I caught a bit of the testimony from another prosecution witness, the Army Capt. who is an instructor on justifiable use of force, or something like that. It was cross examination, and the few minutes I got to see showed him seemingly giving more cred to Z in this scenario. I didn't see any of what the prosecution asked him, so I don't know what reason they brought him up for, but the defense seemed to have his number.
Edit: Ok, I see why the prosecution called him. They were attempting to refute Z's claim that he wasn't familiar with the states self defense law.
djones520 wrote: I caught a bit of the testimony from another prosecution witness, the Army Capt. who is an instructor on justifiable use of force, or something like that. It was cross examination, and the few minutes I got to see showed him seemingly giving more cred to Z in this scenario. I didn't see any of what the prosecution asked him, so I don't know what reason they brought him up for, but the defense seemed to have his number.
Edit: Ok, I see why the prosecution called him. They were attempting to refute Z's claim that he wasn't familiar with the states self defense law.
Which at least to me doesn't serve a whole lot of purpose, especially since the course he took was (presumably) a few years prior.
My question is, if they are allowing Zimmerman's history in court, why don't they allow Martin's?
Because Martin isn't on trial. Zimmerman's past establishes zimmerman's motives. Martin's past isn't useful because martin isn't on trial.
If martin had survived and was being tried for attacking zimmerman, his past would be relevant to that trial.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now, if zimmerman and martin had a past together or something, then Martin's past would become relevant as it would become a part of what zimmerman knew at the time.
Rented Tritium wrote: Because Martin isn't on trial. Zimmerman's past establishes zimmerman's motives. Martin's past isn't useful because martin isn't on trial.
If martin had survived and was being tried for attacking zimmerman, his past would be relevant to that trial.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Now, if zimmerman and martin had a past together or something, then Martin's past would become relevant as it would become a part of what zimmerman knew at the time.
He is actually. It would lead to evidence of his mental state and likely actions as there is no evidence otherwise.
xole wrote: Which at least to me doesn't serve a whole lot of purpose, especially since the course he took was (presumably) a few years prior.
My question is, if they are allowing Zimmerman's history in court, why don't they allow Martin's?
EDIT: Grammar
As Rented Tritium said, Zimmerman is on trial and not Martin. However if the Prosecution try to bring in Trayvon's character then that would allow the Defense an opportunity for rebuttal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: He is actually. It would lead to evidence of his mental state and likely actions as there is no evidence otherwise.
Well the "creepy ass cracker" comment likely didn't help the Prosecution's case
Knowing someone's past is actually not enough to establish what they did when nobody was looking. To allow it is asking for hearsay and weird blamegames. If the prosecution wanted to allow it, the judge would probably ok it for everyone.
The relevant thing in this trial is what zimmerman saw and knew, none of which is changed by martin's past.
Rented Tritium wrote: Knowing someone's past is actually not enough to establish what they did when nobody was looking. To allow it is asking for hearsay and weird blamegames. If the prosecution wanted to allow it, the judge would probably ok it for everyone.
The relevant thing in this trial is what zimmerman saw and knew, none of which is changed by martin's past.
Yet that is exactly what is occurring on the prosecution side.
We'll see what comes in. If I were Z I'd start right off with "yea I saw gangster with what I thought was a burglary tool casing houses. It couldn't be a child though, they'd have to be suspended from school or something. "
"yes when he got near me he smelled of weed."
Prosecution disputes, and it gets interesting on what comes in.
To me, to establish a case for self defense, you would want to show that there was something to defend from. Michael McAverage attacking* someone for no reason doesn't make any sense. We know Martin attacked* Zimmerman, but we don't know any potential reasons why without his history.
I mean, it won't be needed. Zimmerman is going to walk and an unfortunately large number of people haven't figured that out yet. It would have been nice to have, though.
*Attack in this case meaning: on top of, causing bodily harm to
That's kind of scary that you think it's ok to us someone's past to define them as inherently dangerous to the point that self defense was warranted.
Especially since self defense isn't actually about the truth of the matter, it's about what zimmerman actually knew. If zimmerman didn't KNOW about martin's past, then martin's past is 100% irrelevant to self defense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Similarly, if I defend myself against your grandmother, the fact that she's really nice doesn't matter. All that matters is what a reasonable person would have thought at the moment. If your grandmother pins me down and punches me, I get to shoot her. My determination of shooting her is based on her actions at that time and how a reasonable person would fear for their life, etc etc, not who she was in the past.
Basically, you can be completely wrong about how dangerous someone was, as long as your fear for your safety was reasonable based on what you knew right then.
Rented Tritium wrote: That's kind of scary that you think it's ok to us someone's past to define them as inherently dangerous to the point that self defense was warranted.
Especially since self defense isn't actually about the truth of the matter, it's about what zimmerman actually knew. If zimmerman didn't KNOW about martin's past, then martin's past is 100% irrelevant to self defense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Similarly, if I defend myself against your grandmother, the fact that she's really nice doesn't matter. All that matters is what a reasonable person would have thought at the moment. If your grandmother pins me down and punches me, I get to shoot her. My determination of shooting her is based on her actions at that time, not who she was in the past.
Well... isn't that the point for the Defense? If you convince that jury that M has volient, gang-life, thug tendencies... wouldn't that help Z's cause?
Rented Tritium wrote: That's kind of scary that you think it's ok to us someone's past to define them as inherently dangerous to the point that self defense was warranted.
Especially since self defense isn't actually about the truth of the matter, it's about what zimmerman actually knew. If zimmerman didn't KNOW about martin's past, then martin's past is 100% irrelevant to self defense.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Similarly, if I defend myself against your grandmother, the fact that she's really nice doesn't matter. All that matters is what a reasonable person would have thought at the moment. If your grandmother pins me down and punches me, I get to shoot her. My determination of shooting her is based on her actions at that time, not who she was in the past.
Well... isn't that the point for the Defense? If you convince that jury that M has volient, gang-life, thug tendencies... wouldn't that help Z's cause?
The "he had it coming" defense is not valid. Judges disallow that kind of evidence unless there's a CLEAR connection and relevance specifically to avoid it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Like I said before, if zimmerman actually KNEW about martin and KNEW his past and used that to form his fear for his safety, then sure that would be admissible, but martin was a complete unknown to zimmerman, so deciding if zimmerman was reasonably scared for his life only includes information that zimmerman could reasonably have known.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Martin could have been a mass murderer, but if Zimmerman didn't actually KNOW that, then it's not relevant to the question of "was Zimmerman justified in his use of force?". Justification is based on the reasonable perception of the user of the force.
xole wrote: So...it doesn't help the story to come together? It doesn't show, say, who would have been more likely to do the provoking?
That's kind of scary that you think it's ok to us someone's past to define them as inherently dangerous to the point that self defense was warranted.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth, by the way. Good style on that one.
EDIT:Wrong tag
xole wrote: To me, to establish a case for self defense, you would want to show that there was something to defend from. Michael McAverage attacking* someone for no reason doesn't make any sense. We know Martin attacked* Zimmerman, but we don't know any potential reasons why without his history.
You said it right here. If we already know that martin attacked zimmerman, why doesn't matter. Self defense is based only on what zimmerman percieved and if we think it was reasonable. Why martin attacked doesn't change whether or not zimmerman was reasonable in defending himself.
Rented Tritium wrote: That's kind of scary that you think it's ok to us someone's past to define them as inherently dangerous to the point that self defense was warranted.
Especially since self defense isn't actually about the truth of the matter, it's about what zimmerman actually knew. If zimmerman didn't KNOW about martin's past, then martin's past is 100% irrelevant to self defense.
Incorrect. It points to what TM actually did.
