Trayvon vs. Zimmerman - The trial

[masterfins]

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? 

ASSUMING Zimmerman started the fight under YOUR scenario, just because Zimmerman started the fight doesn't give Martin the right to beat Zimmerman to death.  So my point was that as you listen to the 911 recording the person repeatedly screaming for help sounds like he is in great fear.

[Pappy13]

The size of the wound....

And what exactly was the size of the 2 wounds in millimeters according to the PA? 24.5 millimeters equals an inch, so if she said the size of the wounds were 18 millimeters, I don't find that to be a significant difference in the least. The person who treated Zimmerman was estimating, so a difference of a few millimeters is to be expected. Furthermore I would expect that wounds of this nature would look significantly different a day later than at the scene when they were fresh. Even one day of healing can be significant. If on the other hand she said the size of the wounds was 3 millimeters, that would be a pretty significant difference from the person that treated him on the scene and I'd like to hear an explanation as to why the 2 people that treated him disagree on the size of the cuts. I haven't heard anyone mention this.

Edit. Ok I saw your edit. 1 inch = 2.5 CM, so 2 CM is pretty close to 1 inch and well within reasonable error. The other being .5 CM is quite a bit different, but that still leaves at least 1 nearly 1 inch long cut on his head that would seem to indicate that his head was struck by something other than just the grass at least once. This evidence to me would indicate that it's at least plausible that Zimmerman may have thought his head was being slammed into the sidewalk. Perhaps it was only once? Perhaps only 1 slam actually produced an inch long cut? Perhaps he hit his head when he was knocked to the ground that produced the cut, but later was on the grass when his head was slammed to the ground? Perhaps he exaggerated and it was only 2 times that his head was slammed into the sidewalk? How do I know what actually happened as opposed to what Zimmerman believed or said happened? How do I know if he was lieing or simply mistaken that his head was being slammed into the sidewalk repeatedly?

[el diablo]

ASSUMING Zimmerman started the fight under YOUR scenario, just because Zimmerman started the fight doesn't give Martin the right to beat Zimmerman to death.  So my point was that as you listen to the 911 recording the person repeatedly screaming for help sounds like he is in great fear.

That's the problem with leaving it up to one point. Have you considered how its possible for GZ's story to hold up, with that last scream? The shot came right after the word, "Help!" It was a straight shot through the heart. How was there time for Trayvon to "realize" there was a gun? How was there time for Trayvon to say, "You're going to die tonight? On a side note, which announces that? Anyways, how was there time for a struggle for the gun? Or as GZ puts it, "hands sliding down his sides". If Trayvon had his knees up by GZ's armpits, how does Trayvon see the gun? If his knees are by GZ's waist, how does he not feel the gun?

Much like GZ's trek outside of his vehicle, the timing doesn't add up.

[Phishfan]

^^^Very little of this makes any sense. Do you honestly think it impossible for Zimmerman to scream for help while also pulling a gun? Do you think the fight was so quick Martin did not have time to notice a gun? Do you think it was too short for Martin to announce you're going to die? I'm very open to hearing the other side and have backed off some of my initial thoughts but very little of that is anything but nonsense. You seem to think this struggle lasted about a second because that is all the time it takes for many of your "How was there time..." things take. The one thing I could maybe give you is how does Martin not feel the gun, but I don't think anyone has even taken that postion but you. How do you know he didn't feel it? Besides, the witnesses saw Martin on top. Are you saying that testimony is bunk? Are you saying Zimmerman didn't have a gun? I just don't get it.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

That's the problem.  If you're losing a fight that you started, and all you have to show for it are "very insignificant" injuries, and you can STILL claim that you "feared for your life" and kill the person with impunity, then in what situation would you NOT be permitted to shoot someone for winning a fight that you started?  If you had no injuries?

