrong. Like many other people I grew up with, I am very fortunate I didn't end up like Trayvon but that doesn't mean Zimmerman is guilty.

Man this post just makes me shake my head. I accept reasons to fire guns. I also accept reasons to throw a punch but to be honest, there is very little reason to throw a first punch. Being followed certainly is not one in my book.

Actually, you are correct. There are very few reason to assault someone. If Martin actually initiated contact, he is the responsible party in my opinion.

My understanding is that if you initiate an altercation, self-defense is no longer applicable as a legal defense.  Zimmerman would then have to justify killing Martin on non-self-defense grounds, and I don't know how that would even be possible.

I think the big question then is what is the definition of "initiate" as used here?

What if Zimmerman was following Martin? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman called out to Martin to stop or something else? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman grabbed Martin by the arm? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman pushed him? Is that initiating an altercation?
What if Zimmerman threw a punch? Is that initiating an altercation?

I would say yes to the #5 and no to numbers 1-3.  #4 is where it starts to get into a gray area and could go either way.

Like Pappy said, the definition of initiation is a bit gray. Also, your statement here is rather gray as well.  I know you like hypotheticals so here is a scenario to show how gray your position really is.

Let's step away from this specific case but stay with your specific scenario. There are not racial overtones in this hypotehtical. Two guys of the same race are in your typical disagreement which turns into the typical type of tussle. Man 1 throws the first punch in the event (hell for our purposes of refuting your stement let's say it is the only punch). Man 2 responds by reaching into his pocket and pulling a knife and beginning to stab Man 1 repeatedly.  Now Man 1 fearing for his life reached into his pocket and pulls out a legally concealed gun which her uses to kill Man 2.

Now we can all agree Man1 clearly initiated the violence by throwing the first punch. I think we can all agree that under Florida law Man 2 would not have been able to use the self defense justification because the law states there must be a real perception of the fear of death or great bodily harm (also a gray area). I'm sure Man 1 feels a great fear of death after being repeatedly stabbed. Was the use of the gun justified as defense at that point? I say yes. Was he also justified in his first punch, not at all. Would I want to see Man 1 walk free of any conviction, no. Would I want it to be a murder conviction, no.

I can understand if you feel differently but I do not see it as black and white as your statement is.

That is not my understanding. 

My recollection is that even if you started the altercation you can claim self defense if the other party raised the stakes to seriously risk of bodily harm or death.

To wit:

Party A shoves Party B.  Party B pulls a knife and stabs Party A.  Party B claims self defense on the grounds "A started" B does NOT have a valid self defense claim.

Party A shoves Party B.  Party B pulls out a knife and lunges at A.  A pulls out a gun and shoots B.  A DOES have a valid claim of self defense, because B escalated the confrontation

While I don't know specifically in Florida, my understanding is that in most states, 1-4 are a no and not grey.  5 is a yes. 

I'd say no to #1 and 2 and yes to the rest.  How about if Zimmerman was following Martin and Martin turned around and said, "Hey man, why the fuck are you following me?"  Is that initiating an altercation?

All of the above would be defined as assault, and would fall under what I meant by initiating a (physical) altercation.

There is also a specific definition of "fighting words"; words that, when used, are presumed to be reasonable provocation of a fight.

I would say absolutely not. I think Hoodie and others have touched on an important point, it's not just initiating a confrontation, it's initiating an altercation which I think requires some kind of physical harm. Yelling at someone or grabbing them is not causing any physical harm to them. Once you throw a punch or something along those lines, then you have crossed the line into an altercation in my opinion.

But would you be guilty of assault? We are talking about the legal ramifications here. I would have a very hard time convicting someone of assault who didn't do any physical harm to someone else. You might call it assault and they might be charged with assault, but I don't think I would convict them of assault. Maybe attempted assault?

Edit: Did a little reading and perhaps I'm wrong from a legal standpoint. Apparently assault doesn't require any physical contact, that's battery. Assault only requires that you threaten someone with physical harm. Perhaps you are right Spider.

Still, unless Zimmerman threatened Trayvon with physical harm someway he wouldn't be initiating an altercation in my mind.

Doesn't actually require physical harm.  Pulling out a knife, doesn't actually harm the other, but does give the other a right to self defense.

In general right to use self defense arise when a person "reasonably believes they are at risk of serious bodily harm or death" 

The person's belief must be reasonable, merely fearing for your life or safety is not enough, it must be a situation where most others would feel the same way.

Furthermore the risk needs to be of serious bodily harm or death.  A bruise, scrap, minor cut or even swollen lip is not serious bodily harm.  A broken limb or knife wound is. 

So it's the threat of physical harm, would you say that's accurate?

So if Zimmerman told Trayvon "I'm gonna kill you" that would harm his case, but if he just said "Hey, I've called the police, you better get out of here", that wouldn't.

Or if Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon by the arm to get his attention, that wouldn't hurt his case, but if he grabbed him by the arm and threw him to the ground, that would.

That sounds reasonable to me.

If one of the parties pulls a weapon, then yes, things have escalated and the situation has changed.  However, such a defense would be difficult to deploy if Man 2 is unarmed.

If you start a fistfight (and it remains an unarmed fistfight) then it seems that if you feel the need to escalate to knifefight or gunfight, the outcome is on you.

Actually, you're right.  I said "assault" but I meant "battery": an unlawful application of force to the person of another resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.

So if Zimmerman were to grab Martin's arm (without legal cause to perform a citizen's arrest, which he obviously would not have had seeing as how everyone agrees Martin had committed no crime), that would be battery and Martin would have had a right to defend himself.

Private citizens cannot grab others by the arm to get their attention.  Martin would have been fully justified in punching Zimmerman in the face for such an action.

I would have to disagree. Maybe you are within your legal rights, but in my humble opinion you are not fully justified, you're not even a little justified. In my humble opinion the person throwing the punch initiated the altercation in that instance.

OK good to hear we can agree on this then. Now let's consider this scenario. This actually comes back to the Zimmerman/Martin case. I assume you, as have many people, take the position Martin was unarmed based on what he was found with and what testimony they have heard. The defense's opening statement took a completely different stance on that. I'm afraid I have to paraphrase here but the attorney basically said he was tired of hearing people say that Martin was unarmed. The minute he used the sidewalk it became a deadly weapon. Smashing someone's head on the sidewalk is no different than picking up a brick and smashing them with it.

Now you can argue maybe he didn't do that. I would say fine but it does contradict photographic evidence and statements made in police reports though.

The problem with any prosecution of this event is that there has been no testimony so far that proves beyond reasonable doubt that self defense was not reasonable. The burden of proof falls to the prosecution and so far they have not been able to really show anything.

You are half correct. 

If party A grabs party B, than party A has committed both the crime and tort of battery.  B would be fully justified in calling the police and filing criminal complaint and/or filing a lawsuit against A.  However if party B is not fully justified in punching party A.  If party B responds in such a manner party B is now guilty of the crime of battery and liable in tort.  Party B would futher lose his right to sue for the tort, however party A is still criminally liable.   

It is the threat of serious bodily injury.  The first one I agree completely.  Second one I would say that part a would hurt his case a little, part b would hurt his case signficantly. 

I will say this much, the invesitgator who initially suggested in his report to arrest Zimmerman (and was overridden) is on the stand today and has been the strongest witness for the prosecution so far. An interesting topic today has been the fact Zimmerman claims to not have known street names but his entire community only had three street names in it. Being a Neighborhood Watch captain and not knowing the names of three streets seems a bit difficult to believe.

Based on what?

Let's be clear here: we are talking a person with clearly antagonistic intent grabbing your arm.  This is not the same thing as tapping someone on the shoulder because they didn't notice that you were waiting in line when they cut in front of you.  If you are in a hostile shouting match with someone and you grab them for any reason*, they have the right to defend themselves.

If you think grabbing someone (e.g. to detain them) is not justification for punching them in self-defense, then what if they push you (but you don't fall down)?  What if they push you against a wall?  What if they push you and you fall on something soft (e.g. grass)?  What if they punch you in the arm?

If a clearly hostile person grabs my arm, I don't see how punching them would not be justified self-defense.

*notwithstanding the aforementioned "fighting words"

This I can agree with. Whether or not they should win that lawsuit is another story. Personally I wouldn't find someone guilty of anything for simply putting their hand on someone's arm to get their attention, but go ahead file the complaint or lawsuit. That's your perogative.

That makes sense.

I don't believe we have  gotten to the point in our society that brushing up against someone in the elevator is just cause for them to punch you in the face. The party being touched has some liability in assessing the situation and acting appropriately. Maybe a polite "Please don't touch me" would do the trick?

If "the ground" is a weapon, then we must come to the conclusion that every fight in which person A knocks down or slams person B means person A has committed assault with a deadly weapon.

Suffice it to say that I do not accept the claim that the ground is a weapon, in any sense that we normally use the term "weapon."  If you're going to go to those lengths, then you might as well say that headbutting you is no different than hitting you in the face with a bowling ball.

How would Trayvon Martin know that? If Zimmerman was screaming obscenities at him and THEN grabs his arm, I agree, but what if he just calmly walks up to him and grabs his arm and then says "Can I ask you what you are doing?". 2 different scenario's that suggest 2 totally different reactions in my opinion. We don't really know what happened, so I'd have to hear some kind of evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was being aggressive prior to grabbing his arm to make that assumption, you can't just assume that from the beginning.

Agreed, but that evidence MUST be supplied to make that assumption. That's kinda where I'm going with this. If the prosecution can show a hostile shouting match before Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon, then they have a case.

How do you know that Zimmerman was trying to detain Martin? Is there any evidence to support this? I don't know, I'm asking the question. If I'm on the jury I want to hear the prosecution make a case that Zimmerman was trying to detain Martin and if it's a strong case, then I might find Zimmerman guilty, but they have to make a case, I can't just assume it.

All to be taken into consideration. That's where the gray area comes into play in my mind.

How do you know the intent? Grabbing your arm is not "clearly" hostile in my opinion. Something more would be required for you to assume hostility. That's what I'm looking for if I'm on the jury.

Wow, you really tried hard to stay with your unarmed position here. I don't think anyone with an open mind  considers a sidewalk as the same thing as the ground in this scenario. This is just a laughable position.

It's clear that Martin believed Zimmerman had been following him, which reasonably implies antagonistic intent.

I think the prosecution has already shown that Zimmerman was following Martin at night (as the investigator said on the interrogation tape, if you're traveling after a person of interest in the same direction, that's called following), which I would classify by itself as reasonably hostile.  I'm a grown man and if a mysterious person was following me around at night and then grabbed me (even without saying a word), I would interpret that as a threat to my safety.

Obviously, this would have to be shown.  But based on what has been said so far, I think it's pretty clear that at the point when the altercation took place (read: after a prolonged period of chasing/evasion), if either one of these two grabbed each other, the intent was not benign.  So whether it was to detain or simply to catch attention, it was a hostile act.

I agree with you 100%. The thing is, you seem to already have your mind made up that Zimmerman did so without having any burden of proof established.

I think it's fair to say that most of the people in this thread had "picked a side" well before the trial.  We had a 40+ page long thread discussing it.

The trial will determine his fate.

I think it's clear what Martin believed, I don't think it's clear at all what Zimmerman's intent was. That's something that the prosecution needs to supply.

Martin may have believed antagonistic intent because Zimmerman was a cracker. Martin may have believed antogonistic intent because Zimmerman had caught him casing houses. Neither of those show the intent of Zimmerman, they show the mindset of Martin. In my opinion that helps the defense's case more than the prosecution's.

I have yet to pick a side. I believe that it's possible that Zimmerman did act aggressively and initiated a confrontation, but I also believe it's possible that Zimmerman may have only wanted to follow Trayvon but that Trayvon didn't like being followed and decided to confront Zimmerman.

I think either of those scenario's are equally likely, it's up to the prosecution and the defense to sway me one way or the other. The only difference is that I'm giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt because of the whole innocent until proven guilty theory. I'd rather let a guilty man go free then unjustly punish an innocent man if I have doubts.

In order to presume Zimmerman innocent, you have to presume Martin guilty, so I'm not sure I follow that line of thinking.

I personally place very little value on Zimmerman's testimony (at least, the parts that are not verifiable) without Martin alive to present his side of the story; Zimmerman can attribute any statement he wants to a dead man.  I find it very inconsistent that an armed Neighborhood Watch captain (with a criminal history of violent aggression and a very active recent history of reporting to the police) who is willing to get out of his car at night in the rain to help locate a "suspect" would have the kind of meek, passive conversation with Martin that Zimmerman attributes to himself.  I think it's more likely that Martin mouthed off (as one might expect from a 17-year-old male) and Zimmerman escalated it.

But that's just my opinion.  What the prosecution can prove is a different story.

You should check the poll results on it again.

That poll was opened relatively early in the story.

At any rate, by this point in the case I view people who say they "haven't picked a side" in much the same way that I view people who say they are an "undecided voter" in mid-October.  If I claim I'm undecided but virtually everything I've posted is pro-Gore and anti-Bush, I'm not fooling anyone.

After today this trial is as good as over according to most legal analysts that I've seen speak on the subject.


You got to be kidding around with this "fighting words" stuff.  Fighting words is not a defense for assault or battery. A person could be charged and prosecuted for using "fighting words", but it doesn't justify being assaulted. I would like to see relevant cases in the last 50 years where a defendant successfully used "fighting words" as an affirmative defense to assault or battery.


how could anyone pick the guilty side if they have been keeping up with this trial? The prosecution has made the defenses case for them.

I find it improbable for a young man to "sucker punch" someone with their non dominant hand, while on the phone. George is left handed. Trayvon is right handed. If George grabs Trayvon, he would've done it with his left hand. If they are face to face, that would mean that he's holding Trayvon's right side. George's nose was broken on the right side.

^^^ I'll tell you how they can pick the guilty side. By tweaking the conversation slightly. Spider believes Zimmerman is guilty but I would expect he recognizes the evidence is not there to convict. I can honestly say I still don't know how it broke down, but I don't believe he should be convicted based on the evidence.

That is where you voting example isn't quite spot on Spider. Come mid-October it is unlikely much of anything new is going to break that could cause you to change your mind. The prosecution could come forward tomorrow with evidence that shows me something definitive about Zimmerman starting a physical altercation which can change my current view but I doubt it is going to happen either.

Pure speculation. There is no evidence at all about who grabbed who or who punched who with which hand. You are also speculating which position they are standing in. At this point I could just say there is no way Zimmerman could have initiated contact because his fingers were too stubby to get a good grip.

Also, if I was grabbing someone violently I would do it with my weaker hand in case I needed to punch.

Actually you don't. A presumption of innocence only requires that to convict someone of a crime there must be evidence to do so. Lacking the evidence to convict someone doesn't make them innocent it merely means you lack the evidence to prove them guilty. I recognize the fact that Zimmerman could be fairly acquitted of the charges while still being guilty of the crime. Such are the laws in this country.

It would be fair to say that I think that based on what I have seen of Florida law, it does not seem likely that Zimmerman will be convicted.  In a different state, it would be a different ballgame.

That's precisely what I mean when I say that most people have already picked a side: not that you are immovably committed to one position, but that your mind is largely decided unless an October surprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise)-type event pops up.

You're talking in circles.

You said, "I'm giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt because of the whole innocent until proven guilty theory."  In order to give Zimmerman that benefit of the doubt, you have to remove that same benefit from Martin (who cannot defend himself) and simply take Zimmerman's word that Martin instigated the fight.  Call it "innocent" or "not guilty" or whatever you like; the point is that by invoking "innocent until proven guilty" for Zimmerman, you simultaneously invoke "guilty until proven innocent" for Martin.

No, I'm not. I'm stating fact. Presuming Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty is NOT an assumption of guilt on Trayvon, it's merely putting the burden of proof on the prosecution. You're forgetting the whole "proven guilty" part of the statement. I didn't say that I'm presuming Zimmerman innocent no matter what. Essentially I'm assuming they are BOTH innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise.

Plus one.  Pappy is correct.

The jury will NOT return a verdict of "innocent".  There is no such verdict the choices are either -- guilty or not guilty.

Spider,

Assume for a moment that Trayvon had lived.  Both are charged with with battery, both assert a "self-defense" "he started, not me" defense. 

You seem to believe that it would be impossible for the jury to conclude that there is insufficient evidence to convict either of them.  I would say it is quite possible.

This is not a civil trial where you must concluded what the preponderance of the evidence is (50%+), but a criminal trial.  One could easily decided that it is more likely than not that Zimmerman is a fault, but that a reasonable doubt exists and thus not guilty.

Trayvon absolutely does not get the presumption of innocence.   That is a right of a defendant, not a victim. 

Are you saying that the exact same set of facts, prosecution, and defense would be a different ballgame in a different state? Or are you saying that the state of FL is in some way letting people go? What exactly are you saying?


Given the facts of the trial and only the trial. Do you think that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder?

So, I'm speculating Trayvon's only injury (outside of the gun shot wound). I'm also speculating George's only injury to the face. And I'm speculating they're position at the start of the altercation (based on George's words in court). OK, you win.

In a word, yes.  The standard that FL has for self-defense is not the same in many other states.

Are you asking whether I think he is guilty of committing that crime or whether I think he should be convicted of commiting that crime?  Because those are two very different questions.

I could ask that same question about OJ or Casey Anthony.

I would say that many states feel the same way as FL concerning self defense. So it would depend on which state in particular you are talking about. Moot point anyhow


Do you think he is guilty? Do you think he should be convicted?

You are doing much more than speculating now. You are now misrepresenting some of the facts of the case.

Yes Travon had a wound to his left hand. There is testimony that he was throwing more than one punch which you have completely ignored by speculating it came from the knockdown punch.

George had some type of laceration or abrasion on the right side of his nose but that was not his only injury to the face. Are you forgetting the rest of his swolen and possibly broken nose. Because there was a laceration on one side that does not mean it is the break itself.

I'll give you they were likely face to face as they spoke. You just ignored that you did speculate on which hand someone would reach out with though. 1 out of 4 ain't bad if you are a baseball player but it still isn't great.

Except that George said in interview #1 with Detective Singleton that "he was punched once, and then fell to the ground." There was testimony that Trayvon appeared to be throwing punches, while on top. But the witness could not confirm if they were actual blows. Seeing as how he didn't see a connection. Or hear any connections. Again, Trayvon only had one cut to his hands. One. Trayvon didn't have any blood or DNA belonging to George on his hands or sleeves.  So the assumption is that Trayvon continued beating George, once they were on the ground. However, there is no evidence to support that claim.

Now you want to argue lack of evidence after all of your previous speculation. I'm not going into any of that.

Yes.

Tough to say.  I'll have to wait for the defense witnesses (and cross-examination of the defense witnesses) to answer that.

It seems that in general whites & Latinos think he is innocent and blacks think he is guilty. Both are basing the verdict off of different reasons. In an article on CNN they mentioned this.

Views of justice, he says, are inextricably linked to racial attitudes. Many blacks will see this trial one way, many whites another way, just as they did in the case of O.J. Simpson.

Many blacks feel  Zimmerman should have never gotten out of the car or walked up the sidewalk although everyone agrees he broke no law by doing it.

Whites look at the fact Trayvon called Zimmerman a "crazy-ass cracker" as reason to believe he was already hostile before anything happened. In fact while Zimmerman has been exonerated of a hate crime,  had Trayvon survived he could have been brought up on a hate crime just by what we already know.

Under Florida's hate crime laws, Martin's words could potentially have been used against him had he survived the encounter and Zimmerman had taken the worst of it. That may seem far-fetched, but a state handbook advises that a hate crime may have occurred "if the commission of (a) felony or misdemeanor evidences prejudice based on the race, color, ancestry, ethnicity..."

Although I do know some people who have changed their tune I believe no matter how this case is ruled most people will most likely find their own reasons why they were right and the other guys were wrong. 

My biggest investment in this whole case has been the people that worked it. I have no vested in George but I think the people of this city and county are much better than they have been portrayed.

People see what they want to see, and pick and choose the elements of the equation that support their subconscious decision.

Agreed.

I don't know that I would agree with that.  So far, it seems to break down much more along the lines of liberal vs. conservative than it does white+Latino vs. black.  If it really broke down along the lines of the latter, wouldn't the overwhelming majority of people be pro-Zimmerman?

I think it's actually a pretty straightforward liberal vs. conservative case:

- perceived racial profiling of someone who isn't "where he's supposed to be"
- perceived lack of concern for black victims of violence, and/or
- perceived presumption of guilt of black parties to a conflict (even when it is an unarmed minor)
- concealed carry laws (and gun laws in general)
- Stand Your Ground laws

I specifically say "perceived" because that's what makes it a liberal vs. conservative issue: liberals are more likely to perceive those things as a general rule, while conservatives are less likely to do so.

Spider ... Outside of media I have always thought the overwhelming majority of people was pro Zimmerman and that included a whole lot of liberals.

Well, based on the previous thread, it seems like (for this forum at least) liberal vs. conservative more accurately captures the sides.

Do you even know any liberals? Oh wait...this is like those elusive "black friends" that prove a racist isn't a racist. All righty then. I'll continue to judge away on this thread in silence.