Almost not needed at this point as the State hasn't come close to proving Murder 2.
Rented Tritium wrote: That's kind of scary that you think it's ok to us someone's past to define them as inherently dangerous to the point that self defense was warranted.
Especially since self defense isn't actually about the truth of the matter, it's about what zimmerman actually knew. If zimmerman didn't KNOW about martin's past, then martin's past is 100% irrelevant to self defense.
Incorrect. It points to what TM actually did.
Almost not needed at this point as the State hasn't come close to proving Murder 2.
No, it doesn't.
Your past doesn't actually determine your actions, your actions determine your actions. The "type" of person you are is not valid evidence for what you did on a particular night. This is like justice system 101.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's the same principle behind not allowing the defense to talk about how many sex partners a rape victim had before the incident. They could have had a million, it doesn't actually establish their actions on THAT night.
Horse gak. Your past in every way colors how you will act in a given circumstance. The thought that people are blank slates from moment to moment is frankly laughable.
Frazzled wrote: Horse gak. Your past in every way colors how you will act in a given circumstance. The thought that people are blank slates from moment to moment is frankly laughable.
In a court of law, saying that someone MUST have acted in a certain way because of their past is anti-justice.
Does your past color your actions? Sure. Does your past PREDICT your actions? Not even remotely.
Hulksmash wrote: So the character of people involved with a possible crime doesn't matter at all? Interesting...
If by "doesn't matter at all" you mean "doesn't matter to this case", yes. It's not like I've already explained some circumstances in which this evidence WOULD be admissible or anything.
But by all means, take something I said and act like it's my entire driving philosophy.
Frazzled wrote: Horse gak. Your past in every way colors how you will act in a given circumstance. The thought that people are blank slates from moment to moment is frankly laughable.
In a court of law, saying that someone MUST have acted in a certain way because of their past is anti-justice.
Does your past color your actions? Sure. Does your past PREDICT your actions? Not even remotely.
Thats your strawman not mine. I'm arging its an indicator, just like the prosecutor is doing RIGHT NOW but calling up his former professors, kindergarten teachers and that little girl he once bought lemonade from...
Remember guys, if John Wayne Gacy is coming at you and you bust a cap in his ass with your neener, his serial killing ways can't be admitted under the RT rule...
Frazzled wrote: Horse gak. Your past in every way colors how you will act in a given circumstance. The thought that people are blank slates from moment to moment is frankly laughable.
In a court of law, saying that someone MUST have acted in a certain way because of their past is anti-justice.
Does your past color your actions? Sure. Does your past PREDICT your actions? Not even remotely.
Thats your strawman not mine. I'm arging its an indicator, just like the prosecutor is doing RIGHT NOW but calling up his former professors, kindergarten teachers and that little girl he once bought lemonade from...
I already explained why zimmerman's past is important and martin's past is not to this particular case and why the judge in this case barred martin history. You seem to have decided to just ignore all of that. That's fine, but don't keep poking at it asking for an explanation if you're just going to ignore the ones I give.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Meanwhile, the judge in this case barred that evidence. You can put your fingers in your ears all you want, but you're going to have to explain what you know that the judge doesn't.
Hulksmash wrote: So the character of people involved with a possible crime doesn't matter at all? Interesting...
If by "doesn't matter at all" you mean "doesn't matter to this case", yes. It's not like I've already explained some circumstances in which this evidence WOULD be admissible or anything.
But by all means, take something I said and act like it's my entire driving philosophy.
Alternately, before we consider locking a guy up for 30 years (even with an aggravated manslaughter conviction vice Murder 2), the defense showing that Martin had a tendency to address certain situations a certain way could help explain why the situation was the way it was the night Zimmerman capped him. The defense needs to show Zimmerman had a legitimate reason to fear severe injury or death to prove self defense. Since there are no eye witnesses to the actual start of the scuffle except Zimmerman, showing a pattern of behavior on Martin's part could very well help Zimmerman.
I strongly suspect if Martin had been captain of the chess club and volunteered at the local homeless shelter and attended religious services 3 times a week and had NEVER been in any confrontation in his life, the Prosecution would have wanted to show that in order to cast doubt on ZImmerman's story of how the altercation began.
Frazzled wrote: Horse gak. Your past in every way colors how you will act in a given circumstance. The thought that people are blank slates from moment to moment is frankly laughable.
In a court of law, saying that someone MUST have acted in a certain way because of their past is anti-justice.
Does your past color your actions? Sure. Does your past PREDICT your actions? Not even remotely.
Thats your strawman not mine. I'm arging its an indicator, just like the prosecutor is doing RIGHT NOW but calling up his former professors, kindergarten teachers and that little girl he once bought lemonade from...
I already explained why zimmerman's past is important and martin's past is not to this particular case and why the judge in this case barred martin history. You seem to have decided to just ignore all of that. That's fine, but don't keep poking at it asking for an explanation if you're just going to ignore the ones I give.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Meanwhile, the judge in this case barred that evidence. You can put your fingers in your ears all you want, but you're going to have to explain what you know that the judge doesn't.
NO. The judge only barred it in opening comments. To Quote Merlin in Excalibur: "You'll have to do better than that. "
I'm not following the case minute-by-minute but I recall vaguely seeing something along the lines of 'Well, if you're going to bring up his college professor, we're going to go into Trayvon's history of violence and drug use' by the defense.
sourclams wrote: I'm not following the case minute-by-minute but I recall vaguely seeing something along the lines of 'Well, if you're going to bring up his college professor, we're going to go into Trayvon's history of violence and drug use' by the defense.
Implying that this could be further dredged up.
Judge didn't buy that.
Prosecution is being VERY careful not to open the door to exploring Martin's history.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: I caught a bit of the testimony from another prosecution witness, the Army Capt. who is an instructor on justifiable use of force, or something like that. It was cross examination, and the few minutes I got to see showed him seemingly giving more cred to Z in this scenario. I didn't see any of what the prosecution asked him, so I don't know what reason they brought him up for, but the defense seemed to have his number.
Edit: Ok, I see why the prosecution called him. They were attempting to refute Z's claim that he wasn't familiar with the states self defense law.
Yeah, prosecution called him for that.
Defense, as usual, turned his testimony brilliantly to their advantage and got him to do a long seminar on self-defense laws that seriously favors Zimmerman. I don't think it was that hard to do; he's obviously well-disposed to Zimmerman.
Another one I saw today was the prosecution working its, "Zimmerman carried his gun with one in the chamber and a full mag, this is the sign of an unsafe individual," angle from their opening argument. Surprisingly, a lot of non-gun people buy into this. Fortunately, one of the state's own witnesses - an FDLE forensic specialist this time - got cross-examined on it and stated it was how the gun was designed to be carried, it was how cops carried, etc. etc.
But you both know what you're talking about when it comes to firearms, and are aware that danger isn't going to honor your requested time-out to rack the slide.
Honestly, the one round one kill thing in this case is what makes me believe Zimmerman was not looking for that much trouble and was poorly trained yet defended himself the best he could.
I automatically would have dumped at least two center mass then one into his head. Then if he twitched he would have caught more. I think Z popped a cap then almost crapped himself with the realization of what he had done and the sound of a round actually being fired. I can't imagine only engaging with one round.
I really should hold back my perception of this. After watching LEO getting grilled by Prosecution and questioned by Defense. I've feeling Z, once he pulled the trigger, knew he had a good shot. Fear got replaced by determination to live. M going for the now exposed weapon and the verbal threat by M of "Your going to die tonight"
State's expected to rest next session. Final witnesses are expected to go (the real) medical examiner, Martin's brother, Martin's mother.
Much hay is still being made of the fact that Zimmerman carried with a round in the chamber. I hope like hell the CCW-holding women on the jury set their colleagues to rights regarding that.
