Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[CF DolFan]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Pappy13]

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.

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?

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Sunstroke]

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...

[Phishfan]

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

[CF DolFan]

But "getting punched in the face really hard" doesn't exactly scream life-threatening...

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Pappy13]

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.

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

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.

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.

[Buddhagirl]

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.

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.

[pondwater]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

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?

[CF DolFan]

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.

[bsmooth]

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.

[phinphan]

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?

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.