Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[Spider-Dan]

I almost regard Zimmerman's testimony as completely irrelevant. It's certainly not necessary to find him credible to find him not guilty.

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

[Phishfan]

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?

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

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.

[Pappy13]

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

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

[masterfins]

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.

[Phishfan]

My understanding from the medic that treated Zimmerman was that there were two one-inch long cuts in the back of this head.

Having said that, I'll admit that I have not watched even 1 minute of this trial on TV.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

[Pappy13]

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.

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

[Pappy13]

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

[Phishfan]

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.

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.

[Pappy13]

The PA who treated Zimmerman the day after the altercation.

And what did he say exactly?

[Phishfan]

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.