In other news, I learned from CNN this morning that Zimmerman's gun was not, in fact, the Kel-Tec that's been shown in court, but instead some variety of Glock. The well-informed anchor told me this despite the clip she was talking about involving two separate individuals clearly naming it as a Kel-Tec. The infographic at the bottom also called it a Glock, so even with over a year to get it right...
Trayvon Martins mother is going to get butchered in the cross examination... she once claimed she believed it was an accident, then she retracted that and called Z a cold blooded killer. She's tried making this a racial issue. She's been all over the media. She's clearly made it out that she wants Z behind bars, and she should have zero credibility on the stand.
I can understand her grief, and I wouldn't expect her to be impartial, and the prosecution is just going to send her out there to get mauled... I feel bad for her.
Why is the family going to the stand? They where not witnesses to the crime, why should they be there, all they will say is "He was a good boy, he may have gotten in trouble a bit but he never hurt no one" I have 50$ that exact phrase will be said
djones520 wrote: Trayvon Martins mother is going to get butchered in the cross examination... she once claimed she believed it was an accident, then she retracted that and called Z a cold blooded killer. She's tried making this a racial issue. She's been all over the media. She's clearly made it out that she wants Z behind bars, and she should have zero credibility on the stand.
I can understand her grief, and I wouldn't expect her to be impartial, and the prosecution is just going to send her out there to get mauled... I feel bad for her.
They are probably doing it to expose the jury to the mother...
Make Martin look like a kid with his whole life ahead of him and hadn't hurt anyone in his entire life and you make ZImmerman look bad. Do that and you stand a better chance of convincing the jury it wasn't self-defence or whatever he's claiming.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why is the family going to the stand? They where not witnesses to the crime, why should they be there, all they will say is "He was a good boy, he may have gotten in trouble a bit but he never hurt no one"
I have 50$ that exact phrase will be said
She's going to testify that it is Trayvon's voice calling for help on the tape.
djones520 wrote: Trayvon Martins mother is going to get butchered in the cross examination... she once claimed she believed it was an accident, then she retracted that and called Z a cold blooded killer. She's tried making this a racial issue. She's been all over the media. She's clearly made it out that she wants Z behind bars, and she should have zero credibility on the stand.
I can understand her grief, and I wouldn't expect her to be impartial, and the prosecution is just going to send her out there to get mauled... I feel bad for her.
They are probably doing it to expose the jury to the mother...
Make Martin look like a kid with his whole life ahead of him and hadn't hurt anyone in his entire life and you make ZImmerman look bad. Do that and you stand a better chance of convincing the jury it wasn't self-defence or whatever he's claiming.
If they do that, then they open the door for the defence to flood the jury with Martin's past. His three school suspensions that year alone, the mysterious amount of womens jewelry they found in his back pack, the drug usage, his internet search history of street fighting, etc... The prosecution doesn't want to touch that with a 10 ft pole. Give the jury a glimmering of an idea that Trayvon was a thug wanna be, and it's all over.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why is the family going to the stand? They where not witnesses to the crime, why should they be there, all they will say is "He was a good boy, he may have gotten in trouble a bit but he never hurt no one"
I have 50$ that exact phrase will be said
She's going to testify that it is Trayvon's voice calling for help on the tape.
.
That is just stupid, get an audio examiner in there, someone who is trained, have them hear previous recording of martin, and listen to zimmermans voice, then have them anylze the tape
hotsauceman1 wrote: Why is the family going to the stand? They where not witnesses to the crime, why should they be there, all they will say is "He was a good boy, he may have gotten in trouble a bit but he never hurt no one"
I have 50$ that exact phrase will be said
She's going to testify that it is Trayvon's voice calling for help on the tape.
.
That is just stupid, get an audio examiner in there, someone who is trained, have them hear previous recording of martin, and listen to zimmermans voice, then have them anylze the tape
They did that, they got an FBI analyst in there, he said it was impossible to get an impartial answer. He opened the door for the prosecution to do this though, when he said a family member, or someone close to the people on the tape might be able to tell.
Of course Mom can recognize her son's voice (as far as she is concerned) and is a very sympathetic figure to an all female jury. To beat her up on the cross examination will look bad too. The prosecution would be crazy to not put her on the stand.
CptJake wrote: Honestly, the one round one kill thing in this case is what makes me believe Zimmerman was not looking for that much trouble and was poorly trained yet defended himself the best he could.
I agree. That's the fact that solidifies his story for me.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I suppose I could rock a half mag.... but what exactly would that accomplish?
Twice the reloading?
Seaward wrote: In other news, I learned from CNN this morning that Zimmerman's gun was not, in fact, the Kel-Tec that's been shown in court, but instead some variety of Glock. The well-informed anchor told me this despite the clip she was talking about involving two separate individuals clearly naming it as a Kel-Tec. The infographic at the bottom also called it a Glock, so even with over a year to get it right...
Sounds like typical journalism, and every gun being called an AK47
purplefood wrote: Make Martin look like a kid with his whole life ahead of him and hadn't hurt anyone in his entire life and you make ZImmerman look bad. Do that and you stand a better chance of convincing the jury it wasn't self-defence or whatever he's claiming.
And the Defense will thank them for that because that put's Martin's character on the stand and gives them a way to bring in his less positive attributes
djones520 wrote: She's going to testify that it is Trayvon's voice calling for help on the tape.
I suppose the Prosecution don't have much else to lose. The experts said that they couldn't determine who's voice it was, and his father originally said that it wasn't his son's. What happens if the Defense calls Zimmerman's family and they say the voice is their son?
CptJake wrote: Of course Mom can recognize her son's voice (as far as she is concerned) and is a very sympathetic figure to an all female jury. To beat her up on the cross examination will look bad too. The prosecution would be crazy to not put her on the stand.
I think that's the play here. Put her on the stand and hope that she gets a rough time on the stand for sympathy.
I don't think it will take any "beating up". She'll just crack and make herself look bad with little effort. One question about her conflicting statements and she'll go all Colonel Jessup on the Defense.
And of course she takes the stand and testifies that is her son. It was "clearly her son". I really hope the jury can see beyond the emotion. If an impartial FBI analyst was unable to make any clear judgement... well then a mother whose been on the record for wanting to see Z conviceted just isn't going to be trustworthy.
This is the hardest part of the trial for me to watch. I'm really feeling for the family right now, this has got to be extremely hard for them.
The prosecution really thought this was going to be a different type of trial from the looks of things. Lots of really oldschool appeals to emotion and stuff.
Rented Tritium wrote: The prosecution really thought this was going to be a different type of trial from the looks of things. Lots of really oldschool appeals to emotion and stuff.
They don't have the evidence, so their working on emotion. The weakest type of case IMO, but this is where they'll make it. The defense is going to have to drag it out for a little while now, to help put some time between these testimonies and the juries deliberations.
djones520 wrote: Ok... that made no sense. All that work, to ask her if a button was his, and nothing more. Talk about a lot of wasted time.
Does the fact that this button is his make any sort of material difference to the case?
Apparently their was a break in questioning, because they couldn't access the evidence at the time, so it is possible we missed a point they were trying to make with it. *shrugs*
djones520 wrote: Ok... that made no sense. All that work, to ask her if a button was his, and nothing more. Talk about a lot of wasted time.
Does the fact that this button is his make any sort of material difference to the case?
Apparently their was a break in questioning, because they couldn't access the evidence at the time, so it is possible we missed a point they were trying to make with it. *shrugs*
djones520 wrote: The guy just argued that the simple act of defending yourself means you have malice in your heart. Unbelievable.