[Spider-Dan]

Ok I saw your edit. 1 inch = 2.5 CM, so 2 CM is pretty close to 1 inch and well within reasonable error. The other being .5 CM is quite a bit different, but that still leaves at least 1 nearly 1 inch long cut on his head that would seem to indicate that his head was struck by something other than just the grass at least once. This evidence to me would indicate that it's at least plausible that Zimmerman may have thought his head was being slammed into the sidewalk. Perhaps it was only once? Perhaps only 1 slam actually produced an inch long cut? Perhaps he hit his head when he was knocked to the ground that produced the cut, but later was on the grass when his head was slammed to the ground?

As stated, neither one of the cuts was an inch-long; they were 4/5th and 1/5th long.  The 4/5ths is easily explainable as his head hitting the ground when he was knocked down.  The 1/5th could easily be his head hitting the ground after being punched in the face.

Perhaps he exaggerated and it was only 2 times that his head was slammed into the sidewalk? How do I know what actually happened as opposed to what Zimmerman believed or said happened? How do I know if he was lieing or simply mistaken that his head was being slammed into the sidewalk repeatedly?

Well, most reasonable people would be able to tell the difference between something happening 2 times and something happening over 25 times.  So that gives the impression that perhaps he is embellishing his story.

[Phishfan]

That's the problem.  If you're losing a fight that you started, and all you have to show for it are "very insignificant" injuries, and you can STILL claim that you "feared for your life" and kill the person with impunity, then in what situation would you NOT be permitted to shoot someone for winning a fight that you started?  If you had no injuries?

I get your argument and I see how you are trying to relate this position specifically to this case but the big thing is, you are assuming who started the altercation. You are going to have to show me some evidence Zimmerman started a fight before I even entertain this conversation as part of this case.

[Spider-Dan]

Dead men tell no tales.  The only evidence we have for who started the fight is the word of Zimmerman, who is not exactly a disinterested party.

So again, we're stuck at if you start a fight and you lose, you can kill the other person (as long as there is no one else around, or you're not stupid enough to tape the incident like the guy in Texas did).

Or if this makes it easier:  I'm not necessarily saying that Zimmerman did start the fight, I'm saying that he could have and the outcome would be no different.

[Pappy13]

As stated, neither one of the cuts was an inch-long; they were 4/5th and 1/5th long.  The 4/5ths is easily explainable as his head hitting the ground when he was knocked down.  The 1/5th could easily be his head hitting the ground after being punched in the face.

Coupled with the fact that Martin has no injuries (other then the gunshot wound), that tends to support Zimmerman's story that he was attacked by Martin and shot him in self defense. We can argue all day whether or not it was justified but that really forces us to get inside the head of Zimmerman and determine whether or not he could have reasonably feared for his life and that's really difficult.

Well, most reasonable people would be able to tell the difference between something happening 2 times and something happening over 25 times.  So that gives the impression that perhaps he is embellishing his story.

Agreed, but embellishing his story about how many times his head was smashed into the ground does nothing to disprove the idea that he was indeed being attacked by Martin when he shot him. The problem I have with your stance Spider is that you believe that if any of Zimmerman's story is untrue it's all untrue. That's a leap of faith I can't make. The state has to come up with some evidence to support the state's case that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Failing some evidence to the contrary and with the benefit of the doubt going to Zimmerman, I'm still leaning toward not guilty of murder 2. Again, if the prosecution would have went for manslaughter, I would have leaned toward guilty.

[Pappy13]

Dead men tell no tales.  The only evidence we have for who started the fight is the word of Zimmerman, who is not exactly a disinterested party.

So again, we're stuck at if you start a fight

But you JUST said that we don't know who started the fight. So we are NOT stuck at if you start a fight. We are stuck at whether or not you started the fight which is exactly what this trial is all about. Whether or not Zimmerman was the aggressor is the heart of the trial and there doesn't seem to be any physical evidence to suggest that Zimmerman started the fight. The state cannot get by this fundamental flaw in their argument so all they have done is try to prove that it's POSSIBLE that Zimmerman started the fight. That's not enough to convict no matter how sympathetic you are towards the victim and nobody is rewriting law here. That's only happening if it's proven that Zimmerman DID start the fight or escalated it unnecessarily and then is NOT convicted. I have no fear that will happen here because if the state proves that Zimmerman did start the fight or escalated it unnecessarily, he'll be convicted and if they don't prove it, then it doesn't matter what the outcome of the trial is.