I don't think so.  I am a white liberal.   And by the standard of reasonable doubt, I say  Zimmerman is "not guilty".  But if this was a civil suit, who is liable in tort would be very very close call.

I think Spider is way off with this liberal/conservative position. I know people on both sides of that aisle and I see no correlation between their stances in this case. I see a much bigger correlation based on race as CF noted.

Personally I feel Spider's "perceived" points were spot on. The reason why is when the discussion of Trayvon's possible self defense claim. Only he's not alive to state it. The belief that Trayvon should've run home if he was so scared. Yet, legally he didn't have to. The belief that George was well within his rights to travel in the same direction as someone he described as suspicious. The belief that Trayvon should've done more to escape the perceived danger. The belief that a stranger who had been following you, is now in front of you reaching for something in the dark. Hoodie is actually a good example here. His "God" wears a hoodie on Sundays in the daytime. No one has ever claimed him to be suspicious. Yet a black teenager does at night, and you have a national talking head claiming that may have led to his death.

Is there a higher percentage of blacks that support Trayvon? Maybe. Is there a higher percentage of liberals that support Trayvon? Maybe. But then again, you don't hear a high percentage of conservatives speaking up for Trayvon's right to "stand his ground". Why is that?

This has never been a "stand your ground" case, that was media bullshit. This has been a self defense case from the start. Who gets to "self defend" depends on who physically initiated the fight. The evidence up to now leans toward Martin initiating contact, therefore Zimmerman gets to defend himself. If you and your neighbors houses have been broken into a few times in the past year and you notice an unfamiliar person lurking around in the dark and the rain you would probably investigate also.

I don't even know how to address this. That's just stupid, baiting, antagonistic and completely untrue but you already know that.

You can find talking heads supporting every theory there is but that doesn't mean they are relevant.

Had Treyvon got off of George when witness Goode was screaming for them to stop and warning he was calling 911 then no one would have heard of this story. Had George stayed in his car none of this would have happened. Regardless of all the other stupid "hoodie" points which one of these acts actually break the law?

The neighborhood had been broken into numerous times by young black men. Trayvon was profiled as being a young black man who was appearing to be suspicious. In 1985 I was called into the Sanford police station and questioned about break-ins in the Kaywood subdivsion because of being a young guy on a motorcycle. That's not 1/2 mile from this same neighborhood. Imagine that. A white guy being profiled?

Thank you for proving my point. You never mentioned Trayvon's right to stand his ground. There's a part of that law that people overlook. That part is "perceived threat". Who's to say what a perceived threat is? Trayvon ran, and the "threat" reappears. The threat doesn't go away when he stops running. Its not whether or not George feels he was a threat. When asked if George felt he could've been a threat to Trayvon (by Officer Serrano), he replied, "No." Its about how someone perceives you. That's the problem I have with the law in the way its written. And now there's a bill going through the Florida Legislature addressing that point.

George had the opportunity to claim "Stand Your Ground". But decided against it. I can understand why. That decision is given by one person ( a judge), as opposed to a jury. If he would've lost that decision, it could've been used against him in this trial. Granted, if he would've won, then there would be no trial today.

The media jumped all over the "Stand Your Ground" angle on both sides. I'll give you that. But, conservatives looked at any attack on the law as an attack on their right to defend themselves. Liberals looked at as a chance to tighten gun restrictions. I'm in the middle. I believe you should have a right to defend yourself, your family, and others who can't. But I don't believe the threshold should be a "perceived threat". Because that term is not a universally understood term.

To answer your last question. I would say, "It depends". Just because there had been  a "rash of robberies" in the area, doesn't mean every "suspicious" person is guilty by appearance. If they are doing something suspicious, that's one thing. Perceiving them to be suspicious is another. 

I just want to ask you  "How did it feel to be treated like a criminal, when you knew that you weren't?" Because I can tell you from my experiences, that it sickens me. At least in your case, you knew of the situation. Or maybe you were told of the situation at the police station
 Either way, I still feel that was wrong. To me, appearance alone is not probable cause.

Another terrible day for the prosecution. It seems the majority of the witnesses they call wind up looking like witnesses for the defense. Even with the way it's going, I wouldn't be surprised if the "fix was in" and a guilty decision was returned to keep the "watchdogs of the oppressed" from looting, raping, and pillaging all over the country.


The point that I think you are missing is that even if TM was standing his ground, he had no legitimate right to initiate contact with Zimmerman. You are assuming that Zimmerman initiated contact, which the evidence contradicts.

Which "evidence" contradicts that?  Zimmerman's account of the event?

Honestly ... it was no big deal. I wasn't guilty and in fact had no idea what i was being questioned on. They showed up at my grandparents house and asked to see me. They allowed them to see me.

I had gotten into quite a bit of trouble ... especially during my 10th grade year. In fact I wasn't able to play football in what would have been my Junior year of high school. To play my senior year I had to get permission from my head coach (that was a whole other story of a mental beat down). After winning his confidence back we became friends and he shared with me the volleyball coach's opinion of me which included the break-ins. It was then that I realized who threw me under the bus the year before as she lived on that street.  I can honestly say looking back I didn't blame her.  I walked like a hoodlum, hung out with other hoodlums so why wouldn't someone mistake me for a hoodlum? I'm sure I even recognized that then although I wouldn't have admitted it.

The fact the state's witness today said even if you initiate conflict you can still use deadly force to defend yourself. that wipes out any "what-ifs" of who started it.

10:22 a.m. ET: "It’s fluid, the law as it applies isn’t static. Any change in a certain fact can weigh differently in terms of whether someone acted reasonably," said Carter. He says he would show his class videos and pause it to look at how things were changing in the situation.

10:24 a.m. ET: Injuries support a person's fear of great bodily harm, according to Carter, but a  person can still have a fear of harm without having injuries.

"You don't have to wait until you're almost dead to defense yourself?" asked West.

"No, I would advise you probably not do that," said Carter.

The statement was, "You are assuming that Zimmerman initiated contact, which the evidence contradicts."

Which evidence contradicts the assumption that Zimmerman initiated contact, besides his own personal account?

Furthermore: if Zimmerman did initiate the conflict (and is lying about it), that impacts his credibility, in much the same way as claiming that you ceased following someone but then just happened to keep traveling behind them would also impact your credibility.

I've said this before, but it's one thing to say that Zimmerman was legally entitled to follow Martin or that he was within his legal rights to kill Martin even if he (Zimmerman) started the fight.  But that's not what Zimmerman is saying.  He's saying that he WASN'T following him and that he DIDN'T start the fight.  So if the jury believes he did do those things, that's a hammerblow to Zimmerman's credibility as to whether his actions (in toto) were reasonably justified.

Personally, I find Zimmerman's account of the situation to be rather damaging to his credibility; in particular, the part where Zimmerman claims Martin said "You are going to die tonight" draws strong parallels to the recent Texas conviction (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/14/nation/la-na-nn-texas-standground-20120614) of a man who repeatedly said on tape "I fear for my safety" and "I'm standing my ground" before shooting an unarmed schoolteacher.  It smacks of legal manipulation.

Take Zimmerman and Martin out of the equation and just use eyewitness. The only eyewitness to see it said Trayvon was on top and hitting Zimmerman. He said he believes it was Zimmerman screaming for help. He also said he himself screamed for them to stop or he was calling 911.

Regardless of anything else the fact Trayvon did not stop beating Zimmerman when warned would have given Zimmerman every legal right to use deadly force.

So while we're on the subject of prosecution witnesses and what they say, there are a couple of items of note:

1) Witnesses cannot give legal instructions to a jury (not sure why that wasn't immediately struck).
2) There were two separate law instructors for Zimmerman who testified that his coursework indicated that he had a strong grasp of the Florida legal system as it pertains to self-defense.  Yet Zimmerman himself has claimed that he is "unfamiliar" with the Stand Your Ground statute (which was specifically covered).  As one of the CNN reporters put it:

"I thought, wow, look, there they go, showing that this guy could have easily got up after shooting Trayvon Martin and crafted a very quick self-defense, 'stand your ground' theory in his mind and then started recounting it over and over and over again."

And it's not like this was coursework from years ago; this was from summer 2011, less than a year before the incident.  So in other words, after Zimmerman had taken specific coursework on how to be a witness and how Florida self-defense laws work, how unfortunate for Trayvon that he happened to (unverifiably) make precisely the missteps that would give Zimmerman legal grounds to shoot him.

Instead of the alternative scenario of Zimmerman simply losing a fight that he started.

Are you suggesting that Zimmerman had planned all along to get a gun, start his own neighborhood watch, wait for a couple of break-ins to occur, find someone acting suspicious preferrably at night so that it would be hard for anyone to really see what happened - raining would be even better, call the police, tell them he found a guy looking suspicious, talk to the police for several minutes, follow the guy, pick a fight with him, wait for the guy to be standing on top of him throwing punches so that he could then pull his gun and shoot him and claim self defense?

If not, then at what point do you think all of the above was just happenstance and at what point did it become deliberate on Zimmerman's part?

I think Zimmerman's "Stand Your Ground?  What's that?  I'm just a simple caveman and I don't understand your complicated laws and fancy microwaves" act is a pretty convenient smokescreen for the fact that in case things DID go wrong, Zimmerman was very well trained on exactly what he needed to say and do to shore up his case.

If you're on the bottom in a ground scrum and you get punched hard in the face, the back of your head is probably going to hit the ground.  But "getting punched in the face really hard" doesn't exactly scream life-threatening... so I guess it's unfortunate that Martin started grabbing Zimmerman's head and bashing it into the "deadly weapon" of the ground.  Right after causing a bunch of injuries to Zimmerman's face that are consistent with getting punched in the face really hard.

To answer the question, I'd say that Zimmerman is a person that wanted to be a cop, was taking training to try to be a cop, and might have thought he was as good as a cop.  I think he bit off more than he could chew and after shooting Martin, he reacted just as many cops who screw up do: he tailored his statements to maximize his legal standing.

The ring of truth in this statement is near deafening...

Spider makes good points and Zimmerman has taken a credibility hit.

You are mistaken. If you keep punching me in the face and I can't stop you I have every legal right to kill you.

Trying to prove George is untrustworthy the state's witnesses have shown George to be a well-liked guy but that is irrelevant (I really can't believe the JAG saying "Hello George" from the stand as if he was seeing a long lost buddy) George could be the biggest lying piece of trash in the state of Florida and still win this case. It really comes down to what was going on when he shot Trayvon and unless someone can prove George wasn't screaming for help and that Trayvon refused to stop "ground and pounding" him. Somehow you have to throw out Goode's testimony as he is the only one who actually saw it before and after the shot.

So as I understand your posts, you are saying that whether or not you can invoke deadly force in the name of self-defense has nothing to do with whether you started the fight and everything to do with whether or not you're losing?

It seems to me that any person losing any fight could claim that they "feared for their life" at that moment.  Such a position would literally mean that an armed man who starts a fight can shoot the non-aggressor if, at any point, he loses the upper hand.  I'm not sure that self-defense statutes read that way.  If you physically initiate an unarmed fight (be it by grabbing, pushing, or punching), you should reasonably expect an unarmed fight as the result.

Getting punched in the face repeatedly may cause painful injury, but I don't think that reasonably qualifies as "deadly force"; if it does, practically every fistfight would be attempted murder.  Furthermore, if you punch me in the face repeatedly, it sounds like you're saying that gives me the right to kill you in self-defense, but if I manage to flip you over and start punching you in the face repeatedly, does that mean we are somehow both cleared to use deadly force?  Or, put another way: if you shoot at me unprovoked (and miss), and I shoot back (and miss), then you shoot and kill me, was your second shot self-defense?

Didn't Jonathan Good testify that Martin was punching Zimmerman?  In fact, didn't he specifically testify that he did NOT see any slamming-of-head-into-sidewalk?  Hmmm.

Remember, a great deal of Zimmerman's case is based on his account of what happened (because Martin is, well, dead).  Yet it seems that Zimmerman has repeatedly lied (unnecessarily, I might add) in ways that could serve to bolster his standing as an "innocent victim" in the eyes of a jury.  So if Zimmerman's credibility is shot, all we know is that a) Zimmerman appears to have been losing the fistfight (compared to Martin's injuries) and b) Zimmerman shot an unarmed minor.

Fair enough, but that's a ways from murder.

I'm with you 100% there. I think things went terribly wrong for Zimmerman and he found himself in a very bad situation that he felt his only way of getting out of was to shoot Austin. I think he should have been tried and convicted of manslaughter. I don't think he should have been tried or convicted of murder.

Hopping in again to say I agree with this completely. I honestly had NO opinion on the trial until today's testimony. Today left me feeling exactly this. Zimmerman is a wannabe cop that got in over his head and is now covering.

I think everyone is still missing the point. Following someone is not against the law. Questioning someone is not against the law. Being a wannabe cop is not against the law. Speculating about what Zimmerman knew about the law to circumvent questioning is still just speculating at the end of the day. This comes down to who initiated and/or escalated physical violence toward the other one. One person had physical injuries consistant with being assaulted and one person did not except abrasions to his knuckles. Which, to an extent point to him doing the assaulting. Did Zimmerman have to shoot Martin? Maybe he did or maybe not. Is there any reasonable doubt in anyone's mind that Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder? If you don't have doubt at this point in the trial then you aren't being objective. The prosecution hasn't proven anything except being inept.

Remember, a huge portion of Zimmerman's case rests on his word: his account of what happened.  If the jury believes he's a liar, what is the rest of his defense?

None of that mattered. He could have held Trayvon down and pissed in his face. The fact that Trayvon was committing felony battery at the point he gained the advantage and didnt stop as attested by witness Goode. Legally Zimmerman could use deadly force to stop him from doing bodily harm to him.

Have you ever dealt with someone who has had their head rammed into a sidewalk or pavement, repeatedly? I have. They do not answer questions clearly or accurately as Zimmerman did, if they are even conscious. Zimmerman's actions do not even remotely resemble the multiple people who I witnessed get their heads pounded into the concrete.
The police report states that the responding officers found Zimmerman with moisture and grass on his back. Martin was dead on the grass. There is not a shred of evidence he was pounded into the concrete...other than the word of a liar.
Also Zimmerman trained in MMA fighting in his quest to become an officer, this was testified too in the trial. If it is so bad that Martin liked MMA and may have used moves, what does it say about the other guy who actually trained in MMA fighting?
Zimmerman has lied repeatedly. So we are supposed to take his word that the other guy was conveniently the aggressor?
Martin had as much right to use deadly force to defend himself as Zimmerman did. This is an unfortunate truth that is being lost in this whole discussion. Martin could have been in fear of his life when he was fighting a stranger who followed and confronted him.
This should have been a manslaughter case.

I'm sorry but did you mean the states main witness who was caught in a multitude of lies? I have to ask myself this if this case was factually reported and was tried as hispanic man kills black teen in self defense how many of you would still be screaming he is guilty. I think we all know the answer to that. Fuel the fear it leads to the dark side.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I just hate to see this guy's life ruined to appease an unruly mob who want justice at the expense of the facts. They still support George's account of what happened. Of course had this been factually reported it would not be on all of our tv's and the chief of sanford would still be at his desk.

In related news, stones around the world are resting easier, knowing that the traditions of stone casting, tossing, throwing and skipping will soon come to a screeching halt...

I'd still like you to explain how that whole "I'm losing the fight so now I am entitled to use deadly force" thing goes.  If I push you in the back and knock you down, and then you get up, pull my shirt over my head and repeatedly punch me, and I can't immediately disengage, does that give me free license to beat you to death, or only to stab you to death?

The state's main witness:

a) is not Trayvon Martin
b) has not been charged with murder

...so I'm not sure what that has to do with Zimmerman's credibility or lack thereof.

I'll say it again: Zimmerman could have decided to make the case that yeah, he was following this black kid around (but that's not illegal) and yeah, he did initiate the fight (but he still had the right to deadly force in self-defense) and yeah, he did take a bunch of classes on self-defense law (but that's not illegal either).  He chose not to make that case.  Instead, he chose to make the case that he wasn't following Martin and he didn't initiate the fight and he wasn't well-aware of Florida law in this matter.  That's on him.

I believe it was stated that Zimmerman never got past punching a heavy bag. I'm not sure if that was in testimony though.

At the beginning of this trial I thought this was another case of terribly overcharging Zimmerman (2nd degree) as a result of the surrounding media hype; and the belief that a jury would convict on manslaughter.  However, the more prosecution witnesses' I hear, the more I believe that Zimmerman never should have been charged in the first place.  This was a terrible tragedy that never should have happened, but I don't believe the prosecution has come close to proving Zimmerman broke any laws.

I think had Zimmerman been arrested and the charges later dropped, this would not have been a media event.

It's the fact that an adult can shoot and kill an unarmed kid in public without even being charged with a crime that was so upsetting.

The proecution has rested their case. The defense made a motion for immediate aquittal and it was denied. The defense has their first witness coming to the stand (George's mother).

Sorry, but he's not a "kid".

How can Zimmerman's mother come to the stand except as a character witness?  This would seem to play right into the hands of the prosecution.

That's because self defense isn't a crime. It makes no sense that people can portray that a "grown" man can attack a "kid" and the outcome is that the "grown" man has all the injuries and the "kid" has none. Your statement still assumes that Trayvon didn't do anything wrong. Zimmerman's face and head prove otherwise.



Even if Trayvon was a violent racist, high on crack, and going to rob and kill Zimmerman, your statement above could still fit the situation. This statement is pure media hype to elicit nothing but emotion from the uninformed masses.

Zimmerman claims that he shot Martin because he "feared for his life."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-medical-examiner-20130702,0,1358679.story

"Dr. Valerie Rao, the Jacksonville, Fla., medical examiner for Duval, Clay and Nassau counties, testified that she reviewed Zimmerman’s photographs and medical records. She was not involved in the autopsy of Martin.

The wounds displayed on Zimmerman’s head and face were “consistent with one strike, two injuries at one time,” she testified. “The injuries were not life-threatening,” she said, adding they were “very insignificant.”

Remember, Zimmerman claimed that his head was forcibly slammed into the sidewalk over two dozen times.  He has repeatedly mentioned this head-slamming as justification for why he felt his life was in danger (instead of simply losing a fistfight).

If Martin was "high on crack" and had attempted to rob and kill Zimmerman (unarmed?), this would not have been a news story.

Of course, since he wasn't high, was armed only with candy and iced tea, and was actively trying to avoid Zimmerman before this conflict took place, the situation is different.

Kinda funny how Zimmerman was never tested for drugs.

She testified to the voice on the recordings. The same thing Martin's mother was able to testify to.

Although a person may stand their ground without first retreating or attempting to retreat, they cannot use more force than is reasonably necessary to defend themselves. In other words, they may use such force as is reasonably necessary to prevent being assaulted.
The word “reasonable” means the test is objective, not subjective. That is, it’s based on the objective set of facts and circumstances, as opposed to a person’s perception of the facts and circumstances. In other words, a person may use such force as a reasonable person in the same situation would perceive as reasonably necessary to use in preventing an assault.

If they use excessive force, they become an aggressor and no longer are acting in self-defense. At this point, the original aggressor becomes the defender and now can use reasonably necessary force to defend against the use of excessive force.
Since Trayvon clearly had the upper hand and people tried to break it up it's reasonable to expect that he should have stopped delivering violence against Zimmerman. As well, the lack of any injuries on Trayvon suggest that even if Zimmerman had touched him that it did not result in any injury so Martin in fact wasn't permitted to use violent force.

Legally this point negates any of the "what-ifs" that might have happened prior the fight.  

Look I don't think Trayvon deserved to die but I do think his actions contributed to his death. I also don't think Zimmerman is an alter boy but I don't think he followed Martin with the intent on killing or even hurting him. I think scenarios play out like this every single day and most of us are lucky to escape. For many others, the game of playing hoodlum gets us into trouble that we didn't expect.

Regardless of all of the other hoopla "evidence" this whole case comes down to one question. Did George Zimmerman legally have the right to use self-defense? I think that generally people agree that the state wasn't able to prove that he didn't because the "evidence" just doesn't exist.

The injuries are not the key to proving or disproving a reasonable fear for life. I think we can all agree that the injuries themselves were not life threatening. The key is, do we beleive Martin reached for the gun. If so, forget about anything else.

That's my neighbor on the stand now ... the realtor. Her husband is our homeowner's president.

And now he is on the stand. Not the most favorite person in our neighborhood that's for sure.

Um, what?  No one "tried to break it up" (other than shouting at them from a distance) and even if they had, how would that have any impact on whether or not Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force?  Deadly force is "reasonably necessary" when you are in danger of grave injury or death.  The medical examiner that took the stand last Tuesday characterized Zimmerman's injuries as "very insignificant."

1) The lack of injuries on Martin suggests that he was winning the fight.  You are essentially saying that if I punch another man in the stomach, if he has no documentable injury then he is not permitted to use violence in his defense.
2) How is it that Martin's lack of injury means he was not permitted to use any sort of violent force, yet Zimmerman's "very insignificant" injuries fully enabled him to use deadly force in response?