Yes, because as we all know defending yourself from another's aggression obviously means that you acted with malice.... With solid legal advice like that it's easy to see why be is a DA and not a public defender.
Rented Tritium wrote: It's not like swaying a jury has anything to do with truth or accuracy.
Sure but if you mess up the legal part you can in fact get a kick in the gibblets from the Bench, or if you really screw the pooch the State Bar Association. They take legal procedure pretty seriously.
I still want to know why that one medical examiner who had only looked at photos was on the stand at all.
Rented Tritium wrote: It's not like swaying a jury has anything to do with truth or accuracy.
Sure but if you mess up the legal part you can in fact get a kick in the gibblets from the Bench, or if you really screw the pooch the State Bar Association. They take legal procedure pretty seriously.
I still want to know why that one medical examiner who had only looked at photos was on the stand at all.
Right, but we're talking about a general thing they said to the jury, right? The prosecution can turn to the jury and say whatever cooky thing they want. Nobody is going to get disbarred for that.
If it happened in their closing, they have even more leeway.
Rented Tritium wrote: It's not like swaying a jury has anything to do with truth or accuracy.
Sure but if you mess up the legal part you can in fact get a kick in the gibblets from the Bench, or if you really screw the pooch the State Bar Association. They take legal procedure pretty seriously.
Correct. If the Prosecutor errs in law the judge can give direction to the jury either clarifying what was said, or telling them to ignore it when making their deliberations. Should this not happen then it opens a not insignificant door for a future appeal by the Defense.
If Prosecutor is continually promoting falsehoods and giving egregious information to the jury then (s)he may face an inquiry by the Bar Association in that State, which could see a punishment of censure or disbarment.
As far as the facts go the Defense still has their closing arguments and the jury has to deliberate. And a lot of jurors don't take too kindly to being mislead, or outright lied to.
The defense has a lot more than just closing arguments left. I would expect several more witnesses to include a medical examiner type, and may be Zimmerman himself.
CptJake wrote: Honestly, the one round one kill thing in this case is what makes me believe Zimmerman was not looking for that much trouble and was poorly trained yet defended himself the best he could.
I automatically would have dumped at least two center mass then one into his head. Then if he twitched he would have caught more. I think Z popped a cap then almost crapped himself with the realization of what he had done and the sound of a round actually being fired. I can't imagine only engaging with one round.
Yea. The wife can put three center mass in one second at 7 yards and thats how she's trained-empty the entire 15 round mag and reload while getting out of there. Her police buddies told her that. Of course we were dealing with a stalker on vicodin...
CptJake wrote: The defense has a lot more than just closing arguments left. I would expect several more witnesses to include a medical examiner type, and may be Zimmerman himself.
At this point. I doubt Zimmerman will testify. We might get some more character witnesses shrouded in something else. I don't think the defense is going to take long.
Be nice if they could get the DA on the standa nd ask him why the first one declined, and he was put on specially...
Frazzled wrote: At this point. I doubt Zimmerman will testify. We might get some more character witnesses shrouded in something else. I don't think the defense is going to take long.
Be nice if they could get the DA on the standa nd ask him why the first one declined, and he was put on specially...
Or failing that if they put the first DA on the stand, and ask him to outline his reasons for not pursuing the case. Maybe we can put Zimmerman's parents on the stand to testify that the screaming is their son's voice, and Martin's father on the stand to clarify why he thought that the screams were not initially his son's.
Multiple defense witnesses today saying it was Zimmerman calling out. Defense also made a point of how Martins father originally said it wasn't his sons voice on the tape.
Prosecuter open the door on that by having M mother and brother testify it was her son/brother voice on the recording. Then Z mother claim it was Z...same as a couple co-workers....former boss of Z...and his best friend attest it was Z voice on the recording. SO defense threw doubt into being it was M voice from the initial statement of M father.
TM father did not testify it was his son voice. Defense brought up documentation stating his original assestment of the screams on audio. Prosecution didn't think this through
So the Defense called multiple witnesses who all stated that in their opinion it was Zimmerman's voice, and managed to remind the jury that Martin's father initially said the voice calling for help wasn't his son's.
Jihadin wrote: TM father did not testify it was his son voice. Defense brought up documentation stating his original assestment of the screams on audio. Prosecution didn't think this through
Pretty good summation of their strategy for the entire case
I'm a bit concern that M family might really be at the point with Prosecution to slam a race card on this trial just for them to have a sense of justice.
Pretty much. It was funny seeing the transformation from "White guy" to "White Hispanic" once the facts came out, and also those who doctored the tape of the 911 call for broadcast getting fired.
djones520 wrote: Newest defense witness was Z's personal trainer. Described his training regimen, and pretty much explained that Z was a HORRIBLE fighter.
George Zimmerman's lawyer started his first full day of presenting his defense today by calling several of Zimmerman's friends and co-workers to testify that it was Zimmerman's voice screaming for help on 911 calls seconds before he shot teenager Trayvon Martin.
"It's Georgie," said family friend Sandra Osterman when asked about the screams. "I know it."
John Donnelly, who called Zimmerman a "dear friend," told the jury, "There is no doubt in my mind. That is George Zimmerman and I wish to God I did not have the ability to make the determination," he said, wiping his eyes.
Donnelly, a former Army medic during the Vietnam war, reinforced his opinion under cross examination by the prosecution.
"The voice screaming in that video is absolutely George Zimmerman, sir," he testified.
He rejected the suggestion that he would color his testimony to help his friend.
"This courtroom is about truth," Donnelly said.
Determining who is screaming on the tape could be key to the trial. Both Martin's mother and brother have testified that it was Trayvon Martin's voice.
When Zimmerman's defense began Friday afternoon, Zimmerman's mother told the court that it was her son screaming for help.
Zimmerman, 29, is charged with second degree murder for shooting Martin, 17, on Feb. 26, 2013. Prosecutors say the former neighborhood watch captain was profiling and following Martin. Zimmerman maintains that he shot the teenager in self-defense.
To prove second degree murder, the prosecution must show that Zimmerman acted with "ill will" and "spite."
During a cross examination of Osterman today, the prosecution played a part of Zimmerman's phone call to a police dispatcher in which Zimmerman is heard saying, "These a**holes always get away."
"When somebody tells the police that -- pardon my language -- these a**holes always get away, he is not upset?" prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asked Osterman.
"I don't take it that he is angry," Osterman responded.
Zimmerman's lawyer Mark O'Mara asked if the language on the tapes indicated "ill will" or "spite," and she replied, "No."
Sandra Osterman's husband, Mark Osterman, is an air marshal who described himself as Zimmerman's best friend. He said the two talked about getting concealed weapons permits and how to carry the weapon.
"Having one in the chamber is something that has to be done," said Osterman.
He said he advised Zimmerman to keep a loaded round in the chamber of his gun, but preached firearms safety. During cross examination, prosecutors pressed Osterman who said that his recommendations were based on his law enforcement training.
Oh look, an outbreak of common sense over the round in the chamber
Sanford Police Det. Christopher Serino, the lead investigator in the case, testified that Tracy Martin and his girlfriend met with him one or two days after the shooting to “bring him up to speed” regarding the investigation. During that meeting, Tracy Martin did not recognize his son’s voice on the 911 recording, Serino told jurors.
“I let him listen first before I asked anything,” Serino said under questioning by lead defense attorney Mark O'Mara. “He looked away and under his breath, as I interpreted it, said, 'No.'”
The defense also called Sanford Police Officer Doris Singleton, who corroborated Serino's testimony, describing how she watched the distraught father as he listened to the tape.
"I was choked up myself because I have children," Singleton said. "To know that he was hearing the sound that ended sons life it was tough to watch.
"There was no doubt that he was telling us that it wasn't his son," she said.
