Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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

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.

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.

How do you know that Zimmerman was trying to detain Martin? Is there any evidence to support this?

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Pappy13]

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

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.

[Pappy13]

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 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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Phishfan]

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.

You should check the poll results on it again.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[pondwater]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

[el diablo]

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.

[Phishfan]

^^^ 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.

[Phishfan]

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.

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.

[Pappy13]

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

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.

[Spider-Dan]

^^^ 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.

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 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.

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-type event pops up.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.