Really? My ex worked with Zimmerman years ago and I met him (the realtor) and his wife. They met up with us during the office Christmas party and he sat next to me at dinner. He was very personable and we had a good time eating, drinking, and chatting.

The medical examiner wasn't able to testify anything about Martin possibly trying to grab the gun though.

Seriously is there one rationale bone in your body about this case? It's pointless even talking to you. Is your whole case  based on stretching her testimony to proving he wasn't in fear for his life?  He didn't even have to have injuries to be in fear so the fact she didn't testify he wasn't in fear doesn't even matter.

Actually, as was testified to last week. The level of injuries are secondary to the persons perceptions of what is happening to them. Also I would add that although Zimmerman's injuries were called "insignificant" only means that they were insignificant in regards to serious bodily injury or death. You don't know how significant the injuries would be percieved in the moment if they were happening to you. Zimmerman's "insignificant" injuries were 100x more significant than the ones that Martin had, which were zero.

None of Martin's DNA was found on the gun.

Like the "sidewalk head slamming," the only evidence for Martin's alleged reaching for the gun is Zimmerman's word, which (again) reinforces the importance of his credibility.

Ahem:

So objectively, Zimmerman's injuries were "very insignificant" and would not have merited the use of deadly force in response.

So then, we can all agree that Zimmerman had no grounds to shoot Martin based on how the fight itself was going (specifically: the injuries he sustained)?  That is certainly a departure from the last ~10 pages of this thread.

And that key is solely and utterly dependent on Zimmerman's word and Zimmerman's word alone.

How fortunate for Zimmerman that he had taken classes that would have instructed him exactly what statements to make to best justify his actions in court.  If only he had not "forgotten" that he had taken those courses!

Correct. although there was no evidence the police officer also handled the gun but he testified to doing so and without gloves.

If you streteched what I said any further it would be completely unrecognizable.

What, exactly, did you mean when you said that "The injuries are not the key to proving or disproving a reasonable fear for life"?  Over the last ~10 pages, it has been stated repeatedly that Martin was viciously beating Zimmerman and that Martin's excessive violence was cause for Zimmerman to retaliate with deadly force even if Zimmerman started the fight.  If we set aside Zimmerman's (very insignificant) injuries, what kind of ruthless brutality did Martin perpetrate?

I mean, if you want to say that it's all about the alleged gun reach, fine, but then why have we been talking about Martin's savage assault for most of this thread?

To reiterate: this trial rests completely on whether the jury finds Zimmerman credible.  He has made the following five claims:

1) he is unfamiliar with Stand Your Ground and similar self-defense law (and the "correct" witness statements to make in those cases)
2) he was not following Martin
3) Martin started the fight
4) during the fight, Martin attacked him in a life-threatening manner (i.e. slammed his head into the sidewalk repeatedly)
5) Martin reached for his gun

#1 was put into question by the testimony of his two professors on the subject.
#2 was put into question by the police investigator.
#4 was directly refuted by the medical examiner.
The available evidence does not substantiate #5.

If the jury does not believe Zimmerman on points 3, 4, and 5, Zimmerman absolutely should be convicted of murder.

Fixed that for you. I almost regard Zimmerman's testimony as completely irrelevant. It's certainly not necessary to find him credible to find him not guilty. If I'm the defense attorney, I don't think I even put Zimmerman to the witness stand.

Do you think that the jury should acquit him if they believe he is lying about points 3, 4, and 5?

I mean exactly what I said. There is even court testimony that the extent of the injuries do not necessarily equate to reasonable fear for your life. In fact a person could have absolutely no injury and have a reasonble fear for their life. You stretched that to mean there was no reason to use his gun. That is a real stretch from the meaning and words I used.

Now, you want to bring up the last 10 pages when the crux of my position has always been let's hear the evidence. You expect me to have an unwavering postion I guess. Well sir that may be your idea of listening to the case but it is not mine.

I agree #1 is blown out of the water. #2 was always in question. My postion is it really does not matter if he followed him or not. It is not illegal. Also at what point is he following him and when is he not? He told the operator he lost where the guy went. How do you follow someone you do not see anymore?#4 was partially refuted by the examiner.The head wounds are not life threatening in and of themselves. Other life threatening behavior is in the story and has not been refuted. Those include covering of the mouth and nose as well as reaching for the gun.

Now if the jury feels these stories have been refuted, he should not be aquitted. That just makes sense. If they still have doubts about some of this,he needs to walk or maybe be convicted of the lesser manslaughter charge.

Possibly. Depends on what you believe happened as opposed to what Martin said happened. He could be lying/mistaken about what happened and yet still be not guilty. Personally I don't put much faith in what he has said so I don't give it a lot of weight. I give more weight to the physical evidence they have collected as to what happened. Unfortunately that doesn't really give us an answer to points 3 or 5. In my opinion the physical evidence as it relates to point 4 is in Zimmerman's favor and I don't give a damn what the expert witnesses have testified to by looking at a photo of the injuries. My understanding from the medic that treated Zimmerman was that there were two one-inch long cuts in the back of his head that did not require stitches. It is my opinion this is fairly consistent with having your head slammed into something other than grass at least 2 times if not more. That alone tends to favor Zimmerman in my humble opinion.

Having said that, I'll admit that I have not watched even 1 minute of this trial on TV. I have not read more than a dozen or so articles in total on the whole thing. I really don't know whether or not Zimmerman is guilty and I won't agonize over the outcome one way or the other. I certainly do feel sympathy for Martin, but no more than I feel for Zimmerman as if he's found guilty his fate won't be appreciably better than Martin's in my humble opinion. It's very unfortunate this happened, but I have no way of knowing if one or the other was more responsible for it. All I really know is that regardless of the outcome of the trial, Martin will still be dead, no one can fix that, so all I can do now is hope that Zimmerman gets a fair trial and the jury tries their best to give him proper justice. Beyond that I leave it up to God to hope they both get what they deserve.

My point is that there has been a lot of emphasis placed on the extremely dangerous and excessive assault on Zimmerman by Martin, primarily to try to discount whether or not Zimmerman started it.  If Zimmerman's injuries were only minor (and a reasonable person would not consider them life-threatening), then whether or not he started it is incredibly important.

I think the major factor in the jury decision will be who they think is screaming for help in the 911 recording.  If they think Zimmerman is screaming he will undoubtedly be found not guilty.  If they think it is Martin, then guilty.  If they can't determine then it will be not guilty.

Evidenced by what you feel the size of the cuts were. They were measured in millimeters (and very small increments) according to medical staff testimony.

Unlike something like the Jodi Arias or Casey Anthony trial (which are basically just media porn for people like Nancy Grace, and have no real impact on the laws of society), I feel like this case has real significance.  If the jury feels that Zimmerman instigated the confrontation but that he was justified under the law to shoot Martin because he (Zimmerman) had a gun, I have a big problem with that.  You can't go around picking fights and shooting people if you lose, and any law that propagates such a scenario should be struck off of the books.

I'm not sure that's as important.  If you started a fight and you scream for help after you're losing, what does that change?  Punching someone and then running away doesn't mean you've regained innocence.

Please enlighten me. Who measured them? When? Is this evidence in conflict with the person who treated Zimmerman at the scene and to what degree? If they "measured" them in a photo of the injuries, blah, worthless testimony.

I don't think there would be aquittal for losing a fight Spider. You are really oversimplifying the argument and it doesn't show anything more than emotion because you are using simplistic speaking points. Sure, you cannot start a fight and then pull out a gun if you are losing. No, you should not be convicted of murder if you start a fight and then have reasonable fear for your life during that fight.

I have no such fear this case will lead to any negative changes in the law.

The PA who treated Zimmerman the day after the altercation.

I want to modify my statement. I looked it up. The PA said one was 2cm and .5cm. Both of which are under an inch.

And what did he say exactly?

The size of the wound. Black eyes and swollen nose (which could be evidence of a broken nose) but no septum deviation. No headaches, dizziness, or blurry vision. The only nausia reported was due to mental distress according to Zimmerman's discussion with her.

ASSUMING Zimmerman started the fight under YOUR scenario, just because Zimmerman started the fight doesn't give Martin the right to beat Zimmerman to death.  So my point was that as you listen to the 911 recording the person repeatedly screaming for help sounds like he is in great fear.

And what exactly was the size of the 2 wounds in millimeters according to the PA? 24.5 millimeters equals an inch, so if she said the size of the wounds were 18 millimeters, I don't find that to be a significant difference in the least. The person who treated Zimmerman was estimating, so a difference of a few millimeters is to be expected. Furthermore I would expect that wounds of this nature would look significantly different a day later than at the scene when they were fresh. Even one day of healing can be significant. If on the other hand she said the size of the wounds was 3 millimeters, that would be a pretty significant difference from the person that treated him on the scene and I'd like to hear an explanation as to why the 2 people that treated him disagree on the size of the cuts. I haven't heard anyone mention this.

Edit. Ok I saw your edit. 1 inch = 2.5 CM, so 2 CM is pretty close to 1 inch and well within reasonable error. The other being .5 CM is quite a bit different, but that still leaves at least 1 nearly 1 inch long cut on his head that would seem to indicate that his head was struck by something other than just the grass at least once. This evidence to me would indicate that it's at least plausible that Zimmerman may have thought his head was being slammed into the sidewalk. Perhaps it was only once? Perhaps only 1 slam actually produced an inch long cut? Perhaps he hit his head when he was knocked to the ground that produced the cut, but later was on the grass when his head was slammed to the ground? Perhaps he exaggerated and it was only 2 times that his head was slammed into the sidewalk? How do I know what actually happened as opposed to what Zimmerman believed or said happened? How do I know if he was lieing or simply mistaken that his head was being slammed into the sidewalk repeatedly?

That's the problem with leaving it up to one point. Have you considered how its possible for GZ's story to hold up, with that last scream? The shot came right after the word, "Help!" It was a straight shot through the heart. How was there time for Trayvon to "realize" there was a gun? How was there time for Trayvon to say, "You're going to die tonight? On a side note, which announces that? Anyways, how was there time for a struggle for the gun? Or as GZ puts it, "hands sliding down his sides". If Trayvon had his knees up by GZ's armpits, how does Trayvon see the gun? If his knees are by GZ's waist, how does he not feel the gun?

Much like GZ's trek outside of his vehicle, the timing doesn't add up.

^^^Very little of this makes any sense. Do you honestly think it impossible for Zimmerman to scream for help while also pulling a gun? Do you think the fight was so quick Martin did not have time to notice a gun? Do you think it was too short for Martin to announce you're going to die? I'm very open to hearing the other side and have backed off some of my initial thoughts but very little of that is anything but nonsense. You seem to think this struggle lasted about a second because that is all the time it takes for many of your "How was there time..." things take. The one thing I could maybe give you is how does Martin not feel the gun, but I don't think anyone has even taken that postion but you. How do you know he didn't feel it? Besides, the witnesses saw Martin on top. Are you saying that testimony is bunk? Are you saying Zimmerman didn't have a gun? I just don't get it.

That's the problem.  If you're losing a fight that you started, and all you have to show for it are "very insignificant" injuries, and you can STILL claim that you "feared for your life" and kill the person with impunity, then in what situation would you NOT be permitted to shoot someone for winning a fight that you started?  If you had no injuries?

As stated, neither one of the cuts was an inch-long; they were 4/5th and 1/5th long.  The 4/5ths is easily explainable as his head hitting the ground when he was knocked down.  The 1/5th could easily be his head hitting the ground after being punched in the face.

Well, most reasonable people would be able to tell the difference between something happening 2 times and something happening over 25 times.  So that gives the impression that perhaps he is embellishing his story.

I get your argument and I see how you are trying to relate this position specifically to this case but the big thing is, you are assuming who started the altercation. You are going to have to show me some evidence Zimmerman started a fight before I even entertain this conversation as part of this case.

Dead men tell no tales.  The only evidence we have for who started the fight is the word of Zimmerman, who is not exactly a disinterested party.

So again, we're stuck at if you start a fight and you lose, you can kill the other person (as long as there is no one else around, or you're not stupid enough to tape the incident like the guy in Texas did).

Or if this makes it easier:  I'm not necessarily saying that Zimmerman did start the fight, I'm saying that he could have and the outcome would be no different.

Coupled with the fact that Martin has no injuries (other then the gunshot wound), that tends to support Zimmerman's story that he was attacked by Martin and shot him in self defense. We can argue all day whether or not it was justified but that really forces us to get inside the head of Zimmerman and determine whether or not he could have reasonably feared for his life and that's really difficult.

Agreed, but embellishing his story about how many times his head was smashed into the ground does nothing to disprove the idea that he was indeed being attacked by Martin when he shot him. The problem I have with your stance Spider is that you believe that if any of Zimmerman's story is untrue it's all untrue. That's a leap of faith I can't make. The state has to come up with some evidence to support the state's case that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Failing some evidence to the contrary and with the benefit of the doubt going to Zimmerman, I'm still leaning toward not guilty of murder 2. Again, if the prosecution would have went for manslaughter, I would have leaned toward guilty.

But you JUST said that we don't know who started the fight. So we are NOT stuck at if you start a fight. We are stuck at whether or not you started the fight which is exactly what this trial is all about. Whether or not Zimmerman was the aggressor is the heart of the trial and there doesn't seem to be any physical evidence to suggest that Zimmerman started the fight. The state cannot get by this fundamental flaw in their argument so all they have done is try to prove that it's POSSIBLE that Zimmerman started the fight. That's not enough to convict no matter how sympathetic you are towards the victim and nobody is rewriting law here. That's only happening if it's proven that Zimmerman DID start the fight or escalated it unnecessarily and then is NOT convicted. I have no fear that will happen here because if the state proves that Zimmerman did start the fight or escalated it unnecessarily, he'll be convicted and if they don't prove it, then it doesn't matter what the outcome of the trial is.

The problem is that many of the verifiable claims he makes turn out to be false.  Then we are left with his unverifiable claims.

The point I was making (which I emphasized underneath the part that you quoted) is that even if Zimmerman actually did start the fight, Martin is dead and no one else was around to see, which essentially means that he can just say that he didn't and there's no one to contradict that.

That doesn't mean I automatically presume that he started it.  But I think it's a dangerous precedent to set, and when you add in all the inconsistencies in his statements, this reads to me like a blueprint of how you COULD start a fight, kill the other person if you're losing, and get away with it.

Which is exactly why you can't convict. You cannot convict on unverifiable evidence. You can't. Our whole system of justice is based on this simple idea. Are you suggesting we rewrite not just this 1 law but our entire justice system now?

The verifiable evidence is that Martin is dead and Zimmerman has admitted to killing him.

Whether or not the jury believes Zimmerman's testimony as to his justification for killing Martin is a completely fair (and lawful) way to convict him.

That's manslaughter, not murder.

I never said that I thought the fight only took a second. I was focusing on what someone had said earlier. In my opinion, I don't believe it was possible for GZ to be the last one screaming for help. At one point either of them could've been screaming for help. Given GZ's  situation at the time (based on his two police station interviews, re-enactment video, Hannity interview, and Osterman's book/testimony). He was on his back, with a broken nose, & being smothered by Ttayvon's two hands & body weight. Zimmerman was only asked if he was screaming on the tape. Possible. But not at that specific time. Detective Serrano even questioned GZ as to how he was able to fire at that position. He said he raised the weapon past Trayvon's hands (again still on GZ's face, not the gun). Aim and fire a straight shot through the heart. Not to the left, right, up or down. That wasn't a panic shot. I don't buy that Trayvon was smothering GZ either. But I can't account for Trayvon's hands at that moment. No blood or DNA on Trayvon's hands (GZ was a bleeder) or GZ's gun. Remember, that shot came right after that last scream for help. There was no pause. Is it possible that someone could scream for help, while aiming a gun? I would say, not this guy. He didn't distance himself from the person he "feared would end his life". No. His first actions were to get from underneath his "attacker" and attempt to disarm & restrain his "suspect". Its not just the shot. Its the whole picture.

If you only count the action of the killing. Which is why we have the perceived depraved mind vs. the perceived fear of death or great bodily harm.

I was referring to Spider's comment that the verifiable evidence we have is that Martin is dead and that Zimmerman killed him. You're absolutely correct that to prove murder or even manslaughter for that matter, there has to be some additional evidence and if there isn't enough evidence or that the evidence proves the defendant acted in self defense, then the verdict should be not guilty.

I agree, which is what he should have been charged with.

It's neither if the jury finds that it was in self-defense (i.e. they believe Zimmerman's testimony as to his justification for killing Martin).

If they don't find that it's self-defense, not sure how it can be manslaughter and not murder.

Without the evidence to prove he had the frame of mind and intention to kill Martin, it is not murder. Just because you kill someone, does not mean you are guilty of murder.

The lesser charge is included. The jury can come back and decide guilty of manslaughter.

And this is different than how it has ever been. If a tree falls in a forest does anyone hear it? Seriously Spider, in order to convict someone of murder you need evidence. Without evidence, many a murder has gone unsolved. I'm not sure what your big draw is on this one.

They don't even have to believe self defense. They just need to have reasonable doubt of murder. You seem to keep forgetting where the burden of proof lies in a courtroom.

If they don't believe it was self defense, then how could it not be murder? How could it be a justifiable homicide? It wasn't an accident. He meant to discharge his weapon. So if you don't believe it was self defense, then what reason did he have?



Edit by Dave: Fixing quote formatting

I was not addressing justifiable homicide. For that it does have to be self defense. We were discussing how it could possibly be manslaughter. Personally, I think that is the most likely conviction if there is one.

What case are you talking about?  Zimmerman admitted to intentionally shooting Martin (i.e. homicide), and is claiming self-defense as justification.  So how can it not be murder if it is not self-defense?

You must not be paying attention to the technical information in this case. Murder in the second degree is defined by very specific language (just as murder of the first degree is). If that language cannot be proven, then manslaughter is more likely. Every homicide does not meet the criteria of murder. That is regardless of the state where it happens. I thought that was common knowledge.

In this specific case, if the jury believes (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Zimmerman did NOT act in self-defense, that necessarily means that there are certain aspects of his account that they reject (e.g. who started it).  In the rejection of those claims, I don't see how it would be possible for them to not arrive at murder 2.

The problem the prosecution is going to have is that armed following or "hey what you doing" is not sufficient for legal provocation to make you responsible for someone using violence against you. Regardless of what the jury decides, there is no way the prosecutions can prove murder 2.

Happens all the time.  Members of a jury debate with each other over what they think happened, and negotiate to a middle ground (such as manslaughter).  Technically not correct, but that's our system.

You're right; in a negotiation circumstance, that's a definite possibility.

It just seems like (strictly speaking) if the jury was sufficiently convinced that it was not self-defense, there would be enough malice there to jump straight to murder.

Now that I think about it, that's actually a good point that I'm not sure I fully understand how the law works, so let me ask a hypothetical.

Hypothetical:

1) A man is accused of a crime.
2) The man is tried and the jury deliberates.
3) During deliberations the jury decides that they don't believe either the prosecution's case nor the defense's case. They believe that a 3rd scenario exists which was not argued by either side is actually the most likely scenario.
4) That third scenario if it is correct would make the man not guilty.

Question: What should the verdict of the jury be in that case? Guilty or not guilty?

I'd have to assume not guilty since the prosecution has not made their case even though I don't believe the defense's case either. What do you think?

Now what if I change the hypothetical to be that the third scenario that the jury believes to be correct would make the man guilty? This is where I think I'd need some direction. If the prosecution has not proven their case to me, but I believe the man to be guilty in a way that was not argued by the prosecution, should I return a verdict of guilty?

You can only convict on counts that are brought.  So if there's some lesser count (e.g. manslaughter), you could convict of that.

Still, by law, you would have to believe that the prosecution has proven manslaughter beyond reasonable doubt.  In this case, I'm not sure how they could prove manslaughter (i.e. disprove self-defense) without simultaneously proving enough malice to bypass manslaughter and go straight to murder.  (Unless, as masterfins said, the jury negotiates internally for a compromise.)

Just see the Casey Anthony trial. I don't think anyone bought into her defense but they didn't have evidence for the prosecution either.

You cannot send a guilty verdict if the prosecution does not prove their case. This is cut and dry. You can't imagine scenarios. You have to use the evidence in court.

I've already explained it and you keep ignoring it. The specific language that defines Murder 2. They have to provide Zimmerman acted in "ill-will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent" among other things. The defense has been throwing these specific words around at various times and witnesses have not been agreeing that these words were an accurate description.

The prosecution's only witness who could help to show any evidence of this sort of behavior is less credible than Zimmerman (she was caught in lies regarding her age, her name, etc.).

You mean something like saying "these assholes, they always get away"?  That certainly doesn't indicate positive or even neutral intent.

I don't see how a teenager lying about trivia makes her less credible than Zimmerman, who has lied about facts directly relevant to the case (self-defense law classes?  head slammed into the sidewalk dozens of times?).

Using a false name and age is trivial?

Her name could be Appleseed Moonbeam and she could be 39 years old.  It is irrelevant to the case, and therefore trivia.

The only thing it speaks to is her credibility (and it's fair to say that hurts her).  However, Zimmerman lied about things that not only impacted his credibility, but also substantially impact the facts of the case (in his favor, mind you).  Jeantel's name and age do nothing to help or hurt the case.