Well dad saying it was M voice after hearing it for twenty times....and Z talking to dispatcher saying that M appears to "be on drugs"....I think the residents of FLA need to question some of these DA salaries.....
Please phrase yourself in a less inflammatory way. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but this kind of statement will only generate animosity. Opinions are ok, so long as Rule #1 is respected. MT11
TM was possibly in FNP mode....Z did say the individual looked to be on drugs......17 year old......think some of you all need to go look at your pics when your mental reality is a bit...elevated
But a civil case has a much lower burden of proof and a lower threshold for "did Zimmerman cause the situation that caused a death".
It will be much easier to get a majority of a jury to agree that Zimmerman "snooping around and being all shady and stuff while playing vigilante against a black kid" contributed to the situation that caused the death of Martin.
Remember that in a civil suit you are not trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman commited murder. You simply try to convince a group of people that he is X% to blame for the situation and the death.
We are talking about the justice system where people who get hurt while robbing other people can win judicial damages.
I mean, they can give it a shot, but it'll be hard to sell the idea that someone was wrong for shooting someone who by practically all accounts was bashing their head into the pavement.
Monster Rain wrote: I mean, they can give it a shot, but it'll be hard to sell the idea that someone was wrong for shooting someone who by practically all accounts was bashing their head into the pavement.
But a civil suit can make an argument like that.
Z shot M, so that is 100% of the blame.
But M attacked Z, so he is 100% to blame for his own death.
But M wouldn't have attacked Z if Z wasn't following him and harrasing a kid for being "black while shopping", so maybe he is 25% to blame for the death.
Not saying that is how it would go, but it's possible.
Sadly, your last point is very true.
You throw enough lawyers against a wall, one of them will be able to drag some dollars with him as he comes dragging down.
This is a tweet from Ali BlackPower Muhammad-Shakur of the St. Pete/Tampa New Black Panthers Party:
"ALL I KNOW IS I BETTER HEAR GUILTY... WE NEED TO BE MOBILIZING TOWARDS #SANFORDFL WEDNESDAY HOW DOWN TO TRAVEL TALKING 30-40 CARS!!! #JUSTICETM #TRAYVONMARTIN"
This is 18 USCS § 2102:
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent -
(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry
on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in
or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in
furtherance of a riot;
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
We'll put a teenager in jail because a Canadian woman cyber-stalks him for making a snarky comment while playing a video game, but we won't arrest someone for making overt threats of inciting a riot in a national public forum?
Despite what you are reading into this, there is not a single word on there asking for riots or violence.
It's not against the law for a punch of pissed off people to gather from around the country and stand somewhere to protest and look pissed. There is no thread in this tweet.
I would imagine they know better than to say "hey guys, lets riot and tear crap up if he gets off!"
Monster Rain wrote: I mean, they can give it a shot, but it'll be hard to sell the idea that someone was wrong for shooting someone who by practically all accounts was bashing their head into the pavement.
But a civil suit can make an argument like that.
Z shot M, so that is 100% of the blame.
But M attacked Z, so he is 100% to blame for his own death.
But M wouldn't have attacked Z if Z wasn't following him and harrasing a kid for being "black while shopping", so maybe he is 25% to blame for the death.
Not saying that is how it would go, but it's possible.
Sadly, your last point is very true.
You throw enough lawyers against a wall, one of them will be able to drag some dollars with him as he comes dragging down.
We've heard a hell of a lot of testimony from the defense's side of the case that makes it pretty clear Zimmerman wasn't actually following Martin, especially after he spoke with the dispatcher. Prior to that, he was returning from Target. The only thing Martin's side has going for the, "following and harassing" narrative is Jeantel.
Zimmerman's case against NBC, on the other hand, is going to be pretty epic.
If Duke lacrosse didn't force Grace off for more than a day, this certainly won't.
I'm sure NBC's ultimately going to settle, though. It's hard to win a case when you've admitted to wrongdoing.
Interesting note: the defense finally got to depose Benjamin Crump, the Martin family attorney and chief race-baiter in all of this, over the weekend. When they had Tracey Martin on the stand, they asked some pointed and I thought fairly irrelevant questions about Crump. I'm thinking they might have gotten him to say something stupid under oath.
Monster Rain wrote: I hear that it increases feelings of paranoia as well. That could certainly have been a factor in the events, hypothetically speaking.
Monster Rain wrote: I mean, they can give it a shot, but it'll be hard to sell the idea that someone was wrong for shooting someone who by practically all accounts was bashing their head into the pavement.
But a civil suit can make an argument like that.
Z shot M, so that is 100% of the blame.
But M attacked Z, so he is 100% to blame for his own death.
But M wouldn't have attacked Z if Z wasn't following him and harrasing a kid for being "black while shopping", so maybe he is 25% to blame for the death.
Not saying that is how it would go, but it's possible.
Sadly, your last point is very true.
You throw enough lawyers against a wall, one of them will be able to drag some dollars with him as he comes dragging down.
We've heard a hell of a lot of testimony from the defense's side of the case that makes it pretty clear Zimmerman wasn't actually following Martin, especially after he spoke with the dispatcher. Prior to that, he was returning from Target. The only thing Martin's side has going for the, "following and harassing" narrative is Jeantel.
Zimmerman's case against NBC, on the other hand, is going to be pretty epic.
I didn't think the prosecution rested yet. These were witnesses for the prosecution. I just can't wait for this crap to die down so I can go to work in piece.
Monster Rain wrote: I hear that it increases feelings of paranoia as well. That could certainly have been a factor in the events, hypothetically speaking.
That may be the point they are going to target.
Good point... I can now see where they're going with that.
d-usa wrote: But a civil case has a much lower burden of proof and a lower threshold for "did Zimmerman cause the situation that caused a death".
It will be much easier to get a majority of a jury to agree that Zimmerman "snooping around and being all shady and stuff while playing vigilante against a black kid" contributed to the situation that caused the death of Martin.
Remember that in a civil suit you are not trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman commited murder. You simply try to convince a group of people that he is X% to blame for the situation and the death.
We are talking about the justice system where people who get hurt while robbing other people can win judicial damages.
Won't work. An acquittal is excellent support that for Z.
d-usa wrote: But a civil case has a much lower burden of proof and a lower threshold for "did Zimmerman cause the situation that caused a death".
It will be much easier to get a majority of a jury to agree that Zimmerman "snooping around and being all shady and stuff while playing vigilante against a black kid" contributed to the situation that caused the death of Martin.
Remember that in a civil suit you are not trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman commited murder. You simply try to convince a group of people that he is X% to blame for the situation and the death.
We are talking about the justice system where people who get hurt while robbing other people can win judicial damages.
Won't work. An acquittal is excellent support that for Z.
Yeah, getting acquitted really helped OJ too!
Again though, big difference between not-guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 100% murder, and guilty of x% liability of a death.
This is a tweet from Ali BlackPower Muhammad-Shakur of the St. Pete/Tampa New Black Panthers Party:
"ALL I KNOW IS I BETTER HEAR GUILTY... WE NEED TO BE MOBILIZING TOWARDS #SANFORDFL WEDNESDAY HOW DOWN TO TRAVEL TALKING 30-40 CARS!!! #JUSTICETM #TRAYVONMARTIN"
This is 18 USCS § 2102:
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent -
(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry
on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in
or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in
furtherance of a riot;
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
We'll put a teenager in jail because a Canadian woman cyber-stalks him for making a snarky comment while playing a video game, but we won't arrest someone for making overt threats of inciting a riot in a national public forum?
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — An expert on gunshot wounds hired by the defense testified Tuesday that George Zimmerman's account of how he fatally shot Trayvon Martin is consistent with the forensic evidence.
