Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[Phishfan]

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.

[CF DolFan]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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."

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.

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?

[Phishfan]

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

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.

[Phishfan]

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?

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

[CF DolFan]

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?

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.

[pondwater]

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."

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

Ahem:

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.

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

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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.

The key is, do we beleive Martin reached for the gun. If so, forget about anything else.

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!

[Phishfan]

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.

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

[Phishfan]

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.

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

[Spider-Dan]

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?

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[Pappy13]

To reiterate: in my opinion this trial rests completely on whether the jury finds Zimmerman credible.

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.