Wrong. Because if she is the state's star witness and she is proven not to be a credible source, it would help Zimmerman, don't ya think?

Spider, I'll give you Zimmerman has some damaged credibility also. His claim of lack of knowledge of self defense is not good. I will say that some of his accounts such as number of hits etc. can be attributed to the trauma of the situation rather than outright lies though. Also, I think common sense can show anyone that it was more than two hits which one witness tried to claim the injuries were consistent with. Think about the time frame those screams came out on the 911 call. The person heard screams, went to their phone, and then there were several more audible screams. That timeframe was not filled with no violence.

If you ask me, it's pretty straightforward:

- Zimmerman was punched in the face many times
- A few of those punches resulted in Zimmerman's head hitting the ground, causing very minor cuts to the back of his head
- Based on his extensive (and recent) knowledge of Florida law on this topic, Zimmerman knew that "repeatedly punched me in the face" would not have the same legal gravity as "repeatedly slammed my head into the sidewalk"
- Zimmerman simply replaced the repeated punches to the face (which knocked his head back) with Martin grabbing his head and repeatedly driving it into the concrete, without realizing that doing that dozens of times would cause much more serious injuries than the ones he sustained

Or having your head slammed into the ground 25 times only produces 2 cuts and Zimmerman was incorrect in thinking he was actually on the sidewalk instead of the ground.

Or how about Zimmerman was punched 25 times and thought his head hit the sidewalk hard each time, but his head only hit the sidewalk with enough force to cause the 2 cuts a couple times. The rest of the blows were merely incidental contact with the concrete.

Those are 2 very plausible explanations in my opinion how Zimmerman could have thought his head was slammed onto the concrete 25 times but would have caused the injuries that he had. He wouldn't have had to lie at all and yet his statement would have been incorrect in both circumstances. I really don't understand your logic that Zimmerman has to be either stating facts or lieing. He could simply be mistaken especially given the fact that he may have been fighting off 25 punches at the time it was happening.

An expert on bullet wounds today testified that Martin was on top when he was shot. Don't know if this is new news or not.

Is there any way Zimmerman is convicted of anything substantial here? I am not hearing of any concrete evidence that will send him to jail for the rest of his life.

To be clear, this is (approximately) what I think did happen.  And this would directly contradict Zimmerman's statements.

Zimmerman didn't say that he got punched in the face and his head hit the ground (or sidewalk, or concrete).  He said that Martin grabbed his head and repeatedly slammed it into the ground/sidewalk/concrete.  You don't "mistake" someone punching you in the face for someone grabbing and controlling your head.

Ah, my bad, like I said I have not watched the trial, so I don't know what Martin actually said in the police interview. That does seem to be inconsistent with what the eyewitnesses have said. It will be interesting to see if Martin changes his story in direct testimony if he does testify.

The expert today did admit in cross that the head injuries could have come from Zimmerman moving his head around to avoid being punched.

One would actually have to do what Spider is doing to convict this man. They would have to look past the witnesses and the evidence and just "assume" they knew more than what could be proved which ironically is the exact opposite of the Casey Anthony trial. Spider's opinion is based on a lot of speculation.

-- Zimmerman was punched in the face many times - I think the facts support this.

- A few of those punches resulted in Zimmerman's head hitting the ground, causing very minor cuts to the back of his headThat's complete speculation. Many of us have hit and been hit many times in my life. I've knocked a guy out cold by hitting his head against a block wall as well beat another guy's head against asphalt. Depending on how much the other person is fighting back or how much strength I have left directly correlates to how much they get injured. In fact many people "DIE" from just one punch. Obviously most people do not die from one punch but countless others are left with broken jaws, concussions and/or permanent brain damage from just one punch. If you are being hit you have the right to defend yourself.

Anyone who trivializes being hit in the head I would challenge them to allow us to punch them in the head while trying to guess if we will stop before we do permanent damage or worse?

- Based on his extensive (and recent) knowledge of Florida law on this topic, Zimmerman knew that "repeatedly punched me in the face" would not have the same legal gravity as "repeatedly slammed my head into the sidewalk". Again very much speculation. Not saying he didn't know the basics of "stand your ground" law or even self-defense but to believe in minutes and then again 1 hour after killing someone he had the presence of mind to change specific details (screaming for help, getting his head pounded, etc) to suit his court case is doing quite a bit of assumption. In fact the first thing you would have to assume is he was in a rationale state of mind right after killing someone. That would make him almost psychotic.

- Zimmerman simply replaced the repeated punches to the face (which knocked his head back) with Martin grabbing his head and repeatedly driving it into the concrete, without realizing that doing that dozens of times would cause much more serious injuries than the ones he sustainedI've already addressed this.

Without even really trying it's been proven in court that everyone seemed to like the guy and that he had a diverse group of friends. Prosecutor's black witness who is there to point out a "television interview lie" greets George as an old friend from the stand. Georges's very black old neighbor is concerned for his well being at the time of the shooting although she realizes he just shot a black youth and as well...  confirms she believes it's his voice on the tape.

As well Trayvon's witness described him using very racist terms so it isn't much of a stretch to think the jury sees George as someone involved in the community, who has a diverse group of friends and is generally well liked while Trayvon was a troubled youth who had a mistrust of "crazy-ass crackers". For them to take that huge leap that they know more than the prosecutor's can prove seems like huge a stretch to me.

No one is overly concerned with the locals being too upset about this trial but the verdict is coming at a bad time and everyone is ramping up for it. This weekend starts the 2013 NAACP Annual Convention "We Shall Not be Moved" in Orlando. We all know troublemakers like to hide in big groups and this is a perfect opportunity for outsiders to come in stirring up trouble again. All of our churches are banding together over this thing. I really hope it doesn't turn into something stupid. If it does I'm pretty sure it won't be the Sanford people but they will be the ones to suffer from it. 

There has been very little eyewitness testimony to the fight. The closest thing was a witness using the term ground & pound. No one saw anything.

I agree with Spider here that it appears that Zimmerman was lieing about this, but I find it completely plausible that he would lie to the police what Martin did to him. At that time he doesn't know if he's going to be arrested and charged with murder. The fact that he lied to try to make things look more in his favor is not all that surprising to me. On the other hand, unlike Spider I do not believe that means everything he said is a lie. Quite the opposite in fact. People lie all the time especially under stressfull situations like the one that he was in. Most of what he said has been corraborated by witnesses or physical evidence. The police believed him enough to release him. There's very little evidence to disprove most of what he said. You can't convict a man of murder 2 even if he lied about some things unless there is enough evidence to prove he commited the crime he's charged with and I don't think we are anywhere close to that in this case.

I'm very interested to see if Zimmerman testifies and what he says. I'd be surprised if he sticks to his story completely and doesn't change it a bit. If he changes his story to what most of think really did happen that night I don't think it would be all that bad for him. It's one thing to lie to the police and then admit that you were lieing under oath, its something else to get up on the witness stand, take the oath and then lie. I think that would look worse for him then him simply saying that he made a mistake and Martin wasn't slamming his head into the sidewalk repeatedly, but he was punching him in the face and his head was hitting the ground. That I can believe and I can also believe that he lied to the police about it.

I thought several people have testified that they saw one person on top of the other although they weren't sure who was on top? I thought that at least one person thought they saw punches being thrown although they didn't see them them connecting with anything. Am I getting that wrong?

^^^ You are completely correct there. Your comment about inconsistencies in testimony made me think you had heard a different type of story. I'm not sure how any of this is considered inconsistent with Zimmerman's story though. I consider it more incomplete witnessing of the even. The fact that only one could say he watched enough to see punches at all means the other barely had a glance.

Couple that with the physical evidence of the injuries to Zimmerman and it seems a bit hard to believe that in addition to the punches that were witnessed by at least 1 person, Martin also slammed Zimmerman's head into the ground/sidewalk 25 times and only caused 2 cuts to his head in all of this. There's also a time issue I think. It takes far longer to grab someones head and smash it into the ground 25 times then it does to simply punch them 25 times. In all that time no one saw that happening?

Now, I have not read or heard exactly what Zimmerman told the police or said in interviews, I'm simply going by what Spider said that Zimmerman said. If he didn't say that or that's not exactly what he said then feel free to correct me.

I've said this many times, but let me say this again:

Whether Zimmerman started the fight is extremely, crucially important.  If he did not start the fight, then Martin's actions were certainly cause for him to shoot Martin in self-defense.  If he did start the fight, Martin would have to have done a hell of a lot more than give Zimmerman a bloody nose before Zimmerman would gain cause to shoot him.

We have talked about "reasonable doubt," so let me touch on this one more time: "reasonable doubt" does not mean, "Well, Zimmerman said Martin started the fight, and no living person testifies otherwise, therefore it must be true."  Otherwise, conviction rates in this country would plummet.  The fact that Zimmerman actively stated his dismay at the thought of Martin getting away, that he was asked not to follow Martin, that (according to the detective) he followed him anyway, and that he lied about following him are all factors in determining whether a person would reasonably believe that Zimmerman attempted to physically prevent Martin from getting away.

You're talking about two different things.  Whether Zimmerman (a recent A student in a course on Florida self-defense law) knew that a life-threatening assault may be met with deadly force is not much of an assumption at all.  As to whether he was sophisticated enough to tailor his story, wasn't the statement with the head-pounding over an hour after the shooting, after he had already been taken to the station for questioning?  I don't recall reading anything about him relaying the head-slamming details to the officer on the scene.

Suffice it to say that perspective colors opinion.  You place a huge amount of weight on the "creepy ass cracker" comment while placing very little weight on the "these assholes always get away" comment, while I do the opposite.  You place a huge amount of weight on Martin's suspensions from school while dismissing Zimmerman's criminal history of violence, and I do the opposite.

Spider, how many people do you know who call the police before starting a fight? How do you explain Zimmerman not stepping out of his vehicle to confront Martin, at the stage where Martin was approaching him, if his goal was a confrontation? How do you explain he caught up to a fleeing Martin if Martin had a head start on him in an effort to get home, unless Martin doubled back?

Every piece of this tells me Martin showed the more agressive behavior. None of this leads me to believe Zimmerman started the physical confrontation.

Now, I give you that maybe the use of a gun may have been overkill based on the visible injuries. That is what I would really have to focus on if I was sitting on the jury.

I imagine Zimmerman didn't think he was "starting a fight;" he likely thought this punk kid/probable criminal was going to submit to some tough talk and being firmly sat down by an authority figure.

Wasn't this before he lost sight of Martin?  There would have been no need to get out of his vehicle at that point.  It was only when Martin took the back walkway path that Zimmerman needed to get out of his vehicle to pursue, and that would also dovetail with an attempt by Zimmerman physically detain Martin when he caught up to him (to keep him from getting away again).

Zimmerman encountered Martin at precisely the point one would expect if Zimmerman had attempted to cut him off.  There was a map in the other thread that showed the walkway Martin took behind/through the houses; I think Zimmerman basically went around to the front of the path and backtracked through the houses (while ostensibly "looking for the street names").

edit:  here you go:

(http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg?w=510&h=342)

Furthermore, I don't recall reading anything that said that Martin was "fleeing" or moving with any sort of haste.  I thought Martin was meandering the whole time while talking on the phone, and simply took a path that he knew Zimmerman wouldn't be able to follow (in his car).

Unfortunately that is the law. Unless you have a way to prove it wasn't then legally you can't convict him.

Just a few bullet points off the current expert.

--said law enforcement teaches that your memory after a traumatic event doesn't return until 72 hours and some times you never remember. He said that's why people give seemingly different accounts.

--Said eye witnesses have to be taken with a grain of salt due to perspectives, stress, upbringing etc.

--said GZ negative words were reflective of his frustration towards the numerous calls and break-ins and not directed directly at TM

--said GZ showed a passiveness and timid voice reflection when TM was coming at him during the phone call and not wanting confrontation. said the fact he waited until Martin had left the area to follow again showing a tendency to avoid confrontation.

--Spoke about how draining 40 seconds of "recorded" fighting is which anyone who competes in grappling or actually fighting can attest

-- spoke about how physically inferior GZ is

This one witness is basically doing the defenses closing arguments for them
Regardless of who he is representing I love the fact he won't allow the attorneys to turn his testimony into something it's not.

Spider, you are spot on. This is what I've been talking about, when I said the timing doesn't match up.
Zimmerman told detectives that he got out of his car to "look for an address". At the precise moment he tells the dispatcher on the 911 tape that, "Oh shit. He's running."
Now Zimmerman leaves his car to go in the same direction (not following) to retrieve an address on a street, where his truck is not currently parked. Detective Serrano played the 911 tape in front of GZ and asked him where he was at each point (in the 2nd police interview). Serrano then explained that it took GZ approxamently 30 sec to go from his truck to Retreat View Circle (through the cut through). He still had a min and a half from that point to his truck. GZ (in the same interview) said he went straight back to his truck. Only he never made it back. He also never relayed the address he was "looking for" to the dispatcher. The dispatched did ask him for an address to where his truck was located. One minute after GZ got out of his truck. So that would give GZ 30 sec to look for an address, on a street, where his truck wasn't parked. Again, he never got an address. Because he was still pursuing someone, he wasn't supposed to. But somehow this isn't lying. This isn't forgetting a few "minor" details. He went from following to pursuing. He knows that.  That's why he tries to explain how he wasn't "following" in the police interview. That's why he said in the Hannity interview that Trayvon "was skiping away", as opposed to running away. Because after all, all suspicious characters skip at night, in the rain.

We don't live in a CSI world, where you cannot convict people without videotape evidence and DNA proof.  If Zimmerman claims that he didn't follow or instigate but nearly all the available evidence indicates otherwise, the jury is supposed to use their judgement.

Can't you apply that same standard toward Martin's exasperation at being racially profiled?

As for your diagram, I beleive it is not very accurate because #1 it admits to saying assumed path and #2 I beleive courtroom testimony points to the encounter happening much closer to the T area than the diagram shows.

As for not hearing anything about Martin hurrying along, I'm pretty sure that was the testimony of the girl he was on the phone with.

Assumed path is assumed, of course.  Zimmerman claims that he was only looking for street names, which doesn't exactly explain why he was between the houses in the first place.

As for the shooting location, seems pretty consistent to me:

(http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/witmap470.jpg)
(http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-timing.jpg)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Qn_IWsAzZiU/UEiw6nA3tGI/AAAAAAAAEvg/1ZLVErM9gwU/s400/images.jpg)
(http://www.logarchism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Shooting%20Location%202.png)

It does look like the first map I posted has Zimmerman's truck much further back than it actually was, though.

Maybe my eyes were just tricked with the smaller photo. Yes that does look consistent.

Judgement based on EVIDENCE. Not judgement based on whatever the jury can fabricate in their mind because the prosecution didn't have any.

"Fu**ing punks."  and "these a**holes always get away" doesn't equate to "crazy-a** cracker". One is clearly speaking about the person and one is clearly speaking of a situation.

Why do you keep saying racially profiling? He profiled and i don't think anyone has argued differently. If the break-ins had happened by middle aged white guys you might begin a conversation. The fact was young black men have been seen and arrested for breaking in to those homes. Trayvon fits that profile. Is that George's fault?

.

Excellent points.  I was thinking the same thing.

Defense rested today without Zimmerman taking the stand.

How can it be that when Martin said he was being followed by a "creepy ass cracker" as he was being followed at night by this strange person when he had done nothing wrong, he is attacking Zimmerman personally, yet when Zimmerman says "these assholes always get away," "asshole" does not refer to the person he called about and is following, but is instead some generalized commentary on society or something?  Zimmerman is obviously and clearly referring to Martin directly.

If Martin had said "creepy ass crackers" then would he have also been talking in generalities?  The whole idea is silly.

Would you at least agree that one is racially motivated while the other is not?  Yea .. I didn't think so.

People in Sanford are obviously getting nervous. They just want it to be over and to move on. In some ways it reminds me of the mindset when there is an approaching hurricane. As of yesterday there still doesn't appear to be people from the outside here and that's what most everyone is worried about. With the trial coming to a close and the NAACP convention starting many expect that to change quickly.

What was this all about? is this normal protocol for the judge to make such a big deal over whether the defendant testifies?

http://youtu.be/UgDuu6i8MtE (http://youtu.be/UgDuu6i8MtE)


I like the quote in the comments section of that youtube video.



All she had to do was tell him that he had a right to testify or to remain silent. How does such a doofus become a judge. If they riot, hopefully they will start with her courtroom. This judge obviously looked biased throughout most of the trial.

^ I also thought that was weird.  There was some odd tension between the attorney and the judge.  But I've also heard other legal experts say that the attorney didn't really have to explain himself, because until the last witness, he can change his mind.     Still...weird.

For whomever cares... they have evacuated the old courthouse which sits beside City Hall. We are crawling with police but no one will talk.

I know a lot of people out there would love to jump on "cracker" and insist that it's just the same as using the n-word, but no, I don't particularly think that indicates racism.  Or at least, it does to approximately the same extent that it would if Zimmerman had called Martin "colored" or "boy," which is not particularly that much at all.  Do you see any news source anywhere in the country making any sort of effort to censor "cr*cker" or say "the other c-word"?

In any case, that's not really the point.  If you want to argue that Martin displayed racial malice towards Zimmerman, fine; there are grounds to make that claim.  But it's clear that Zimmerman also displayed plain old everyday malice towards Martin when he referred to him as an "asshole" and a "fucking punk."  So at best, we are left with two people who have displayed animosity towards each other... one who was trying to evade, and one who was trying to pursue.

And I think it's silly to say that an adult Zimmerman's statements and history are completely innocent/irrelevant, while the statements and history of a minor Martin are damning.

You know this just hit me as they were discussing jury instructions this morning. Based on your own statement right here, you discoutned the ill will necessary for 2nd degree murder. If you were to follow the law rather than emotions, right here is how you see and could only convict on manslaughter.

Please explain.

If the jury believes that Zimmerman intentionally committed battery (specifically: by attempting to forcibly detain Martin against his will) and that the escalation of that crime led to Zimmerman killing Martin, how does that disqualify murder 2?

If I only intended to snatch your purse but I end up shooting you in the ensuing scuffle, is that manslaughter?

^^^ It isn't Murder 2 under definition. You seem to not be interested in the technical aspects of the charge at all. Your purse snatching incident would likely be Murder 3 which is a murder that happens as a comission of another felony.

As an FYI, the prosecution tried to add Murder 3 as a lesser charge but the judge ruled there wasn't evidence of another felony (they used child abuse as the cherge) so she did not allow it to be added.

Also, calling it a lesser charge is actually just technical as well. Murder 3 carries the same penalties and I believe Manslaughter does as well.

That doesn't really make sense, as degrees of murder go up in severity from 3rd->2nd->1st.

I didn't think purse snatching was a felony (but it looks like it frequently is) so I guess I should have said pickpocketing instead.  In any case, do you have the Florida law as to the actual requirement for murder 2?  According to The Ultimate Arbiter of All That is Fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_%28United_States_law%29#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States), generally murder 1 is either premeditated or in the commission of a felony, while murder 2 is simply neither of those things, and mitigating circumstances can bring it down from murder 2 to either voluntary manslaughter (aka murder 3) or involuntary manslaughter.

But ultimately: if murder 2 and voluntary manslaughter carry the same penalties in Florida, this entire line of discussion is basically a waste of time.

You can look it up as easily as I can. I've already given you part of it in this thread and even showed you how your own statement negates the ill-will section which defines what murder 2 is.

Also, let's think about your statement for a minute. Murder 1,2,3 are organized by severity? How is a murder any less severe than another murder? It is still murder. The classifications have to do with how it was comitted.

Prosecution closing statements are questions and speculations. Question marks are not proving their case! Questions = reasonable doubt. Pick a theory or u cannot win, is the prosecution throwing this?

I have gone round and round on this case. At first, I really thought it was self defense and justified. Then I thought maybe Zimmerman overreacted because the injuries were not very severe. Then I thought you really don't need to have physical injuries as the key is the fear you feel. Then I started thinking about Zimmerman's unreliability and possible stretching the story to fit his needs.

I'm really glad I'm not on the jury as my head has been bouncing around on this one a lot (maybe that is actually better than having someone who has held strong the entire time though).

This is a difficult case for me to judge.  All along, I said that I was OK with whatever result came from the evidence, so long that Zimmerman was arrested and that there was a trial.

I think it's likely that Zimmerman committed a crime (and if he didn't, what he DID should be considered a crime), but it's really hard to prove it when your best witness is dead.

They were just discussing this on TV. I was mistaken, manslaughter apparently does not have the same penalties. It is at the judge's discression but the generic suggestion according to the analyst is around 10 years.

I see what the problem is.  You appear to be looking at the alleged battery/detainment, and saying that his mindset in committing that act would not qualify him for 2nd degree murder.  Well, of course not.  It also wouldn't qualify as a homicide, because it wasn't.

One of the qualifying conditions for 2nd degree murder is FL is defined as (http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/homicide/second-degree-murder.html) "Murder with a Depraved Mind," which is the following:

"Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life."