Dr. Vincent Di Maio said that the trajectory of the bullet and gun powder on Martin's body support Zimmerman's version that Martin was on top of him when Zimmerman fired his gun into Martin's chest. The gun's muzzle was against Martin's clothing and it was anywhere from two to four inches from Martin's skin, he said.
"This is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman's account that Mr. Martin was over him, leaning forward at the time he was shot," said Di Maio, the former chief medical examiner in San Antonio.
The pathologist also said it was likely Martin was conscious for 10 to 15 seconds after the shooting as a reserve supply of oxygen ran out of his body, and during that time it was possible for him to have moved his arms. Zimmerman's account that he had placed Martin's arms out to his sides after the shooting contradicts a photo taken after the shooting that shows Martin's arms under his body. Defense attorneys contend Martin moved his arms.
Di Maio also explained that if clothes taken into evidence are wet and packaged in plastic bags, and not paper bags, it can ruin the samples since "bacteria multiplies and you get mold and it stinks to high heaven." Defense attorneys believe DNA evidence found on Martin's hooded sweatshirt and undershirt was degraded since the clothing wasn't packaged properly.
Earlier in the morning, Judge Debra Nelson considered prosecutors' request to bar the defense from showing animation depicting the fight between Martin and Zimmerman. Nelson held an evidence hearing with jurors out of the courtroom, but ultimately postponed her decision and more arguments on the matter until later in the afternoon.
Prosecutors object to the animation, saying it isn't an accurate depiction.
Defense attorneys called the man who created the animation to testify. To recreate the fight, Daniel Schumaker went to the crime scene and had employees in motion-capture suits re-enact what happened based on coroner photographs, police reports, the coroner's report, witness depositions and photos taken by responding police officers, he said.
The fight took place on a dark, rainy night in February 2012 and there were no eyewitnesses who saw the entire fight. Several witnesses saw and heard parts of the struggle that left Martin dead with a bullet in his heart.
Testimony in previous days has focused on a 911 call that captures screams from the struggle between Martin and Zimmerman.
Sondra Osterman, a friend of George Zimmerman, listens to the 911 tape while while on the witness st …
Convincing the jury of who was screaming for help on the tape has become the primary goal of prosecutors and defense attorneys because it would help jurors evaluate Zimmerman's self-defense claim. Relatives of Martin's and Zimmerman's have offered conflicting opinions about who is heard screaming.
Zimmerman's mother and uncle testified last Friday it was Zimmerman screaming, while Martin's mother and brother also took the witness stand last Friday to say the voice belongs to Martin. Martin's father testified Monday that he initially couldn't tell if the screams came from his son, but later decided they did.
Zimmerman himself once said during a police interview that the screams didn't sound like him, though he and his family later said the screams were his.
Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder and says he shot Martin in self-defense during a scuffle in the townhome complex where he lived. Martin was there visiting his father and his father's fiancee.
Well, by showing weed: 1. It supports Z's statements on the 911 that he's sees someone suspicious and he thinks the suspicious person is on drugs.
2. It can be used to show TM as being more paranoid then normal
3. Most importantly. It severaly impacts the image of TM as "a sweet little child, " and more like a thug. If the victim is less likeable, the less likely they will convict.
That's fine G_J, it's an interesting thing to point out, but if that were the case... Shrike would also be suspect for possible Robo-trippin due to fact he's always buying skittles.
Cough syrup doesnt show up on drug tests. I had an old druggy friend whose parents would test him, so he did cough syrup because it doesnt show up on tests.
Alfndrate wrote: That's fine G_J, it's an interesting thing to point out, but if that were the case... Shrike would also be suspect for possible Robo-trippin due to fact he's always buying skittles.
But Shrike is not(?) black.
[/play race card]
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Cough syrup doesnt show up on drug tests. I had an old druggy friend whose parents would test him, so he did cough syrup because it doesnt show up on tests.
Quite a bit of difference between an over-the-counter piss test for home use, and a pathology toxicology report though.
Just reading about the defense's witness, who is a forensic expert who testified that TM had to be standing over GZ based on the trajectory of the bullet.
Hulksmash wrote: Bullet probably went in at an angle. Basically entered low and exited high. Even if not I can see how it would be possible to do this.
What I was referring to is that he was able to ascertain that the evidence indicates the shirt was hanging 2-4 inches away from his skin...which is the distance a shirt would hang from the body were the wearer leaning over someone.
Alfndrate wrote: But did they find cough syrup in his system? PCP like effects probably mean nothing when he doesn't have any in his system.
For PurpleDrank/Sizzurp you can use Skittles, Arizona Watermelon Iced Tea, and codeine based cough syrup. Trayvon Martin had 2 of the 3 ingredients on him at the time, and had alluded to its use on his Facebook page.
I do not believe that codeine shows up in most drug tests
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: What I was referring to is that he was able to ascertain that the evidence indicates the shirt was hanging 2-4 inches away from his skin...which is the distance a shirt would hang from the body were the wearer leaning over someone.
Trying to find a transcript for ya'll...
As well as the trajectory I think part of how they determined that Martin was over him was that there were powder burns on his shirt because it was hanging towards Zimmerman, but no powder burns on his body i.e. his shirt was closer to the muzzle than his torso.
Alfndrate wrote: But did they find cough syrup in his system? PCP like effects probably mean nothing when he doesn't have any in his system.
For PurpleDrank/Sizzurp you can use Skittles, Arizona Watermelon Iced Tea, and codeine based cough syrup. Trayvon Martin had 2 of the 3 ingredients on him at the time, and had alluded to its use on his Facebook page.
I do not believe that codeine shows up in most drug tests
Codiene shows up pretty clearly as an opiod even on an over-the-counter pee test, and would most certainly show up on a serum toxicology screen.
d-usa wrote: Codiene shows up pretty clearly as an opiod even on an over-the-counter pee test, and would most certainly show up on a serum toxicology screen.
I stand corrected, thank you for the clarification.
Alfndrate wrote: But did they find cough syrup in his system? PCP like effects probably mean nothing when he doesn't have any in his system.
For PurpleDrank/Sizzurp you can use Skittles, Arizona Watermelon Iced Tea, and codeine based cough syrup. Trayvon Martin had 2 of the 3 ingredients on him at the time, and had alluded to its use on his Facebook page.
I do not believe that codeine shows up in most drug tests
Codiene shows up pretty clearly as an opiod even on an over-the-counter pee test, and would most certainly show up on a serum toxicology screen.
How long does it stay in the system? If he hadn't used it in several days/weeks, would it still be evident? Weed is pretty unusual in the length of time it remains in the system, as I understand it.
Alfndrate wrote: But did they find cough syrup in his system? PCP like effects probably mean nothing when he doesn't have any in his system.
For PurpleDrank/Sizzurp you can use Skittles, Arizona Watermelon Iced Tea, and codeine based cough syrup. Trayvon Martin had 2 of the 3 ingredients on him at the time, and had alluded to its use on his Facebook page.
I do not believe that codeine shows up in most drug tests
Codiene shows up pretty clearly as an opiod even on an over-the-counter pee test, and would most certainly show up on a serum toxicology screen.
How long does it stay in the system? If he hadn't used it in several days/weeks, would it still be evident? Weed is pretty unusual in the length of time it remains in the system, as I understand it.
For Codeine:
Urine - 2 to 4 days
Blood - 12 hours
Saliva - 1 to 4 days
Hair - ~90 days
Yeah, they've been pushing hard for those. It'd be nice if they got in, but I'm not sure it'll make much difference at this point. The defense has done a great job - even with some of the prosecution's witnesses - at proving Zimmerman was an awful fighter.