[Spider-Dan]

The problem I have with your stance Spider is that you believe that if any of Zimmerman's story is untrue it's all untrue. That's a leap of faith I can't make.

The problem is that many of the verifiable claims he makes turn out to be false.  Then we are left with his unverifiable claims.

But you JUST said that we don't know who started the fight. So we are NOT stuck at if you start a fight. We are stuck at whether or not you started the fight which is exactly what this trial is all about. Whether or not Zimmerman was the aggressor is the heart of the trial and there doesn't seem to be any physical evidence to suggest that Zimmerman started the fight.

The point I was making (which I emphasized underneath the part that you quoted) is that even if Zimmerman actually did start the fight, Martin is dead and no one else was around to see, which essentially means that he can just say that he didn't and there's no one to contradict that.

That doesn't mean I automatically presume that he started it.  But I think it's a dangerous precedent to set, and when you add in all the inconsistencies in his statements, this reads to me like a blueprint of how you COULD start a fight, kill the other person if you're losing, and get away with it.

[Pappy13]

The problem is that many of the verifiable claims he makes turn out to be false.  Then we are left with his unverifiable claims.

Which is exactly why you can't convict. You cannot convict on unverifiable evidence. You can't. Our whole system of justice is based on this simple idea. Are you suggesting we rewrite not just this 1 law but our entire justice system now?

[Spider-Dan]

Which is exactly why you can't convict. You cannot convict on unverifiable evidence. You can't.

The verifiable evidence is that Martin is dead and Zimmerman has admitted to killing him.

Whether or not the jury believes Zimmerman's testimony as to his justification for killing Martin is a completely fair (and lawful) way to convict him.

[Pappy13]

The verifiable evidence is that Martin is dead and Zimmerman has admitted to killing him.

That's manslaughter, not murder.

[el diablo]

^^^Very little of this makes any sense. Do you honestly think it impossible for Zimmerman to scream for help while also pulling a gun? Do you think the fight was so quick Martin did not have time to notice a gun? Do you think it was too short for Martin to announce you're going to die? I'm very open to hearing the other side and have backed off some of my initial thoughts but very little of that is anything but nonsense. You seem to think this struggle lasted about a second because that is all the time it takes for many of your "How was there time..." things take. The one thing I could maybe give you is how does Martin not feel the gun, but I don't think anyone has even taken that postion but you. How do you know he didn't feel it? Besides, the witnesses saw Martin on top. Are you saying that testimony is bunk? Are you saying Zimmerman didn't have a gun? I just don't get it.

I never said that I thought the fight only took a second. I was focusing on what someone had said earlier. In my opinion, I don't believe it was possible for GZ to be the last one screaming for help. At one point either of them could've been screaming for help. Given GZ's  situation at the time (based on his two police station interviews, re-enactment video, Hannity interview, and Osterman's book/testimony). He was on his back, with a broken nose, & being smothered by Ttayvon's two hands & body weight. Zimmerman was only asked if he was screaming on the tape. Possible. But not at that specific time. Detective Serrano even questioned GZ as to how he was able to fire at that position. He said he raised the weapon past Trayvon's hands (again still on GZ's face, not the gun). Aim and fire a straight shot through the heart. Not to the left, right, up or down. That wasn't a panic shot. I don't buy that Trayvon was smothering GZ either. But I can't account for Trayvon's hands at that moment. No blood or DNA on Trayvon's hands (GZ was a bleeder) or GZ's gun. Remember, that shot came right after that last scream for help. There was no pause. Is it possible that someone could scream for help, while aiming a gun? I would say, not this guy. He didn't distance himself from the person he "feared would end his life". No. His first actions were to get from underneath his "attacker" and attempt to disarm & restrain his "suspect". Its not just the shot. Its the whole picture.