So then:

Martin was killed when Zimmerman shot him.
Shooting someone is imminently dangerous.
Shooting someone because you have incurred very insignificant injuries as a result of an altercation that you initiated evinces a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.
Q.E.D.

Not sure why this is hard to understand: murder 1 is worse (and carries stiffer penalties) than murder 2, which is worse than murder 3.  Do you have some different understanding of the word severity?

How do you figure a depraved mind showing no regard for human life was shown? They haven't shown that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation or that he didn't shoot Martin to stop him from attacking him. I understand the charge against him, I don't understand how you think they have proved it. Or are you just saying that if they proved that, then it would be Murder 2?

That was VERY strange. Course I haven't been in the courtroom in any murder trials so perhaps all judges are this way? Seems like she was peeved that the prosecution hadn't made up their mind whether or not Zimmerman would testify and was trying to get an answer from Zimmerman instead.

Some kid just punched his dad for cheating on his mom the other day and his HEAD HIT THE PAVEMENT he is in critical care. knuff said...... Sorry spidey pavement is a weapon.

I don't think its a stretch in thinking they have not produced "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence to convict him but I wouldn't be surprised with any verdict.

The worst part is this isn't just a trial about the victim. There are many victims in this case with possibly the biggest one being the system itself. If George is convicted with what they have not proven then we are only reinforcing mob mentality. I would expect that it would get worse.

The dad deserved to get punched for wrecking his home like that.  Another discarded wife and shattered kids for therapists/counselors to deal with.  

I'm just curious.  What do you mean by, mob mentality?

^^^ I assume the mob that formed to get this man arrested and moved to trial.

Actually, I was looking at the definition of Depraved Mind from the actual jury instructions they will hear.

Second degree murder

To prove the crime of Second Degree Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.Trayvon Martin is dead.
 
2.The death was caused by the criminal act of George Zimmerman.
 
3.There was an unlawful killing of Trayvon Martin by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.

An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:

1.a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
 

2.is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent, and
 

3.is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.
In order to convict of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove George Zimmerman had an intent to cause death.

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/12/zimmerman_jury_instructions.html?cid=rss

She was peeved because the defense kept trying to speak up but George Zimmerman himself has to say he will not testify and that it is his own decision regardless on any influence from his lawyers.

so .. who's winning ?

The gathering mob that forced them to arrest him before they were ready. Detective Serino and Chief Lee both testified that they weren't able to do their job as they would have liked. Many others have stated the same thing just not in court. They hadn't even recieved the phone records or gotten the testimony of Rachael Jenteal due to subpoenas at that point and that's what the Jax prosecutor used to finally arrest him.

Yes.

If the jury does not believe GZ initiated the scuffle then this case is open and shut acquittal.
If they do believe he initiated the scuffle, then it should be Murder 2.

1. Shooting someone in the chest is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury.
2. Both "these assholes, they always get away" and "fucking punks" indicates ill will and/or spite.
3. Shooting someone in the chest because you have sustained very insignificant injuries in a fight that you started shows an indifference to human life.

Um, prior to that "gathering mob," there was no job to do, as the police had already "investigated" and opted not to arrest him at all.  That was the entire reason for the existence of the "mob" in the first place.

Ah, maybe that was the issue because it looked to me like George was gonna do whatever his lawyers told him to do. She wanted him to say that it was his decision. Got it.

Not just that he initiated the scuffle, but that he also was not acting in self defense. If he initiated the scuffle but they believe that Martin escalated it to the point that Zimmerman believed he had to shoot him to protect his life, it's not Murder 2.

^^^ I agree but I don't believe Spider feels that way. I'm not sure if he has mispoken but he has said several times he does not feel you can start a fight and then use a gun in self defense later.

Did you even read what I wrote? They hadn't even received the phone records or gotten the testimony of Rachael Jenteal due to subpoenas at that point and that's what the Jax prosecutor used to finally arrest him.[/b]

Oh, so the peaceful legal demonstration to redress a grievance against the local law enforcement, is a gathering mob. Gotcha. For the record, Tracy Martin started asking for GZ's arrest on 3/8/12. One week after his son was shot. No Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson with him.

The same two detectives that caught George lying about why he got out of his car & "following" Martin? The same two who went on to say that believe GZ was telling them the truth, on the stand?

The same chief who went on TV, two weeks after the murder to say he had "no idea that GZ had a criminal record". Why? "Because he portrayed himself as having a squeaky clean record." CF13 News 3/12/12.
It took numerous request from the parents, just to get the 911 tapes released. Three weeks after Trayvon was killed. Contrast that with Casey Anthony. It only took OPD just 8 days to release the 911 tapes of Cindy Anthony to report that her granddaughter was missing. No press conferences needed.
Who were they investigating? The victim or the shooter?

You leave out so much that I can't tell if you are being facetious or just ignorant of the facts. I'm referring to the Black Panthers, lies by the Martin's attorney and the 1000's of protesters attacking the police and City hall by phone, mail, TV, other government and in person.

Again ... until Ms. Jaxonville got a hold of the information the Sanford Police Department was waiting on they didn't arrest either. After watching the trial many people realize why. They simply have no "evidence" . They weren't even able to effectively use their biggest piece of evidence as she simply didn't have much to add when all things considered. 

Not sure if you guys have seen it but Chief Lee spoke publicly for the first time yesterday about the event.

Without the "gathering mob" there would have been no subpoenas to wait on.  The Sanford PD had already "investigated" and felt that Zimmerman's story was confirmed; enough that they let him wander about the police station unescorted 3 days later (http://www.newser.com/story/146666/zimmerman-and-the-cops-from-critical-to-cozy.html).

It's not like this case instantly blew up; Sanford PD quickly swept it under the rug and tried to sit on it.  Martin was shot on February 26, Reuters wrote the first national story on March 7, SPD turned the case over to the state attorney on March 13 and the special prosecutor was appointed on March 22.  As far as I can tell, the first organized protests happened the week of March 20.

It was an ongoing investigation and they stated that every time. Everytime they were pushed on an arrest they said they didn't have the evidence to do so but it was NEVER said or insinuated to be a closed case and that's what you are implying. That's simply not true.

Does it seem normal to let a suspect in a potential murder investigation walk around a police station unescorted?

They were dotting Is and crossing Ts.  Not only did they not arrest him, they basically treated the investigation as a formality, and did not treat him in a manner that reflects a potential murder suspect.

This was part of the reason for the protests.  It was not only the non-arrest of GZ; it was the apparent complacency and lack of motivation of the SPD.  On the heels of the turn over every stone, kick down every door investigation of Casey Anthony, this was seen by many as dismissing Martin as a potential victim.

You're right. There's a lot that I leave out. Like, on that night. When the police were called. Trayvon wasn't seen as a victim. He was seen as a suspect. After all, GZ called the non-emergency number. Then moments later, the police are responding to shots being fired. They show up with one person dead, and the other one looking like he had been in a fight. Natural assumption is that the one who lived isn't the suspect. Considering he called the police & the other one didn't. The police tried to save the victim's life, but it was already too late. No one at the scene could identify the victim. Not until after the father reports the victim missing, that he is identified. Meanwhile, GZ had been interviewed (not interrogated or drug tested, but victim is) and had gone through a re-enactment. During which time, GZ writes out a report that refers to the victim as a "suspect" 18 times. Officer Singleton reads this, then says on the stand "that she didn't find that unusual." After all, at that time Trayvon was still seen as a suspect. Days later, Officers Serino & Singleton go over GZ's 911 tape with GZ. Again, not as an interrogation. Catch GZ in "inconsistencies" that seem minor at the time. But later on prove vital. Remember, GZ was talking without a lawyer at this time. He hadn't been accused of anything. Tracy Martin hadn't called for his arrest yet. The 911 tape hadn't been released yet. The "mob" hadn't learned of this yet. Still GZ (according to his Hannity interview) had found it necessary to be in exile. Since the night of the shooting. Well before any news got out.

So when I ask, who were they investigating? Its not unreasonable to me to ask the question. Considering if I get pulled over, within minutes they know my address, driving history, and if there are any outstanding warrants. Maybe more information. On that, I am uncertain. But two weeks after the shooting, the Chief of Police comes out and says, "He had no idea, GZ had a criminal record." Meaning, the media found out, before he did. Local at that.  Speaking of which, Tracy Martin used them one week later to appeal to the local public. He simply wanted to know why his child's murderer had not been arrested. He didn't stage a rally with thousands of people. He had a press conference. Because he felt that his son couldn't have committed a crime worthy of death. Especially at the hands of someone who lacked "evidence" to accuse & convict someone of a crime that was never committed. SPD was waiting on information. Just not information to arrest GZ.  It took 3 weeks just to release the same 911 tape, that they had gone over with GZ. Who was not as a suspect at that time.

Its hard to figure out, who did what. When one person is dead, and the other is alive. I will give anyone that. That's why the law, as written contains a fatal flaw. That flaw is that you can't give people authority that is meant for law enforcement to the people. If anything, regardless of the verdict. That should be addressed.

Attacked? They staged peaceful protests and had a sit in around the police station that temporarily closed it, with no injuries.
Your choice of words to describe pretty peaceful protests, is stunning. People expected huge mobs burning down the city, yet aside from a few minor incidences, the protests were tame.
By the way, the police station was closed in April, almost a month and a half after the shooting.

bsmooth ...you're wrong about some assumptions. Businesses were shut down because no one would use them because of the mobs of angry people including black panthers with wanted posters. Not locals but outsiders. It was very ugly around here for quite a while. The things you speak of did happen, sort of, but that wasn't the only things going on.

The police station was shut down and moved to the brand new public safety building they built in the middle of a high crime black neighborhood. It was planned all along. not sure where you thought that was relevant to something else.

I'm friends with many of the local law enforcement as I have grown up with them. In fact I eat lunch with Sgt. Authur Barnes on many Wednesday afternoons. You can google him if you like to see how he is connected but in short he is the black officer who pushed Serino for the quick arrest without regards to getting the conviction.

Just to show you how life changes when I first met Arthur we got into an actual fight. A couple of years later we were calling each other to play ball together.

You'd be surprised what and who I know about the people involved. Oddly even Mark O'Mara and Don West used to work in the same exact office that I work out of now when they were at the DA. My mother in law used to work with them.

justice has prevailed .

Zimmerman has been found not guilty. 

You used the word attacked. You purposely chose this word. They were not attacked...there were protests outside. Engaging in protests and voicing your displeasure is not an attack against them. It is called public discourse.
To call these protests attacks, smacks of an attempt to paint them as something intentionally violent.
I am not assuming anything. I am reading the word you used to describe a protest. Even the dictionary has different meanings for attacks and protests.

Hey seriously I was at flea world today and a lot of shops were closed.
Their was people who knew the outcome and chose to hide.
A lot of shops were closed at flea world?

I have a couple questions not related to the outcome, just curious.

1) Why did the woman who was on the phone with Martin lie about her age? Did she give an explanation for that?

2) Why did Zimmerman not call back his original lawyers for 3 days? Did he ever explain why that was? Was he not happy with their advice and wanted new laywers?

3) I'm reading now that Zimmerman talked off the record with Sean Hannity, but I thought that interview was used in the trial. Am I mistaken about that? Edit: Ok, I think I have this figured out now. Originally Zimmerman spoke with Hannity off the air and then later had an on the air interview. I think that clears that up.

 

Based on what I have seen/heard.  The jury got this verdict correct, but in the civil trail Zimmerman should be found liable in a wrongful death action. 

I'm just ecstatic that this over-hyped legal crapfest is over...

Unfortunately I don't think it is over as can be seen by the widespread "protests". The irony is people are afraid to come to Sanford yet Sanford hasn't really seen much unrest.

Unless influential black leaders get behind the legal innocence of Zimmerman the troublemakers who are looking for an excuse to start trouble will continue to flourish.

Alan Dershowitz, one of the biggest liberal lawyers in the country, said yesterday that this case should have never reached a jury and that the prosecutor Angela Corey should be disbarred for covering up evidence in the probable-cause affidavit . He said there was reasonable doubt at every turn of this case where it mattered.  He even followed up by stating "If the judge had any courage in applying the law, she never would have allowed the case to go to the jury. She should have entered a verdict based on reasonable doubt.”

Other influential people need to start doing the same thing because there are a ton of people, good people with minimal facts, who really believe the jury just let Zimmerman off ... which couldn't be farther from the truth. I fear this will get much worse before it gets better.

I read today the Justice Department is considering filing criminal civil rights charges. This is out of hand. This thing needs to be put to bed at this point.

I'm of the opinion that this whole thing will quickly fall into the background now. In my opinion this would have never been the news story it became if the police had arrested him and tried him on manslaughter charges. The police under reacted and the prosecution over reached.

The below pretty much sums it up nicely.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-15/george-zimmermans-acquittal-four-blunt-observations?campaign_id=yhoo

1. Zimmerman was at fault for killing Trayvon Martin.
 Ignore the pious post-verdict declarations by Zimmerman’s (skilled) defense lawyers. The police dispatcher told Zimmerman to stay in his car. If the wannabe cop had followed reasonable instructions and/or had decent training as a neighborhood watchman, he would have remained in his vehicle. Zimmerman deserves heavy blame.

Just for the record, I don't think he deserves heavy blame, but I do think he deserves some of the blame. He acted recklessly in my opinion, but I don't think he ever meant for Martin to be killed.

2. The “system” sometimes works in mysterious ways.
 The American justice bends to public opinion, politics, institutional bias, and sometimes even flat-out corruption. In this case, prosecutors came under understandable public pressure to punish Zimmerman for his foolhardy behavior. The prosecutors brought severe criminal charges and put on the best case they could. Still, the ambiguity surrounding the last minutes of Trayvon Martin’s life left plenty of room for reasonable doubt. The jury could have convicted on manslaughter but made a plausible choice not to. The defense lawyers brayed afterward about Zimmerman suffering grave injustice. Baloney. He endured 16 months of intense suspicion and court supervision. He’ll never escape the moral legacy of a needless killing. Sounds like rough justice to me.

3. The next step should be a private wrongful death suit, not a federal civil rights prosecution.
 Civil rights activists are calling for the U.S. Justice Department to prosecute Zimmerman for violating Martin’s civil rights. While one can sympathize with the demand, especially in the emotional aftermath of the state-court acquittal, federal civil rights charges would require the government to prove that Zimmerman is an old fashioned racist. That would not be easy to do. NAACP President Ben Jealous has compared Zimmerman’s acquittal to one six decades ago of two white men accused of kidnapping and murdering black Mississippi teenager Emmett Till. But that kind of hyperbole won’t hold up in court. Zimmerman’s defense would again be able to engender reasonable doubt, leading to more heartache. Much better to give Martin’s parents an opportunity to prove by the much lower civil legal standard (“preponderance of the evidence”) that Zimmerman acted irresponsibly. A wrongful-death action might lead to the best possible outcome: a swift settlement, including some kind of money payment to compensate the victim’s family and a public apology from Zimmerman.

4. Liberal gun-control advocates are already overplaying their hand.
“Murder has now been legalized in half the states,” proclaimed Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. This loopy statement echoes many less-extreme attempts to associate Zimmerman’s defense with Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law. That statute eliminates the traditional obligation to retreat in the face of life-threatening violence. Such statutes may be problematic (personally, I think they are), but the Zimmerman case isn’t a good example to make the argument against stand your ground. In fact, the defense team waived the opportunity to invoke the statute to preempt the prosecution. Instead, Zimmerman’s lawyers made a more conventional self-defense argument. Their contention was that Zimmerman never had an opportunity to retreat because Martin had him pinned to the ground. Stand your ground just wasn’t relevant to this defense. In the end what got Zimmerman off was the most basic of all criminal-law concepts: reasonable doubt.

Pappy ... I can't get that to open here.

Either way I think you are missing the point. According to the laws ... he never should have been arrested. It wasn't even close and the only reason he was is because of political pressure caused by social unrest and not because they had any proof that he broke the law.

The bigger outrage here is why are we prosecuting someone just to appease people who feel morally violated? Everyone knew they couldn't prove he did anything illegal including those that were pushing for an arrest. It was a complete mockery of the system that "we the people" have set up. 

If you "arrest" you have to prosecute and they had nothing to prosecute with other than emotions.

People can do the "why did he" and "he did this" all day long but unfortunately for Trayvon he didn't break any law. Or at least any law that can be proven.

Now if people want to complain about the law itself that's a completely different argument and even Dershowitz said as much. He doesn't like some of the laws either.

I have been pretty level-headed with this whole thing, but c'mon.  Of course he should've been arrested.

I'm fine with the verdict and I think that the route that we should go now is to realize that the laws are not good if an unarmed man can get spooked by a kid he profiled and followed and then kill him in the name of self-defense.  I understand that the law protects that, but it shouldn't.

So, like with Caylee's Law, the pendulum should swing and make Trayvon's law.

I am of the belief that if you choose to carry a firearm, that you should willingly be held to a higher standard to "de-escalate" situations.

I understand the ruling, but that this happened is a bad thing and laws need to exist to change it so it can't happen again.

I pasted into my comment above.

Technically that's not correct. If you arrest someone you have to charge them with something. I think there was enough evidence at the time to charge him with manslaughter. You can always drop the charges later if you feel you don't have enough evidence to convict. That possibly should have happened as well, but by then there was too much attention to not at least have a trial.

This was appropriately decided by a trial and a jury. The arrest would have been simply to ensure that he was charged.

There's nothing wrong with the laws at least as they applied to this case. As mentioned above the whole "stand your ground" law wasn't really even part of this case as the defense chose not to invoke it and simply argued that he acted in self defense because he never had a chance to flea.

Dave you are making complete assumptions here. Yes the law should not allow for an armed person to use a gun if spooked. That is not what the jury felt happened here and evidence shows otherwise(though maybe not the level of injury some would feel is life threatening). Reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is much more than being spooked. How exactly do you de-escalated being beaten? I can listen, understand, and agree with the position Zimmerman should not have left the vehicle but using this case for any discussion about de-escalation is baseless.

From what I've heard I don't see Zimmerman going to trial in a civil case.  Zimmerman never disputed shooting Martin, and a criminal jury just found him not guilty, in effect he was acting in self-defense.  So, under FLA law he is immune to civil litigation when acting in self defense.  It's not like the OJ case where Simpson said he didn't do it.

^^^ I do not think you are correct. Winning a Stand Your Ground hearing includes immunity from a civil lawsuit. I do not think this aquittal includes that immunity.

Looks like the DOJ is going to review the verdict

I understand what the jury decided.  I'm not disputing that the facts are even any different than the story that both sides seem to kind of agree on.

What I saying is this.  Zimmerman created this conflict, by following and questioning, without justifiable cause or any kind of badge or title or responsibility to do so.  It doesn't mean he deserved to be attacked, but knowing he was armed, he shouldn't be allowed to seek out a confrontation and then use a gun in that confrontation.  That's my opinion.  If you choose to carry, you need to not be following people around who don't know who you are and then be allowed to use that gun to kill them if they feel threatened by you and respond.

Under normal circumstances, if Treyvon attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman responded, nobody would care.  But Zimmerman sought out a conflict...not necessarily a physical one, but he escalated a situation instead of avoiding it.

I think Zimmerman deserves precisely the same amount of respect and tolerance from the public (after being found Not Guilty) as Casey Anthony did after being found Not Guilty in hers.  And no, that's not being facetious; that is a dual commentary on both of their cases.

In any case, I don't see any sort of future in a "Trayvon's Law" scenario.  FL conservatives (who control the FL legislature, mind you) are too busy wildly cheering this verdict; this outcome is the result of carefully-crafted concealed carry and aggressive self-defense laws Working As Intended.

Why would any rational-minded conservative pass a law that would protect a criminal like Trayvon Martin (who committed felony assault and battery on Zimmerman for no reason) and imprison a civic-minded lawfully-armed citizen like George Zimmerman?

The ONLY thing that would change the outcome of this verdict would be to lower the standard of conviction from "Beyond a reasonable doubt" to something lower.  Is that what you really want?

As previously stated in this thread, in Florida self-defense places the onus on the prosecution to prove that the killing was NOT justified.  In many other states, self-defense is an affirmative defense, which places that onus on the defendant to prove that the killing WAS justified.

Not true. What would change the outcome, is changing the legality of deciding someone is guilty of something, and then following (pursuing) them with a gun.

So what? In a Jackson v. Denno hearing, to determine whether statements made to police are suppressible, the burden of proof that

1. the defendant was adequately advised of his Miranda rights,

2. the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his rights,

3. the statements subsequent to knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver were voluntary as well

is on the state.

Do you want to be rid of that too?

How is that relevant to this case?  You're saying that the state would have to prove something that they would have had to prove in this case anyway, right?

If Zimmerman had to prove that he was justified in killing Martin, the entire nature of the trial is changed.  He almost certainly would have had to take the stand, at a very minimum.

Wait a sec...as someone who has pretty much blown off this whole situation from the start, are you telling me that, of the two people who were actually there, the only one still alive wasn't asked to take the stand?

How is that even possible? Was the prosecution not allowed to call witnesses to the stand?

You cannot force a defendant to take the stand.  The Fifth Amendment guarantees you the right not to incriminate yourself.