Looks as though the judge has not allowed the introduction of the text messages as evidence. At this point, however, they would have simply been the icing on the cake that the prosecution has already baked for Zimmerman.
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — After taking less than a week to call 18 witnesses, George Zimmerman's defense attorneys rested their case Wednesday in the neighborhood watch volunteer's second-degree murder trial.
Prosecutors called their first rebuttal witness immediately afterward— Adam Pollock, the gym owner who had trained Zimmerman. Following rebuttal witnesses, prosecutors and defense attorneys will then work out the jury instructions before presenting closing arguments. The judge then sends the case to six jurors.
Zimmerman never testified. But jurors saw repeated video recordings of Zimmerman telling his side of the story to police investigators. The defense started its case last Friday, and it presented half as many witnesses in half of the time that prosecutors did.
The defense rested on a day when the judge made two rulings that prevented them from introducing two pieces of evidence. Defense attorneys had wanted to present to jurors text messages discussing fighting from Trayvon Martin's cell phone and an animation depicting Zimmerman's fatal fight with Martin. But Judge Debra Nelson sided with prosecutors, who had argued the animation is inaccurate and the texts were irrelevant.
During the four days they presented their case, defense attorneys called Zimmerman's friends, parents and uncle to testify that it is Zimmerman screaming for help on a 911 call that captured sounds of the fatal fight. Martin's mother and brother had testified for the prosecution that it's Martin yelling for help.
Convincing the jury of who was screaming for help on the 911 tape has become the primary goal of prosecutors and defense attorneys because it would help jurors evaluate Zimmerman's self-defense claim.
Zimmerman's father, Robert Zimmerman Sr., was the last witness called by the defense on Wednesday, and he said it's his son yelling for help on the call.
Defense attorneys also called a forensic pathologist who testified that the forensics evidence supports Zimmerman's account of what happened.
Zimmerman has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder and says he shot an unarmed Martin in self-defense during a scuffle in the townhome complex where he lived in February 2012. Martin was there visiting his father and his father's fiancee. Some civil rights activists argued that the initial delay in charging Zimmerman was influenced by Martin's race. Martin was black and Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic. The 44-day delay in Zimmerman's arrest led to protests around the nation.
Earlier Wednesday, defense attorneys called public safety consultant Dennis Root to testify that Martin was in better physical shape than Zimmerman, and that the neighborhood watch volunteer wasn't any athlete.
"He would find himself lacking when compared to Mr. Martin," Root said of Zimmerman.
During cross-examination of Root, prosecutor John Guy used a life-sized foam mannequin in front of the jury to simulate the body positions of Zimmerman and Martin at the time of the shooting.
Straddling the dummy, Guy proposed a scenario in which Martin was on top of Zimmerman and asked Root if it was possible that Martin was backing away from Zimmerman at the time of the fatal gunshot.
"Yes," Root said.
Root also said he may have taken different actions if he were in Zimmerman's situation, but said that "it's just a matter of what you as the individual view as options."
Using the same mannequin during further questioning of Root, defense attorney Mark O'Mara challenged the notion of Martin retreating. Root said that while multiple gun angles were possible, he had no specific information to say what position Martin was in when he was shot.
"I think you're not going to be involved in a conflict like this without it being dynamic," Root said.
(CNN) -- The George Zimmerman investigation was hijacked "in a number of ways" by outside forces, said the former police chief of Sanford, Florida.
Bill Lee, who testified Monday in Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial, told CNN's George Howell in an exclusive interview that he felt pressure from city officials to arrest Zimmerman to placate the public rather than as a matter of justice.
"It was (relayed) to me that they just wanted an arrest. They didn't care if it got dismissed later," he said. "You don't do that."
When Sanford police arrived on the scene on February 26, 2012, after Zimmerman fatally shot unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they conducted a "sound" investigation, and the evidence provided no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman at the scene, he said.
It had nothing to do with Florida's controversial Stand Your Ground law, he said; from an investigative standpoint, it was purely a matter of self-defense.
Question though is will prosecution parties accept the verdict of the jurors and be done with it or escalate further. Anyone else notice the majority of ethnicity of witness's and experts? Juror's and judge?
So will I. Certain individuals and groups have managed to turn an unfortunate incident into something racially motivated, and many of them seemed to think that a trial was a formality.
Remember the johanas mehserle trial? the bart shooting? There where race riots about it, i would not be surprised if there where ones if there was no conviction.
Is there still a bounty on Zimmerman's head? Either way I'm sure plenty of people now have his SSN and other personal information thanks to the news reports that didn't think to block it out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Bill Lee, who testified Monday in Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial, told CNN's George Howell in an exclusive interview that he felt pressure from city officials to arrest Zimmerman to placate the public rather than as a matter of justice."
Automatically Appended Next Post: "Bill Lee, who testified Monday in Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial, told CNN's George Howell in an exclusive interview that he felt pressure from city officials to arrest Zimmerman to placate the public rather than as a matter of justice."
That part especially...
Wait... this wasn't common knowledge? I thought something was obviously shady when the chief was forced out...
The situation with that chief is a lot more complicated than the defense is making it out to be. The full details aren't really going to change this case, though, so nobody is going to press the issue.
Rented Tritium wrote: The judge trying to insist on talking straight to Zimmerman is way out of line.
Agreed. I wonder if that alone is reversible error. It immediately predjudices the jury.
I wonder the same thing. There have been a lot of little nuggets that could be cited in an appeal in the nearly nonexistent chance that he gets convicted.
Rented Tritium wrote: The judge trying to insist on talking straight to Zimmerman is way out of line.
Agreed. He has legal representation for a reason, his counsel should have been addressed.
d-usa wrote: Many law enforcement positions are straight up political though. Judges and Sheriff are still partisan elections in places.
Something that I do have some issues with, but I can see the reasons for it. Criminal investigations should be carried out on the basis of facts and evidence, not political expediency.
Rented Tritium wrote: The judge trying to insist on talking straight to Zimmerman is way out of line.
Are you referring to the parts of yesterday's trial where the judge asked Zimmerman if he was going to take the stand?
All times but the last time.
The last time it was the right stuff, "are you sure" "did you make this decision on your own and without coercion" etc etc. Those are questions that need to be asked.
What wasn't ok was the entire day of badgering and demanding that he decide under oath, despite the fifth amendment giving him the right to change his mind at literally any moment. He was under absolutely no obligation to decide at that time and the judge badgered him all day to decide, going so far as to cut off his lawyer.
Okay, just wanted to make sure you and I were on the same page with that. I wasn't watching the trial, but caught that little bit on World News with Diane while waiting for dinner to finish, so while I saw some of the questions the judge asked, I wasn't sure if there were more.
MIAMI (AP) — Police and city leaders in Florida say they have taken precautionary steps for the possibility of mass protests or even civil unrest if George Zimmerman is acquitted in the killing of unarmed teen Trayvon Martin, particularly in African-American neighborhoods where passions run strongest over the case.
For months, officials in Sanford and South Florida have been working with pastors, youth coaches, community activists and summer camp counselors to stress a non-violent approach if Zimmerman walks free. At the same time, police say they have quietly been making plans for dealing with any potential emotional flare-ups that could quickly turn into storefront-smashing, car-burning riots.
"It's all right to be vocal, but we don't want to be violent," said the Rev. Walter T. Richardson, a longtime pastor and chairman of Miami-Dade County's Community Relations Board, which has been holding town hall-style meetings about the case. "We've already lost one soul and we don't want to lose any more."
Martin, from the suburb of Miami Gardens, was 17 when he died. He was in Sanford visiting his father and father's fiancee when Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, fatally shot him during a physical confrontation in a gated community in February 2012.
