Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[pondwater]

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.

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.

[el diablo]

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

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.

[el diablo]

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.

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

[CF DolFan]

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"

[phinphan]

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

[phinphan]

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"

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.

[el diablo]

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.

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?

[phinphan]

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

[phinphan]

diablow  you have to answer questions 

[bsmooth]

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.

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?

[phinphan]

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.

[CF DolFan]

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?

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.

[pondwater]

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.

[pondwater]

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?