If he had taken the stand to testify, however, he would have been compelled to undergo cross-examination by the prosecution.

So Zimmerman is guilty based on the fact he was following to observe? In what country is that illegal? I mean ... as a teen I had security follow me and my friends around department stores. Should that be illegal too?

If you want to see a similar case where the white man is guilty of profiling and then killing a teenage black kid then read this. I don't think you will find too many people who will disagree that this guy should get put away even if the kid was the thief.  http://fox6now.com/2013/07/16/opening-statements-to-begin-in-john-spooner-homicide-trial/

On another note ... does anyone actually believe the people destroying things and rioting are supporting Trayvon? These people are just looking for reasons to act stupid!!

You may not think you are but you keep throwing in slight assumptions that have no basis in the facts of the case. Here is yet another example. We do not know that Zimmerman questioned Martin. In fact, Rachel Jeantel testified the first words she heard spoken were from Trayvon Martin.

No he would not. The prosecution themselves played video after video of his police interviews. His story was already told.

^^Agree with Phishfan here. I don't think it would have changed whether or not Martin testified.

I'm also not sure that had Zimmerman testified that the defense would have been able to tear his story to shreds like they have portrayed in the media. I actually went back after the trial and watched the Hannity interview with Zimmerman and I must say that I found his story to be completely credible. He may not have remembered the events EXACTLY as they happened, but I think his account of the events was credible. No where in that interview did he say that Martin grabbed his head with both hands and slammed it to the pavement 25 times. I'm not sure where that testimony came from, it may have come from the police interrogation. Now Sean Hannity wasn't cross examining Zimmerman, I'm sure the defense would have done a decent job of poking holes in his story, but I don't think it would have been anywhere close to the portrayal that the prosecution has maintained that they were praying for Zimmerman to testify. They might have been praying for it, but I'm no where near as confident it would have made a bit of difference in the outcome of the trial.

I don't think Zimmerman would have been content to let police interviews tell his story to the jury if he had to prove his justification.

But maybe SCFinFan is a better judge than I.  Is it common for a defendant to not take the stand in a jurisdiction where he must prove his justification for homicide beyond a reasonable doubt?

Is not common. It just goes to show how weak the case was against him, I think.

Pappy, I can respect your perception of the Hannity interview. However, mine is different. If you take that interview at face value, then fine. Then you put it up against the 911 tape & the police interviews and the holes are there. Its not about the EXACT number of times he was hit or fell to the ground. Hannity asked him about Trayvon running away. GZ went of his way to explain that Trayvon all of the sudden, wasn't running. He went as far as to say "he was skipping". Then he went in to say that Trayvon wasn't running in fear. Even Hannity asked him if he knew the difference. GZ's response: he wasn't running. Minor detail. Until you put it up to the 911 tape. Why? That's the precise moment that he got out of the car. Put that up against both police interviews where GZ claims he got out to get an address. One that no one asked him to get. Officer Singleton questioned GZ about that during the 2nd interview, after she heard the 911 tape. GZ maintained he was trying to find an address. One that doesn't coincide with where he was parked. But puts him in the area of the crime.

To me, that would reasonably raise questions about his credibility. At that point, he goes from observing to pursuing. That's when Trayvon's life was put at risk. He knows that he can't sound like an aggressor. So, if Trayvon his skipping away at the time he's looking for an address. How does that sound like an aggressor? It doesn't. That's why he stuck to "looking for an address". His actions doesn't match with his words. Especially when he was asked, "Are you following him?" Not before he got out of the car. Right after he got out of the car.

If GZ had taken the stand, he would have to account for that. With that said, I don't believe he should've been forced to take the stand (5th Amendment). But it would've gone a long way to prove that he wasn't some guy out for a walk, who got viciously attacked.

The physical facts and the eyewitness testimony proved his justification, according to the juror who gave an interview yesterday.  If you don't think his attorneys needed to prove his justification for a not guilty verdict, then we weren't watching the same trial.  According to you Spider everything Zimmerman says is a lie, and you have repeatedly made sinister assumptions about what Zimmerman did that night.  Whereas, you give Martin every benefit of the doubt and treat him like a choir boy.  If you showed just a bit of objectivity I might give your views some credence.

My point is just this: Don't start asking to roll back certain protections of defendants. If you do that, you'll get a cascade of such roll-backs. Consider: Miranda's only been around since the 60s, and could've died in the early 2000s in Dickerson. Considering developments like that, and - for example - like Berghuis much more recently, it should be the job of any good liberal (or freedom lover, I guess) to swallow the good w/ the bad and say - hey, if we're giving private citizens more privacy, more protection, more leeway, then good.

To clarify, I am not *personally* in favor of stand your ground laws myself, as they seem to increase death rates when fights happen between people - but, perhaps that is an outlier. Perhaps, once the country gets used to SYG laws, fights/deaths will decrease because people will realize at the outset that, if they enter into combat, deadly force can be used against them w/ impunity in some cases.

I think it's misleading to call that a "roll-back."

Much like Stand Your Ground, Florida law on who bears the burden of proof in a self-defense case (the prosecution) is not in sync with many other states.  And just as I would happily support the repeal of Stand Your Ground laws (which ostensibly protect defendants), I would support the burden of proof in justifiable homicide to be switched to the defendant.

If you admit to killing someone, you should be required to prove that it was justified.  This is not advocacy of a police state; it's holding people accountable for their self-proclaimed actions.

By Florida law, it was the prosecution that had to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he was not justified.  Zimmerman only had to establish reasonable doubt.

That's primarily because of the multiple, verifiable lies in Zimmerman's statements.

I don't know that it's that weird or unusual, as you say - for example, in a Blair hearing, which we have to determine mental competency up here in SC, after there's prima facie evidence of the person's non-competence, the burden shifts to the state to prove his competence, if that's what it's trying to do.

In addition, in a Batson motion, mere prima facie evidence is enough to shift the burden to the non-movant (almost always the state) to disprove allegations of racial motivations in striking a jury. In other words, when a defense attorney notes I struck a person of protected race/gender from the jury, it becomes my problem to say why I did it. I can flip it around - but it's rare to be able to get the shot to do so!

In a Neil v. Biggers hearing, regarding whether or not a photographic identification of an individual shown to a victim/witness by the state was unduly suggestive of that person's guilt, again, the defense just needs to make the claim, then the state has to rebut - all the weight is really on the state there, despite the claim being made by the defense.

Admittedly, there has to be a showing of evidence first by the defense - but it's an exceptionally low burden, akin to qualifying someone as an expert or entering an original document. De facto, the burden is all on the non-movant, who is normally the state.

Now, I note that these are all case-law/constitutional based privileges, and the SYG law is statutory. But that's ok. The state has every right to provide their citizens w/ additional privacy or rights than the constitution itself grants - they simply cannot give them less than the constitution provides.

Further, while you and I can make these hair-splitting distinctions because it's the world in which we live - I don't think most other people can always make them - and that includes politicians who make the laws themselves.  I would be very careful before we start to cull defendants' rights. It's... too dicey. It really is.

And that's the problem.  These "additional rights" to defendants have significant negative implications for the people who are killed by them.

You see the shifting of burden of proof (and possibly SYG) as increased civil rights for the defendant; I see them as reduced civil rights for the unarmed.

Whoa - no I do not see them as increased civil rights. I do see them as a problem (however, the problem *could* evaporate, potentially, as the laws settle in). However, they're part of the fabric of so-called "civil rights" for the defendants, and just like w/ other rights those folks get that I don't like/think are a problem, we all need to be careful before you start pulling strands out of the fabric - you could very well end up threadbare quickly.

That said, I disagree w/ your analysis that Florida's SYG's "burden-shifting" to the prosecution is that different from anything else. It's not. I promise. Please believe me - I've lived it.

Huh???  By any State's law the prosecution has to prove a crime was committed, i.e. not justified; and in any case the defendant need only establish reasonable doubt.  The defense team went well beyond establishing reasonable doubt, which by law they did not have to, but due to the high profile nature of the case they had to, to avoid a compromised manslaughter conviction.

^^^ Not in all state's. Florida does not require a person to try to flee, in some other states they do. A defendant can actually need to prove they tried to avoid a situation to win a self defense case.

That aside, isn;t anyone else humored in the fact that the "protests" are actually happening elsewhere? Life is the same as usual here in good ole sunny FL. If you don't live here you really don;t need to be concerned with how we govern ourselves.

What crime are you referring to?

the defendant has to "prove" he tried to evade or the prosecution has to "prove" he didn't? Thats a huge difference!!

Well earlier Spider and I were discussing this and Spider said that Zimmerman said that Martin used 2 hands to grab Zimmerman's head to smash it 25 times against the sidewalk or ground. I'm not sure where exactly he got that number or that Zimmerman said that Martin controlled his head, but it wasn't from the Hannity interview. Spider also mentioned that grabbing his head and smashing it into the ground was different from being punched in the face and his head hitting the ground which I agreed with him on, but then in the interview Zimmerman never mentions Martin grabbing his head, he simply mentions it being smashed into the ground, which I think is much more in line with what I was thinking happened in that he was being hit in the face and his head was hitting the ground. Spider even mentioned that he thought that's approximately what happened and that seems to agree with what Zimmerman was saying in the Hannity interview. That may be different from the police interviews, I don't know, but that's why I mentioned it.

I thought Zimmerman tried to explain that. On the 911 call Zimmerman said that Martin was "running", but then in the Hannity interview he said that Martin was not running. Hannity asked him to explain it and basically Zimmerman said that when he said he was running he really wasn't, he was merely moving away from him quickly. When Hannity pressed him on it he said he was skipping. I think what he was trying to say was that when he said that Martin was "running" on the phone to the operator he didn't really mean that Martin was literally running, but rather that he was trying to avoid being followed by Zimmerman and had quickened his pace. At least that's how I took it. It could have been considered conflicting testimony, but I thought it was plausible what he was saying, that he merely meant that Martin was trying to get away, not necessarily that he was running.

The way I took that was that GZ didn't think that Trayvon was running away from him in fear, merely trying to avoid being followed. GZ got out of his car at that point to follow him. Yeah, I know that Zimmerman says he wasn't following Martin, well I think that's pretty much not the truth. He was following him. First in his car and then on foot when Martin went behind the houses. That part of his story I do not believe and I do not find credible, so let me amend my earlier statement that I found it completely credible. I didn't find this statement that he wasn't following Martin to be credible. Other than that statement I found it credible.

I can't agree with you here. Just like Hannity said, if Zimmerman couldn't tell the difference between someone running in fear and someone running to avoid being followed, then Martin couldn't tell whether Zimmerman went from following to persuing. Persuing is an assumption that you are trying to "catch" them. Zimmerman could have easily just been trying to maintain visual contact with him. You can't have it both ways. Either we know whether or not Trayvon was running out of "fear" and we know if Zimmerman was "persuing" or we don't. In my opinion we don't know if either of those things are true are not.

I agree in this regard. I don't believe Zimmerman when he says he wasn't following Martin, but the rest of his story is credible and whether or not Zimmerman was following Martin is really not the key point, the key point is whether or not Zimmerman was trying to "catch" Martin and that we just don't know.

I think that's changing GZ's story quite a bit. Zimmerman makes it pretty clear that he was trying to keep track of Martin's whereabouts till the police got there. I don't think there's any question about that. Zimmerman tried to maintain that he wasn't following Martin, but I think we all know that's pretty flimsy, he pretty much had to be following him to keep track of him. On the other hand it's completely plausible that GZ was only following Martin to let the police know where he was once they got there, not to confront Martin. The 911 tape and the Hannity interview did nothing to convince me that he was lieing about that.

Only if he's claiming "stand your ground" applies. GZ wasn't claiming that. He claimed he was attacked without warning after losing sight of Martin and never had the opportunity to flee once he felt threatened.

Pappy... He was referring to different states and not GZ although someone might want to tell Eric Holder. This is another " we have to do something because Al said so" moment.

CNN Breaking News
Attorney General Eric Holder called for doing away with "stand your ground" self-defense laws, telling the NAACP the statutes "sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods" and allow "violent situations to escalate in public

Well I know that he was referring to different states laws, but I thought the hypothetical was "if this case had been tried in another state". If that was the case it still wouldn't have mattered because GZ never made a "stand your ground" claim. His only claim is self defense which doesn't have the "make an attempt to flee" part to it in any state that only applies to the "stand your ground", at least that's my understanding. In either case GZ said he never had the opportunity to flee therefore how could he have made the attempt?

Yes, it is.

I'll defer to SCFinFan on this, but my understanding is that an affirmative defense (e.g. self defense) normally puts the burden of proof on the defendant under common law; this is because they are not attempting to simply disprove the facts stated by the prosecution, but instead asserting their own facts (i.e. claims that the prosecution is not making).  However, in some jurisdictions like Florida and New York, you can claim self-defense without the burden of proof being shifted to you.

So inside Florida, Zimmerman's team only has to establish doubt in the jury's mind about the prosecution's version of events to avoid conviction.  In another state, it would be reversed; the prosecution would only have to cast doubt on Zimmerman's version of events to secure a conviction (as Zimmerman has already admitted to killing Martin).

None of the above has anything to do with Stand Your Ground.

They certainly increase the number of homicides, though one might argue that is a feature and not a bug.

I understand the self defense laws the same as Spider. In some states, the defendent has to actually show that they tried to flee.

Pappy, I think you are a bit confused and it has me a bit confused on how to respond. Claiming self defense in a state that does not observe Stand Your Ground basically means you have to prove you attempted to flee. If your state observes Stand Your Ground, then you have no responsibility to flee. Is that clear as mud?

Also, at least in Florida, claiming a Stand Your Ground defense is a hearing conducted with only the Judge who is the single deciding factor. In a case like this one it was probably wiser to have six people ruling on the reasonable doubt of a self defense motion than one person ruliong on Stand Your Ground. I amnot sure what bearing a negative response by the judge would have had on any prosecution or defense strategies though.

Phishfan, I believe that a denied SYG hearing would have still went to the normal criminal trial, but that the outcome of said hearing would be on the record and could have been used against Zimmerman in the criminal (and possibly civil) trial.

Apparently, Zimmerman's team did not think it was worth the risk, and they were proven correct.

Here's some of the stuff that led me to that conclusion (emphasis added):

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/21/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-attacked-me/

In an initial interview with police following the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman described a life-and-death struggle that began when the youth "jumped out from the bushes."

Zimmerman said Martin punched him repeatedly in the face. "I started screaming for help. I couldn't see. I couldn't breathe."

He said Martin "grabbed my head and started hitting it in the sidewalk."

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/06/29/witnesses-offer-views-of-fatal-fight.html

"In opening statements, defense attorney Don West told the court, 'Trayvon Martin armed himself with the concrete sidewalk and used it to smash George Zimmerman’s head. … That is a deadly weapon.'"

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/zimmerman-trial.html?pagewanted=all

"Mr. Guy also underscored, as the chief prosecutor had done the day before, inconsistencies in Mr. Zimmerman’s statements to the police and in a television interview with Sean Hannity. He lied, Mr. Guy said, and exaggerated. How could Mr. Zimmerman’s skull have hit concrete 25 times, as he said, and sustain so few injuries?"

That's certainly possible.

Even if you have no chance? If you are surprised by the attack as Zimmerman has said that he was and never had a chance to flee you do not have to show you attempted to flee, but you can still claim self defense. Zimmerman had a chance to claim "Stand your ground" and didn't, so in effect his defense was the same as it could have been if he would have been tried in another state that did not have the "Stand your ground" law. Correct or am I missing something?

It's my understanding that the "stand your ground law" was never brought up at trial. Essentially that means the trial went exactly the same as it could have gone in a state that did not have the "stand your ground" law. Correct?

But it would have been an affirmed defense and put the onus on the defense.

Possibly. Do all the states agree on this or is it only the states with "stand your ground" laws that put the onus on the prosecution? If that's true, then you are right that may have changed how they defended Zimmerman, but whether or not the state had a "Stand your ground" law would not have mattered.

You are correct. Generally, an affirmative defense needs to have some proof put behind it by its proponent. This is - to the best of my knowledge - always true in civil matters. However, in criminal matters, it varies from state to state, and even w/in the differing bits of certain motion hearings themselves. I was looking into Jackson v. Denno hearings the other day for a matter I have coming up, and I found this:

http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=31901

As it indicates, at least in NY, the burden in general shifts back and forth ("fluctuates" is the term this paper uses) and for differing factors w/in the hearing itself burdens fall upon different parties.

(Also, as a side note, anyone who reads the above link's stuff and is puzzled - now you know why Jeremy Bentham considered the law in his day a "demon of chicane.")

So - again, a lawyer answer: it depends.

I think you are again correct regarding affirmative defenses at common law - yes, the proponent of the affirmative defense must prove the claims their making. One issue though: common law can always be modified by the absolute power of the state to legislate in that area, unless and until the state or fed constitution deems such modifications unconstitutional. So - yes, true, but it doesn't mean anything significant in the long run b/c states can, do, and should (in their own estimation, at least) change things whenever they feel like that need/want to, to better serve their citizens. Or whatever.

Anyway, so, Florida's laws are a little different. Ok. But, again - aren't you generally in favor of robust protections of the accused? If again your answer is no, consider: the state has a lot of power. It has labs, experts, vehicles, money, and people that the defense, in general, just doesn't have. This is the reason the entire burden to prove the matter is on the state. Given that - and given the difficulty many defendants have in obtaining quality counsel to defend them in serious felony matters - why is it bad that the state generously gives defendants an extra protection in this regard? Moreover, think of things three-dimensionally: the state wants *good* convictions that can't be overturned on a PCR (not discussing appeals here, talking something totally different). PCR is generally when some idiot defense counsel screws up, fails at his job, and then falls on his sword later to save his guy. Ok, fine, but knowing this - why not take it out of the realm of possibility for a PCR and give it to the state? If Zim was convicted here, no PCR could've resulted years down the line where Don West puts on a huge ridic show and says, "Oh, I totally forgot to tell the jury about [X] which was materially related to my client's self-defense claim and could've altered the whole trial and probably would've swayed the jury and oh noes!" Never would've happened given Florida's foresight. Never will happen in future cases where the state prevails, precisely b/c of the burden shift.

Just goes to show - there's more to it than just rights and what happens in the courtroom. In a sense, shifting the burden to the state may allow the state to save massive dollars by lessening the amount of ridiculous but sadly necessary PCR hearings in the future. Not a perfect justification - but something interesting to think about, surely.

I wish people would let this go. First it was hispanic on black not white on black.
But that dose not work for the black community so they are using any means they can to keep this going. And the press is feeding the fire by showing images of travon at twelve and calling it white on black. I put this out there and think about it because it is the complete opposite of what the prosecution tried to do. What do you think the people would have said had the Dense for Casey Anthony tried to put pictures of her at twelve years old out their. Same difference.
You want to make this Black on White how about the five black teen thugs who carjacked a white man and shot and killed him. The girl was seventeen, guess what the state calls her. Its not a child they are trying her as an adult. The prosecution dosent care about right and wrong no more it is all about wins and loses. And they will cheat to get the wins at peoples expence. The special prosecuter brought in to try this case fired the guy who released all the information from trayvons phone you know the jewlery on the bed the hand holding a gun the underage naked pics of girls the pot plants. This guy has probably already killed people he was a thug. But if you want to rant and rave do it for the innocent guy drug out of his car and shot by more thugs.

Also all the protests erupted in other states makes me wonder if they seen the trial, I mean the prosecution proved his case as much as the defense did. Its funny sanford stayed calm because they knew. His parents lowered their heads a couple of times at the states wittnesses. Here's the shocker they are ready to start a civil suit.

The defense tried to have those pictures and texts included, but they had nothing to do with the case, and could not be verified.
Having an interest in guns as a teen does not mean you have probably killed someone in the past. It does not mean he took those pics. They could have been sent to him.
Martin does not meet the definition of a thug...thug wannabe can be argued. Zimmerman does have a past history of violence and crime, so he does meet the definition of a thug.

Yeah I have tons of those pics people sent to my phone as well?
You are the perfect example the press is controlling you. If it walks like a duck quacks like a duck floats like a duck well you know.
As for Zimmerman have you ever tried to get a permit to carry a gun. They don't give them out to thugs.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-murder-teen-girl-charged-adult-20130716,0,6464873.story

Here's something to protest. A real innocent. Where is everyone for this

I searched his name and can not find a picture. I have clicked on more than twenty links

Not when they come at the expense of homicide victims.

To clarify: these specific type of "robust protections" (both SYG and this kind of shifting burden of proof) protect killers.  Now, did some (or even many) of these killers have a legitimate justification to kill?  Maybe.  But I want people to be wary and concerned about taking someone else's life.  I want them to be worried about trying to prove that they had no choice but to kill.  I don't want to make things easier and simpler and safer to kill another person.

And I can't help but think that if Florida DIDN'T have such defendant-favorable self-defense laws (which Zimmerman was extremely well-versed on), he might have thought, "Hmmm, I'd better let the police handle this, as if there's some sort of scuffle and I have to use my gun, I'm going to go to prison for a long time."  Instead, people are emboldened by the law to solve problems themselves.

Yo spider check this out

Is this the "people are dying of cancer so why are we arguing about the space program?" talk?

If you would like to make a new thread about a different trial, please do so.

That's a huge stretch on both accounts but it brings to question the idea of being a thug or gangsta. Why have we allowed becoming a "gansta"to be the cool thing?

Honestly. I came from low class area and I don't remember anyone who didn't want better. How in the world did we go from a society where little boys wanted to be police, fire, professional baseball players and doctors to wanting bagging clothes, lots of gold, and bitches/hoes at our feet?  While not everyone made it the original goal was well intended. today kids are coming out and aiming low. What does that say about our society moving ahead another 20-30 years?

Yea I thought about how I left this but did not have time to go back and change it. Yes, you are correct. The exception to proving you tried to flee is proving you did not have a chance to flee. The burden still resides on the defendant at that point though.

Each state is going to have their laws written a bit differently so it is difficult to know exactly how they are all structured. My best suggestion, study what your own states say about this.

Agreed. Which is why the whole hypothetical "Well if this didn't happen in a SYG state..." is a bunch of nonsense. If it happened in a different state it may have played out differently, but it may have played out it exactly the same too regardless of whether or not that state had a SYG law because the fact is that Zimmerman didn't use a SYG defense, he used an ordinary self-defense defense.

Do you mean like Al Capone and Michael Corleone?

Gangster idolization has been going on for longer than either of us has been alive.

Once again:

In many states, a defendant that claims self-defense assumes the burden of proving that the homicide was justified.  In Florida, the prosecution has to prove that the homicide was NOT justified.  None of this has anything to do with Stand Your Ground.  The only correlation is that states with SYG laws also tend to be more likely to shift the burden of proof (in self-defense) to the prosecution in general, but those are two separate things.  As previously stated, New York is not a SYG state, but does shift the burden of proof in self-defense cases to the prosecution.

On a related note, here's an interesting statistic (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/) I just saw: the difference in killings being found as justifiable in SYG states vs. non-SYG states.  This graph is... eye-opening:

(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/art/cats/cj/graph072512.png)

You left out Robin Hood.   ::)

I read the article that you linked to the graph, and although the graph looks pretty astounding, the facts behind it aren't.  The statistician that made the graph had so few "white on black" cases (only 25 in the FBI data base) that he had to use regression analysis to extrapolate to the seemingly high variance.  When I see small number sets like this it always make me think of early in the baseball season when a player gets on a hot streak and hits several homers in the first few games of the season and some nitwit announcer says "he's on pace to hit 92 home runs this year."  Furthermore, the article states that the facts behind the cases are not taken into account; so you don't know whether these are cases of home invasion or whether they occurred in public on the street.

I think you know exactly what he is talking about. He said "gangsta".


You are emotionally hijacked by the media. You may have racial and anger issues also. I could put up $1000 and I bet I could guess what your race is.

It sounds like you're implying there's a difference.  Is the adulation of black gangstas any different than the adulation of white gangsters?  If only we could return to the days of idolizing the Italian Mafia, what with their noble codes of honor.  You know, all the way back to when TV shows like The Sopranos were revered.

But let me guess, you see through the media fog with complete clarity, and are steadfastly objective on matters of race?

"You're so biased, unlike me!" is just about the laziest and most useless rebuttal to make.

That's pretty silly. I don't know any kid who grew up in the 70's and wanted to be Al Capone. I'm sure there were some but it wasn't a glamorous and sought after accomplishment.

People like you are central to what's wrong with our country. Instead of dealing with anything that is an issue you look to point and blame something else.

I heard a black man going off about Al Sharpton on the radio today and talking about these same kind of things. Reminded me of Bill Cosby. He said Sharpton doesn't care about what really hurts black people. All he cares about is getting paid. If not he wouldn't be concerned with manipulating one latino on black crime and would focus on black on black crime, blacks leading teen preganancy, blacks leading single families, blacks leading high school drop-outs, blacks leading the lines of welfare. He said that worrying about how white people affect blacks isn't helping the black community one little bit and pointed to the Rasmussen poll from a few weeks ago.  It showed that even blacks believe other blacks are more racist than whites. BTW ... that same poll also pointed out that only "white liberals" voted white people more racist than blacks. Meaning Asians, and Latinos also voted blacks as being the most racist. 

He went on to say that he's been called uncle Tom more than *n* and that somehow bettering himself and raising his family was to be portrayed a negative in today's society.

Spider, I'm astounded at this. Yes,  they protect killers, so does the 4th amendment, the 5th amendment, and the 6th amendment. Maybe if we were rid of them this tragedy wouldn't have happened - but is that what you want?

Again - I'll refer to my "fabric" argument from before. You pull one thread... the rest may go.

It's certainly easy to spot Judge Nelson these days. The night of the verdict she got food from Chipotle by my house (after she answered the jury question and before the verdict) and today she came downtown Sanford to eat lunch. She's certainly not hard to spot as she has been, and continues to be, escorted by 5 deputies. Interestingly she ate at the place where I mentioned all the photo modeling being done. Didn't see any naked girls today.

The Godfather was a pretty popular movie at the time.  And I'd hardly say it's unusual to see people glamorizing Scarface or Tony Soprano today.

The irony (and hypocrisy) in this statement is mind-blowing.  You were just pointing at and blaming gangstas!

Of course, in your mind, a unarmed kid being killed by a armed adult is not the issue that needs to be dealt with.  No, instead we should be pointing at and blaming black pop culture, what with their obsession with baggy clothes, gold, and womanizing:

You're right, the baggy clothes and the gold were the source of Trayvon Martin's troubles.

I'm sure you understand the difference between a law that protects anyone accused of any crime, and a law that specifically protects people who have committed homicides (like SYG).

Oh, so we should treat people who commit homicides differently then? Do you believe in the death penalty then?

I believe we should do as much as possible to write our laws in a way that encourages restraint in killing others.

I don't support the death penalty (and would not have advocated it for Zimmerman or even Casey Anthony, if they were convicted on their worst charges) but that's probably a subject for a whole other thread.

I didn't blame ganstas. I blamed the mindset behind it but you knew that. If your looking at a reason for Trayvon dying I'd help you out but you don't really care about him.  You are just looking for reasons to blame the white people for things. This one case has absolutely nothing to do with what's hurting blacks ... But I already said that didn't I?

Seeing as how there is zero evidence that Martin was involved in any actual gang, that much was obvious: you were blaming gangsta culture. (and baggy pants, and gold, and womanizing...)

Actually, I've been blaming the poorly-conceived laws, instead of scapegoating rap music or hats worn sideways or other irrelevant nonsense that has nothing to do with this case.

So what does this prove? 

The answer is pretty clear.....

The majority of time in which white person kills a black person it is in self-defense. 

You might have a problem with the law that let Zimmerman walk, I have a problem with the law that award $43 dollars to Darrell Cabey because Bernhard Goetz refused to be a burglary victim. 

if you think I'm talking about this case the you are mistaken. I'm saying blacks have much larger issues than this one case ... Even if Zimmerman is the culprit you want him to be.

I think Zimmerman made mistakes and I think Trayvon made some but either way Zimmerman doesn't appear to have broken the law. Heck in the 80/90s I could have done just what Trayvon did. I've beat people up for much less than following me or checking me out.

I quit fighting years ago for this very reason. People carry guns and that is the biggest eaquilizer I know of.

Thank you. That's exactly what I thought.

Not quite.

What it proves is that if a white person kills a black person and claims self-defense, the court is more likely to acquit them than:

- a white person killing a white person (over twice as likely)
- a black person killing a black person (over twice as likely)
- a black person killing a white person (over three times as likely)

Unless you're saying that conviction/acquittal statistics are interchangeable with the truth of crime?  White vs. black drug conviction rates (and sentencing) would seem to indicate otherwise.

It's still skewed because there is much more black on white crime (reason to defend) than white on black crime. More whites carry or have weapons. Not that whites don't have issues too but a lot of black on black crime is gang or drug related so many times not much of a defense.

For instance. Last week here locally three black guys broke into white home where family was present. Owner shot one of the guys.

Unfortunately this happens far to regularly. I can't remember a time when white kids broke into a black persons home let alone got shot. That would certainly stand out.

For whatever reason in my experience, whether white, black or Latino criminals... Victims with legal guns are typically white and some times Latino. It seems to me based on my experience any blacks who are victims of theft etc are usually not carrying.

Interesting enough one of my black coworkers carries constantly but he seems to be an exception.

How does this explain the enormous difference in acquittal rate (via justifiable homicide) between a white shooter and a black shooter, when the person killed (the ostensible criminal) is black in both cases?

If you're a white person defending yourself from black drug-dealing gang members, you have a much higher chance of being acquitted than if you're a black person defending yourself from black drug-dealing gang members.  Why?

Because they have many more opportunities. For the same reason your likely to see skewed statistics towards whites when it comes to serial murderers or mass shootings. Percentage wise blacks are pretty minimal in these situations.

Why would more opportunities affect the acquittal rate?

I'm not saying anything about the total numbers of whites or blacks acquitted.  If a black person attacks you, you shoot and kill them, and you claim self-defense, you apparently have a much stronger case if you're white than if you're black.  Switch the attacker to a white person and (particularly for a white shooter!) your acquittal rate goes WAY down.  Why?

As usual you like to misrepresent, you left out the fact that many gangsta rappers admittedly come from a background of gang violence and drug dealing.  Their lyrics talk of being pimps, killing police, using drugs, selling drugs, etc.  You want to ignore that and dumb it down to baggy clothes, gold, and womanizing...I'm not buying it.  IMO this "black pop culture", as you call it, has only served to create new racism in this country, and create a new negative stereotype for African Americans.

I did later add rap music and hats worn sideways to the list of Real Reasons Why Trayvon Martin Was Killed, so I think we're covered.

Unless you think we also need to add spinning rims and dreadlocks to the tally.

Seems like in Florida your numbers don't add up. Maybe you got confused and got them backwards. http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/16/blacks-benefit-from-florida-stand-your-ground-law-at-disproportionate-rate/). Oh wait, let me guess your reply, more whitey propaganda and made up numbers to hold a brotha down. Give me a break!

Looking at the source (http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/fatal-cases) of that article (and excluding pending cases), when the accused and victim are both white, there were 25 convictions and 32 acquittals, for a 56.1% justified killing rate.  When the accused is white and the victim is black or Hispanic, there were 2 convictions and 10 acquittals, for an 83.3% justified killing rate.  (Specifically, white accused + black victim was 1 conviction to 6 acquittals for an 85.7% justified killing rate... and Zimmerman was classified with the Hispanic accused, not white.)

Black accused / white victim?  2 convictions, 4 acquittals, 66.6% justified.
Black accused / black victim? 6 convictions, 16 acquittals, 72.7% justified.
Black accused / Hispanic victim? 0 convictions, 1 acquittals, 100% justified.

Hispanic accused / white victim?  2 convictions, 2 acquittals, 50% justified.
Hispanic accused / black victim?  0 convictions, 3 acquittals, 100% justified.
Hispanic accused / Hispanic victim?  0 convictions, 2 acquittals, 100% justified.

I suppose you could read that as blacks getting "more benefit" from SYG if you're only looking at the race of accused (and specifically, when they are not accused of killing whites).  If you look at the race of the victim, blacks and Hispanics are getting railroaded.

Long story short: if you kill a white person, SYG is not as likely to work, and (despite what you might think from reading this thread) in Florida, the majority of white victims in SYG cases were killed by other white people.

Here's an interesting polemic from one of my favorite British political writers.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100226889/zimmerman-what-about-the-words-not-guilty-does-obamas-department-of-justice-not-understand/

Not trying to stoke the fire or anything, but it's fun to read.

Pure numbers are meaningless. Give me the nature of the crimes (more than what race killed a person of what race) and I will entertain you numbers discussion.

Full details are at the cited link.  Have at it.

So what you're saying is that you would change the SYG laws so that more blacks would be convicted of murder? I bet then you would be saying how biased the system is for having so many more blacks being incarcerated for murder. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

Well, more blacks, and whites, and Hispanics, and men, and women.  In other words: I would get rid of SYG, and any person who decided that carrying a firearm means they can feel free to instigate and/or escalate confrontations would have to prepare a legal defense accordingly.

If blacks benefit from SYG law at a disproportionate rate. Then it would be prudent to assume that getting rid of the SYG laws would lead to more murder convictions of blacks by that same disproportionate rate. Wouldn't it?

The only way that black accuseds "benefit" at a disproportionate rate is in that they are more likely to kill black victims.  Black victims certainly don't benefit from SYG laws.

What else do we have?  Your gut feeling that this case went the wrong way? 

A higher percentage of black are in jail than whites, because blacks commit more crimes.  Period.   

And race doesn't directly determine your likelihood of success at an unjustified acquittal.  Wealth does.  A wealthy black man can get away with murder (see O.J. Simpson {murdered two whites}, Ray Lewis etc.)   Indirectly yes, b/c there are more wealthy whites than blacks.   

Thanks for contradicting yourself (and proving my point) in the same post.  Are you leaning on your gut feeling that OJ murdered two people?  Because he was acquitted of that charge.

If conviction/acquittal statistics are the arbiter of truth, then OJ and Casey Anthony did not kill anyone.  You can't say that OJ and Casey got away with murder at the same time you're claiming that a court ruling of "self-defense" means it has to be true.

By the logic you used earlier, if whites are "more likely" to kill blacks in legitimate self-defense than vice versa, then we must also conclude that wealthy people are "more likely" to be charged with crimes that they didn't commit.  Surely you can see the glaring fallacy in that position.

So, we now know that black killers use and benefit from SYG at a disproportionate rate. You also stated that, "black accuseds "benefit" at a disproportionate rate is in that they are more likely to kill black victim". To me "more likely" means, the majority of the time. So what you are saying is that the majority of these cases are blacks killing other blacks. Logically, SYG isn't as big a problem as black on black violence. Which would correlate with this post from CF


Blacks lead in many of the problem categories, that is the truth. Instead of acknowledging that truth and working to fix the problems. People like you would rather point the blame to others, namely whitey. It's amazing that you care so much about Trayvon and SYG, yet you guys are killing each other more than anyone else in the counrty. Then complain that a Hispanic(whitey incognito) killed a black young adult who committing felony assault on him. Yeah right, makes plenty of sense.

What I can see is the glaring fallacy that Zimmerman must be guilty and the only reason he go off was he was white, that you and the other keep repeating. 

That's an interesting interpretation, particularly since I just made a post with statistics showing that in Florida, there were 69 SYG cases involving white killers (57 of which were white on white) and 29 SYG cases involving black killers (22 of which were black on black).  Last I checked, 57 is still more than 22.  Maybe you disagree?

Furthermore, as I've said repeatedly, when the victim is white there is a MUCH higher probability that the killing will NOT be found justifiable (regardless of the race of the accused).  Why is that?

You would think that after the 5th or 6th time I reference "Florida laws," you might get what I'm driving at.

If you really want to examine the racial component, Martin's race was much more significant than Zimmerman's.  As conservatives are oh-so-enthusiastic to point out, Zimmerman Is Hispanic.  If Martin and Zimmerman were both white, Zimmerman would probably be in jail.  Is that better?

Nope.  If both Martin and Zimmerman were both white, when the police and DA concluded there wasn't enough evidence to arrest and have a trial the whole matter would be over and it wouldn't have been a national news story just a short lived local one. 

I imagine that if Martin were white, the part of the 911 tape where Zimmerman referred to him as an "asshole" and a "fucking punk" would have come under slightly more scrutiny.

The idea that there wasn't enough evidence to arrest is a ridiculous red herring that was clearly disproven when the judge refused summary dismissal.  And it's kind of hard to buy the conspiracy theories about judges making decisions based on saving their jobs when the district attorney clearly didn't give a damn about his electoral repercussions when he tried to sweep the case under the rug. Let me guess, the DA was just more dedicated to the rule of law than the judge?

The only reason why it appeared that there was no evidence to arrest was because of the half-assed, disinterested investigation by the authorities in charge at the time.  And lack of motivation by law enforcement would certainly be a symptom if racial bias were in play.

You're right. There's no way Fox would cover a story like that. There's no way Hannity takes a phone call from a white shooter, who kills an unarmed white teenager. Th questions would still be the same. How could an unarmed person, minding their own business, be treated like a criminal, in a neighborhood, that they had a right to be in?

The outrage is from, how is a black teenager not afforded the same benefit of the doubt? The color of the shooter doesn't matter. The color of the victim shouldn't either.

Actually he is not white and this is the fallacy that keeps getting repeated. Zimmerman refers to himself as hispanic. If Zimmerman is white then Obama is not our first black President.

The shooting wasn't major news.  The non-arrest wasn't major news. 

What got made it news was the protests.  So if it wasn't for the racial angle this would never been a major news story. 

And the protests were entirely because of the non-arrest.  (Which, it bears mentioning, was a nationally run news story before any of the protests took place.)

It's like you're saying that the Casey Anthony coverage was because of the trial and not the murder.

(http://media.use.com/images/s_1/141c4f77b886edf48c82.jpg) (http://www.use.com/141c4f77b886edf48c82)

Yes 57 is still more than 22 last time I looked. However, you fail to take into account(or conveniently ignore)population demographics. According to the 2010 chart above from the Florida office of Economic and Demographic research, the racial distributions of Florida are as follows 80.6% White, 16.5% African-American, and 2.9% other
Therefore, the ratio is:

80.6% white with 57 white on white killings = .707 killings per 1% white population

VS

16.5% black with 22 black on black killings = 1.33 killings per 1% black population

Last time I checked, 1.33 is larger than .707. I was never good in math so please feel free to correct me if my math is incorrect. The numbers are even more skewed if you account for all killings by race instead of just white on white or black on black. So blacks kill more overall and within race. I'm pretty sure you cannot argue this point any better than the prosecution unsuccessfully argued murder2 in the Zimmerman case, but I'm sure you will try, lol.

So the protests were entirely because of the non-arrest? It seem that I remember Mr Sharpton, Mr Jackson, and some of the protesters proclaiming that they just wanted Zimmerman to have his day in court. Well now Zimmerman has had is day in court and he is not guilty. Yet still all the same clowns are still crying, whining, and protesting. If there ever was the smallest shred of validity to the protesters claims, the continued protests are erasing them completely. My dilemma on the matter aside from most of the protesters playing the race card. On one hand, they really should sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up because they are showing their inner racism. However, I do like watching people make fools and idiots of themselves. Fair is fair and justice has been served, It just wasn't the "justice 4 trayvon" that the emotionally hijacked and racists wanted.

So how does this prove that blacks somehow disproportionately benefit from SYG laws?

When the victim is white, the SYG conviction rate is 29/67 (43.3%)
When the victim is black, the SYG conviction rate is 7/32 (21.9%)

Isn't this like saying that blacks disproportionately consume police resources because they are busy being murdered?

Yes, the protests before the trial (and all the revealed evidence up to and during the trial) were entirely because an unarmed 17-year-old was shot down by an armed adult without even being arrested.

It appears that you're saying that no matter what happens in the trial or what the verdict is, as long as a trial existed everyone should be happy?

Not sure why you'd need to go that far; since people protested Zimmerman not being arrested, by your logic, arresting (and then not charging) him should have been enough to shut the complainers up, right?

Yes, in exactly the same sense that justice was served to Casey Anthony.

Actually, you're deflecting the point being made. As said, blacks seem to be killing people more than all other races in the country. Your numbers and the state demographics seem to prove that. I'm pretty sure that the rest of the country is somewhat the same.


No they don't have to be happy. But they don't have to go on some useless "whitey is the racist media campaign" either.


Just like with Anthony, it's over. Nothing can be done. You won't hear me crying or whining about it.

DING DING DING DING DING, we have a winner.

You said (in regards to Florida):


Black accused, black victim: 6 convictions, 16 acquittals, 72.7% justified.
Non-black accused, black victim: 1 conviction, 9 acquittals, 90% justified.

Is your point that there are more black murderers out there taking disproportionate advantage of their... higher probability of being convicted?  I guess black privilege counts for something!

Do you also believe that wealthy people are unfairly accused of committing crimes more often than poor people?

Even though this discussion is in regards to Florida, I'm pretty sure that black people murder more as a total for the country also.


I think you know my point and would rather dance around the issue. My point is that black people in the United States kill more than any other race. Not just black on black. Black on everyone. You want to point to SYG laws as a major problem instead of admitting that blacks killing people is a much greater problem in the country. Do you dispute that blacks kill more people? Yes, no, or lets continue play the spin game.


What are you talking about? Are you deflecting again spider?

Is your secret point that Martin deserved to die because black people are probably murderers anyway?  I'm struggling to figure out why you are singularly focused on black people convicted of murder in a thread about a black victim of homicide.

I also find it rather comical that, in a thread about (black) Trayvon Martin being killed by (non-black) George Zimmerman, you think the mention of the number of black victims in SYG states whose killers go free is "deflecting," while your repeated invocations of the number of black murderers is somehow highly relevant and on-topic.

Did Martin kill Zimmerman and get away with it?
No?
Then what point could you possibly be trying to make (outside of naked race-baiting)?

No secret point at all. The reality is that SYG laws aren't the problem, they weren't even used in this case. If SYG laws had nothing to do with this case, why is everyone bitching about them? Because they(you)will do anything except admit the real problems. It's always someone or something else at fault. Hell, you can't even admit that blacks kill more than anyone else in this country and that's a known fact. That says something about you. If you think stating facts and telling the truth is race-baiting, so be it. However, I do believe that the race baiting started Feb 2012 by Sharpton, Jackson, and "watchdogs of the oppressed". And they haven't stopped yet and they never will.

If we are just randomly bringing up completely unrelated Bad Facts About Black People, are you sure you don't want to mention graduation rates or single motherhood or welfare recipients?  I mean, if you are going to just start listing off Reasons Why Blacks Are Bad that have nothing to do with this case, at least do so with enthusiasm.

Blacks didn't kill anyone in THIS case.  A black minor was killed.  And your response is to cite statistics about black killers, while you simultaneously complain about race baiting?  Deflection, indeed.

And FYI:  the first statistics I cited are not from SYG cases, but from justifiable homicide claims in SYG states (of which Florida is one).  The second set of Florida-only statistics (that you cited) specifically included Martin, so whatever metric they used was not restricted to cases in which SYG was claimed as a defense.

Talk about deflection. SYG laws had everything to do with this case.  No, there wasn't a hearing before the trial of 2nd degree murder. But the law as written, excuses this type of homicide. It allows for the perceived, not actual fear of something happening. Which allows for "race baiters" to believe that it's believable for a 17 yr old kid, could have a murderous rage, unprovoked, not under the influence, and while on the phone. Why? "Well you know, blacks kill more in this country. Its in their nature." In Florida when SYG laws are applied, this is proven to not be the case. 

FYI: As stated before, the first protester was Tracy Martin. Not Al Sharpton.

If you perceive fear it is actual fear. I'm not sure what your point is here.

No random "bad" facts. Just relevant true facts. You have implied SYG laws are bad and need to be repealed. You have also made the implication that these laws are unfairly biased and racist against blacks. In response I gave you information that show that blacks disproportionately benefit from SYG laws. The reason that blacks, being a much lower percentage of the population, benefit so much from SYG laws is because they kill at a much higher percentage. If you are going to discuss SYG, convictions rates, and claim bias against blacks. You also have to look at homicide rates of blacks also. Here you go, http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_age-race.html (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_age-race.html). Now, before we go any further with this conversation. Can you admit that blacks kill more people in the United States than any other race at a substantially disproportionate rate while being only 13-15% of the population? YES or NO?


There, I fixed that for you and added the relevant facts that you conveniently left out.

Is that the same Tracy Martin that said that the screams for help on the 911 recordings wasn't his son's voice? Or was that just whitey propaganda?

You are correct, some people only see what they want to see, not reality. I heard someone on the craptastic MSNBC saying that Zimmerman shouldn't have been carrying a weapon. I guess they have never heard of the constitution or bill of rights. But what if Zimmerman didn't have a weapon when the physical altercation started? For one, Trayvon would be alive today. Trayvon would have severely injured or maybe even killed Zimmerman. And finally, Trayvon would have been arrested and prosecuted for felony assault or murder.

Stands and claps loudly. They certainly wouldn't have resorted to showing pics of him when he was twelve and trying to hide his history and make him into an altar boy.
I am over this race cr@p A racist is pissed zimmerman got off. Two birds one stone.
Whats even better is the hispanic community let it go about Zimmerman being white.
Any other case they called him white the hispanic community would have been in uproar.

Sorry for the late reply Phin, finally got a day off, lol. Anyhow, I was reading something interesting the other day. I've kept hearing the blacks and liberals keep saying "What if Trayvon would have been white?" or "What if the roles would have been reversed?". Well I don't think they want the answer to that question! Just look up Roderick Scott. In 2009, a linebacker sized black guy that shot a skinny 17 white guy. The cases are similar. I don't recall Sharpton, Jackson, blacks, liberals, or race baiters raising much stink about the killing. I bet whites didn't raise any stink.

Yes, exactly the same, except:

- the victim was with two other acccomplices (so, potentially 3 versus 1)
- the shooter did not stalk the victim after being instructed not to
- the shooter was immediately arrested and charged

How many times do I have to say this?  If Zimmerman were promptly arrested and charged, this would have been as much of a non-story as the Jordan Davis shooting (http://www.news4jax.com/news/-Stand-your-ground-likely-defense-strategy-for-Michael-Dunn/-/475880/17557456/-/l44pcvz/-/index.html) that happened several months AFTER Martin was killed.

I would love for you to find an example of a black man killing an unarmed white kid and not even being arrested, much less charged.  It should be easy to find, because (as you have pointed out repeatedly for totally legitimate and relevant reasons) poor people black people kill more people than any other race in this nation.  (See, I even bolded it for you!  Now you can take a screenshot.)

Why do you blatanlty keep misrepresnting this point. It has clearly been stated that #1 he was not "instructed" because the words were "we don't need to to do that" and not "don't do that" and #2 the operator had no authority to make any such instruction.

Round and round we go, spin time.


Only one person tried to attacked Mr. Scott.


Moot point and totally irrelevant as pointed out in court.


Zimmerman was arrested, charged, and prosecuted. The fact that there were protests after the trial. The fact that the focus was shifted to SYG laws after the trial. And the fact that Zimmerman was found not guilty and I'm still seeing bullshit race baiting on news and media. All of that shows that the fake outrage wasn't because of the lack of arrest. Hypocrisy from liberals and blacks at it's finest.


Well, even after the arrest and acquittal it's still as much of a story as as it was after it happened. I see multiple things in the media everyday.  That refutes your "non-story if promptly arrested" theory. The fact is that Roderick Scott and George Zimmerman should have never been arrested or charged with a crime.


Just like Zimmerman, Roderick Scott should never have been arrested or charged with a crime. Regardless of what you think, you and the "watchdogs of the oppressed" don't know more than the police and district attorney. They can't use intuition or childish racial emotion to arrest and prosecute someone. They have to go by the evidence that can be proven. And the evidence is that Zimmerman was not guilty before he was arrested and he was not guilty after the trial. He may not be the smartest person around, but as we all know that's not a crime. If it was, Angela Corley should have been arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted long ago.


You bolded it. Now go back and read it a few times. Can you admit it's true? YES or NO? Let everyone know because you still haven't answered it.

I imagine it's for the the same reason that you keep pretending that asking someone "Are you following him?" and (after they respond in the affirmative) immediately telling them "OK, we don't need you to do that" is not an instruction.  If you want to make the case that the 911 operator has no legal grounds to give any person any sort of direction, then make that case... because Zimmerman certainly did not make it.

The bottom line is that Zimmerman claims that he followed that instruction.  His defense team was never absurd enough to try to make the argument that he didn't understand what the operator meant, so I don't know why you are.

...only after a national outcry of protests, which is the point.

If this story is all about the race hustlers ganging up on not-quite-whitey, then what is your explanation for the lack of same racial outrage in the Jordan Davis homicide?  A real, bona fide white man shot and killed an unarmed black kid.  Why is this not on the lips of Jesse Jackson every day?  Is there some difference other than the fact that the killer was arrested and immediately charged?

And yet he was (without any sort of crazy national media blitz).  Weird how that happens.

But somehow, I don't seem to recall conservatives coming out of the woodwork to defend this Law-Abiding Citizen, while insisting that his very arrest itself was a miscarriage of justice.  Nor do I remember the legions of Race Hustlers on every corner screaming that Roderick Smith should never have been arrested in the first place, and that the police were Racists for booking him.  Maybe you can link to some stories documenting these things.

None of what you are saying is relevant. Because, if you haven't noticed. Zimmerman is Not-Guilty, despite the best attempts of the race baiters.

In yet even more news about this trial even though the protesters got what they wanted with an arrest and prosecution of Zimmerman. The only minority juror, a 36 year old Puerto Rican woman gave an interview with Good Morning America. In the interview she said that she was the holdout for convicting of 2nd degree murder.


It's good that her and the jury realized that you have to go by the evidence and the law in order convict someone of a crime and not emotions, personal feelings or political or civil pressure about the situation.

 When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said,
 

Wait, the only juror that wanted to convict Zimmerman of 2nd degree murder didn't think that this should have gone to trial. Indeed, a smart woman. I wonder how much taxpayer money was wasted by Angela Corley by prosecuting Zimmerman when the Sanford PD already knew that he wasn't guilty of a crime. She should be fired ASAP.

You'll need to contact Sharpton and Jackson about their agendas, I can't answer for them. No matter how you spin it, there are still protests and media stories about this case even after being arrested, charged, prosecuted, and acquitted. If we use your theory and going by what the race baiters have said about "just wanting Zimmerman to have his day in court", then logically they got what they wanted and the racial outrage for the "non-arrest" should have been long over and done with. HUH?

Casey Anthony was arrested and charged, why are people still making a big deal about it?

SO MYSTERIOUS

Another misrepresentation. He was questioned about his authority while on the stand and said they are specifically instructed to not give those types of directions #1 because they do not have the authority & #2 because they are liable if they do give instructions.

Nice try but they most certainly did address this during the trial.

Please note that I don't try to argue the other side of the coin either. The operator asking about where Martin was now was not instructions for Zimmerman to follow as some people have said.

I have listened to the facts and put irractional emotions aside. You probably should as well.

You are the "people" bringing up Anthony. I haven't seen anything about Anthony except when you start deflecting and changing the subject. Meanwhile, liberals, blacks and racists are protesting the word "NOT-GUILTY". Martin's parents are on a world tour, racist and pandering lawmakers are wasting taxpayer money spending time on self defense laws, and jurors are probably about to come out of the woodwork in the media and get rich writing books. What's SO MYSTERIOUS is that spider still can't or won't admit that his bolded statement from a few posts ago is true and a fact. Ain't life great?

So by this logic, if a policeman says "We are specifically instructed not to use excessive force when arresting someone" then that means they didn't do so?

Immediately after the operator said "We don't need you to do that," Zimmerman said "OK" and (according to Zimmerman) immediately stopped doing that.  But I guess he was coincidentally not following the non-instructions?

And yet for some reason, you are arguing that that Zimmerman did not verbally agree to cease pursing Martin, when Zimmerman himself says otherwise.

In this thread?  Sure.  It's a relevant example when people want to claim that a not guilty verdict means the defendant was clearly in the right from the beginning, should not have been arrested, and everyone should shut up about it.

Because I need to carefully and explicitly endorse my own statements... even the ones I specifically put in bold?

Maybe you should make five or six more posts highlighting the fact that BLACKS KILL MORE PEOPLE THAN ANY OTHER RACE IN THE US.  It might also be a good idea to make two or three pointing out that MORE BLACKS ARE IN JAIL THAN ANY OTHER RACE, and that MORE BLACKS ARE ARRESTED FOR DRUG USE THAN ANY OTHER RACE.  ALL OF WHICH ARE TRUE AND ARE FACTS!

You know, just in case anyone was confused about your agenda in a thread about a unarmed black kid who got killed by a (white) Hispanic man.

Yes because the cases are so similar. NOT

Well yes, when you used it sarcastically when a simple acknowledgement or yes would do.

Since you finally acknowledged the facts as true I have no need to ask you about it anymore. As for the rest of the stuff you mentioned about blacks. I have no interest in those facts because they have nothing to do with this topic. Besides, between your post and CF's post, I think you have it covered.


I'm confused about what agenda you're talking about. Why don't you tell me about it since I'm not aware.
 
^^^I fixed it again for you. I'm sure that you omitted those facts by mistake

You can't even say whether Martin had more drugs in his system than Zimmerman did, so that line of argument is silly.  And of the two of them, Martin is not the one with a history of being arrested for belligerent violence while under the influence.

I am also interested in hearing the basis on which you claim that Martin committed felony assault; I recall no court or jury that rendered that verdict.  As you just pointed out, at least one of the jurors that acquitted him believes that Zimmerman did commit murder but that the state failed to prove it.  As has been pointed out repeatedly, Zimmerman's acquittal did not require that the jurors believed his story, but simply that they had reasonable doubt about the state's version.

Bingo!  And why this should have never gone to trial in the first place.  Was Zimmerman probably at fault?   --- Yes.

Was there enough evidence to expect a conviction given that the standard in this country is beyond a reasonable doubt?    --- NO!

And that is why it should have never gone to trial. 

Yes, I know all of Zimmerman's arguments are silly to you people. Regardless, he is NOT-GUILTY.


They had to believe that it was self defense. We all know who had injuries consistent with being assaulted and who didn't. It is also safe to assume that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and Trayvon was still alive, that he would have probably done more damage to Zimmerman and been arrested and charged with assault.

When did this exciting new standard of "if you didn't get a conviction, he should never have been charged" go into effect?  Should every single person who is found not guilty of a crime then get to turn around and sue law enforcement for false arrest?

You literally just said that you think he was probably at fault, yet you also believe that charging him was a waste of time?  This idea that charging someone with a crime after they admit to killing a person is some sort of outrageous violation of their liberty is an amazing concept.

Double bingo!

None of it matters at this point anyhow. The trial is over, not-guilty, no telling how much taxpayers money wasted, and the protesters still protesting. Even though they say "we won't forget Trayvon". As soon as the "watchdogs of the oppressed" find the new next cause, you'll never hear his name again.

As a point of fact, according to FL state law, they did not.  They simply had to have reasonable doubt about the state's case.

It is equally safe to presume that had Martin been the armed killer instead of Zimmerman (and presented the same defense), he would have instantly been arrested and charged with murder.

Spider, you do understand that if there is no evidence of any crime, then there should be no charges filed. The Sanford PD and DA knew this. It took a "special" prosecutor that complied with the threat of riots and civil unrest in order to shove it through the system. 

He admitted to killing someone in self defense, which is not a crime. Unless there is evidence showing that it wasn't self defense then there is no crime. You seem to not understand.

What other realistic real world scenario besides self defense could be possible for a not guilty verdict. I actually heard on of the jurors say that "Trayvon probably hit first". At that point it is self defense.

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Man refers to kid as "asshole" and "fucking punk" on tape, man later shoots said kid dead.

Are you saying that no one is arrested and charged with a crime in FL if they claim self-defense?  Or that any not guilty verdict in a self-defense case means the defendant should never have been charged?

Offhand, I'd say at least one possibility is:

"George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with," Maddy said. "[But] the law couldn't prove it."

As the pro-Zimmerman side has said over and over, it doesn't matter if the jury BELIEVED Zimmerman murdered Martin, or if they BELIEVED Martin was innocent.  It matters if they thought the state PROVED those things beyond a reasonable doubt.

BRD has been the standard in this country since at least 1787.

A core problem that you and the others seem to have is with that standard.  You want Zimmerman convicted because you think it is more likely than not that he was at fault.  Not because there isn't a reasonable doubt he might not have been.

So being the problem is the standard are you suggesting that we change the standard for a conviction to something else.  Say "preponderance of evidence" like we have in civil trials.  I know some DAs and cops would love that.  Most civil libertarians would  consider that worse than the Patriot Act or a various civil spying systems.

And most importantly are you suggesting we change the standard for all criminal defendants or ONLY in those case were the victim is black and the criminal defendant is non-black? 

Because it is really starting to sound like that is what you want. 

Under common law (and in many states), an affirmative defense changes that.  In the state of Florida, it does not.  We've already went down this road several times.  If Zimmerman wanted to claim that he didn't shoot Martin, then he would deserve every bit of BRD.

I see no danger of eroding civil rights or creeping Patriot Act shenanigans by the common law standard.  If you admit to killing a person, you should be required to prove it was justified.  If you find that standard onerous, then either don't kill other people or, failing that, don't admit to killing other people.  You have instantly placed all burden of proof back on the prosecution.

BINGO TRIFECTA  8)

This horse has been beaten to death. Race baiters lose for once and can't handle it. Zimmerman is not guilty, end of story. End thread, someone shut this mother down!

Everybody thought he would go to Disney after winning his court case but nooooo
He went back to work saving a family or is it familia being white I dont know how to talk and act now?Si? midi mida si 

Spin it however you want. What I am saying is you midrepresented the facts, once again. I can only assume you are saying a prosecution witness perjured himself (to help Zimmerman of all poeple) based on your cop testimony hypothetical?

Now to your second portion, your takeaway is nowhere near what I said and isn't even addressed by me at all. I said nothing about a Zimmerman response. What I said is there were no "instructions" as you said to stop and that there was no authority to make any such "instruction". You simply inferred what you want to hear which does not help a fact based discussion.

Spin away and tell me what else I "said".

Yet, he couldn't push a 158 pound off of him.

Where did I say he perjured himself?

Did the operator say "we are directed not to give instructions" or did he say "that statement was not an instruction"?  Because those two statements are not remotely equivalent; one is a statement of department policy while the other is a description of what actually happened.

Furthermore, your continued reference to the legal authority of the operator misses the point; if he had received those instructions from someone that did have legal authority (e.g. a cop) and ignored him, then he would have been arrested.  The point is that he was advised not to pursue Martin, indicated that he was complying, then (according to law enforcement) followed him anyway and lied about it.

^^^ That is the point of your spin. It is not and was not the point of any of my conversation. My point was that you once again were modifying what happened because of your emotions and inferrences. You said he was instructed to not follow Martin and I have continually pointed out that is false. Then you try to spin the conversation to another point about whether he followed him after that.

You did not say it. I asked if I could assume that since your stated example was an officer perjuring himself about excessive force. I can only assume you would be implying the operator was also perjuring himself. Why else bring up that example?


Both. He said he did not give an order and explained why.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-trial-20130624,0,5743016.story

Noffke explained that for legal reasons, 911 operators may not give such orders. “We’re directly liable if we give a direct order,” he said. “We always try to give general basic … not commands, just suggestions.”

So then, Zimmerman verbally indicated compliance with the suggestion of the 911 operator not to follow Martin, but then (according to law enforcement) chose to keep following him anyway.  Is that statement "spin-free" enough for you?

I find it rather tiresome that you complain about spin, yet you have made several posts simply to dispute the use of the word "instruction" (from someone that we have all repeatedly agreed has no legally binding authority) vs. "suggestion."  I hope that this last post has adequately addressed your semantic point of order.

Pot meet kettle. You have repeatedly inferred that Zimmerman did not follow the instructions of the operator. I have repeatedly called you out by saying there were no instructions. Call it semantics if you want but it is pretty integral to the entire discussion when your entire point is that Zimmerman did not follow "instructions". I'm fine with leaving it where it stands now that you were once again corrected and admit the error.

...even though we all have specifically and repeatedly agreed that any "instructions" from the operator would have no legally binding force?  Right.

It would be one thing if you had only made this particular point after the operator's testimony.  But you were already playing the "he didn't actually say not to follow Martin" card over a year ago.  Direct quote: (http://www.thedolphinsmakemecry.com/forums/index.php?topic=19908.msg261492#msg261492)


So unless you want to now pretend that there is a difference between advice and a suggestion, it's obvious that you've been inserting artificial ambiguity into a perfectly clear statement from the operator ("OK, we don't need you to do that") for over a year, and you're still at it even when the operator himself said it was a "suggestion."

I encourage you to follow that link and see how many times it is repeatedly pointed out that we all understand the operator has no force of law to issue legally-binding commands.  Your "instruction" line of argument is a mighty strawman, as it's quite clear that everyone agrees that Zimmerman has every legal right to disregard what the operator says.

Strawman is saying instructed in order to twist what happened. You may agree that there is no legal binding but you continually bring up that he was instructed to not follow Martin. As time passes, I'm sure you will say it again in an effort to to show how Zimmerman went againt instruction and I will point it out again.

The factual inaccuracies and stories of complete fabrication are what lead to the upraor involved in this case.

It was a tragic event but to be honest, people in California really have no right in continuing to try to pose your will on Florida state law. You have commented on it. Our judicial system served it's purpose. Get over it.

Just as you pointed out that he was technically not advised to stop following?

Pretty difficult to stand on the soapbox of semantic accuracy when it's already been shown that your preconceived position already distorted your view of a statement that's extremely clear to native English speakers.

"OK, we don't need you to do that" is obviously telling you not to do that.
Everyone agrees that statement has no force of law.
You're trying to build a flimsy case of semantics on "instructed" vs. "advised" vs. "suggested," when there is no meaningful distinction between them when coming from someone with no authority.

^^^ My case is that as time passes you will once again try to slip into conversation that he was instructed. I don't know your reasoning, but as with the majority of inaccuracies I have seen with this case I can only assume it is to help build sympathy for your position of "No Justice for Trayvon". I personally believe you are using this the same way you continually say Martin was unarmed. Where does it say in any book of law that a person has to be armed in order to potentially cause a life threatening situation?

I imagine it is listed right around the same section where it says one has to be an adult in order to be a threat.  Or a male, for that matter.

I keep saying "unarmed kid" because society generally looks dimly on adult vs. minor and armed vs. unarmed (and man vs. woman, though it doesn't apply here).  This is not a bias that I personally invented for this case.

It does not. You can kill someone with your hands and feet. But it looks bad when an armed person is saying they had to use deadly force against an unarmed person.