Martin's supporters portrayed the shooting as racially motivated, while Zimmerman, who identifies himself as Hispanic, claimed self-defense. Charged with second-degree murder, Zimmerman is pleading not guilty at the trial unfolding in a Sanford courthouse.
After police initially refused to arrest Zimmerman, there were many large but peaceful protests in both Sanford and the Miami area — as well as in New York and other cities. Those demonstrations included a mass walkout at nearly three dozen South Florida high schools.
Many in Sanford say they doubt the trial's outcome would spark local residents to take to the streets.
"The main focus was to get Zimmerman arrested and have him tried before a jury of his peers in a court of law," said Clayton Turner Jr., president of the Seminole County branch of the NAACP. "That was the main issue, not how we felt about whether he's innocent or guilty."
Not everyone is so certain.
Shantree Hall, 37, a lifelong Sanford resident who is black, said a Zimmerman acquittal might anger many in the African-American community who already feel they are less likely to obtain justice. The protests that led to Zimmerman's arrest taught many people that was the only way to get things done, she added.
"With Trayvon, the noise was too loud for them. That's why they couldn't sweep it under the rug," she said.
Recent Miami-area high school graduate Jude Bruno, 18, said he doesn't sense from friends and peers that there is a powder keg in South Florida waiting to explode should Zimmerman be found innocent. Bruno is chairman of the Miami-Dade County Youth Commission, which has been working with local youth groups to stress a peaceful reaction.
"We want to be the example to the world because the whole world is watching us," Bruno said.
Bruno spoke after a Community Relations Board meeting this week that drew several hundred people to a Miami Gardens library auditorium, some of them wearing "Justice for Trayvon" T-shirts and many asking sharp-edged questions about the trial. Still, the overall theme was peace.
"Please, no violence. We don't want any violence. None," said Miriam Martin, one of Trayvon Martin's aunts.
One potential advantage mentioned by several law enforcement officials: school is out for summer, meaning there is no ready-made rallying point for young people to gather.
Still, authorities are taking no chances, particularly in the Miami area which has had riots in the past connected to racially-charged court cases.
The worst rioting occurred in 1980 in the mostly-black Liberty City and Overtown neighborhoods of Miami, after four white police officers were acquitted in the death of Arthur McDuffie, a black Marine Corps veteran. McDuffie was beaten to death by police trying to stop him for a traffic violation. The three-day riot killed 18 people and did some $100 million in damage.
The Miami-Dade Police Department's intelligence operation, known as the Southeast Florida Fusion Center, has been combing social media to monitor signs of unusual interest in Zimmerman's trial. The center also acts as a platform for South Florida's numerous police agencies to quickly share information.
The department's deputy director, Juan Perez, said law enforcement's goal is to allow for peaceful rallies or protests but be ready in case violence flares. Perez said plans call for establishment of "First Amendment Zones" in certain neighborhoods if crowds do gather, so people can exercise their rights.
"We want to make sure people have the right to protest," Perez said. But if there are problems, he added: "Our job is going to be to minimize those opportunities to rob a store or shoplift."
To the north in Broward County, Sheriff Scott Israel and his staff have organized several meetings with African-American church and community leaders and recently began airing a public service TV ad featuring Miami Heat player James Jones. The ad's theme is "Raise Your Voice, Not Your Hands" and it also stresses a nonviolent approach.
"We don't have information about a specific event that might take place at the conclusion of the trial, but we encourage everyone to keep any protests peaceful," Israel said.
Similarly, in central Florida, religious leaders have been encouraged to attend the trial and discuss it with their congregations. Up to four courtroom seats were reserved for clergy on a rotating basis, and more than a dozen churches have held regular Monday prayer sessions during the trial.
I think they're right to prepare for it just in case, but I don't believe there will be any problems after he's acquitted. The region this is happening in is not very conducive to big riots in july. Seminole county doesn't have any areas with uninterrupted city blocks. There are canals and ditches everywhere breaking up the ability for a crowd to move freely. That's going to cut down on the critical mass.
Also, there hasn't been sufficient ramp-up and preparation for anger. I know it seems to you guys like there's something brewing, but I've seen brewing and this isn't it.
Even in Miami, where this is ostensibly brewing, there just isn't enough anger prep happening.
By MIKE SCHNEIDER and KYLE HIGHTOWER Associated Press
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) -- Prosecutors in George Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial want to ask jurors to consider lesser charges of third-degree murder and manslaughter.
Prosecutors said they would ask that the lesser charges be included as they hammer out of jury instructions on Thursday.
Defense attorneys say they want the six jurors to only consider the second-degree murder charge or not guilty.
Judge Debra Nelson said Thursday she would allow jurors to consider manslaughter. Arguments on third-degree murder had yet to be made.
The six jurors could begin deliberating as early as Friday.
Zimmerman is pleading not guilty to second-degree murder. He claims he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in self-defense last year.
CBS Tampa Bay wrote:Prosecutors are also seeking a child abuse charge against Zimmerman since Martin was 17 at the time of his death.
Seriously? I wasn't on Zimmerman's side before but after this... holy that's some serious railroading going on down there.
It's certainly unusual to add charges to an indictment after the trial has commenced, and especially after the Defense has rested. This might prejudice his right to a fair trial, the defense was only dealing with second degree murder.
These are all matters that Zimmerman should have been indicted for before the trial started.
Breotan wrote: Am I reading this correctly? The judge is allowing additional charges after the prosecution and defense have both rested their cases? o.O
By MIKE SCHNEIDER and KYLE HIGHTOWER
Associated Press
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) -- Prosecutors in George Zimmerman's second-degree murder trial want to ask jurors to consider lesser charges of third-degree murder and manslaughter.
Prosecutors said they would ask that the lesser charges be included as they hammer out of jury instructions on Thursday.
Defense attorneys say they want the six jurors to only consider the second-degree murder charge or not guilty.
Judge Debra Nelson said Thursday she would allow jurors to consider manslaughter. Arguments on third-degree murder had yet to be made.
The six jurors could begin deliberating as early as Friday.
Zimmerman is pleading not guilty to second-degree murder. He claims he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in self-defense last year.
CBS Tampa Bay wrote:Prosecutors are also seeking a child abuse charge against Zimmerman since Martin was 17 at the time of his death.
They're called "lesser included offenses" and they're technically always included by law, there's just leeway on if the judge instructs the jury to consider them.
I doubt child abuse will work as a lesser included charge, though.
It's like the Ridney King trial. The cops were found not guilty, so they threw some other charges in after the riots started. They aren't going to let him walk because they're scared of riots. The boy was hosed going into court.
When you have the President saying that Trevor Martin could have been his son, you know Zimmerman is getting convicted of something.
Not sure how 3rd degree murder is 'included' in the 2nd degree charge though. And if a necessary element is 'during a felony' and the prosecution has not brought the felony charge (in this case child abuse) into play to allow the defense to argue against it, it doesn't seem right.
Manslaughter yes. Third degree murder is a completely different charge. Battery, littering, assault, and sexual harrassment could be included too.
If she puts that to the jury thats an easily winnable appeal argument (assuming no acquittal).
Manslaughter yes. Third degree murder is a completely different charge. Battery, littering, assault, and sexual harrassment could be included too.
If she puts that to the jury thats an easily winnable appeal argument (assuming no acquittal).
What's weird to me is that... as I understand from Florida's case law, the lesser charge is Manslaugter. They should've stuck with that....
Now, the state is arguing for Aggravated Child Abuse (a felony) in order to get Murder in the 3rd degree. That's 10-20 years in prison, as opposed to manslaugter, which is 9.5 - 15 years.
o.O
Just an overall weird tactic.
Just saw a tweet that that judge gave the defense until 1pm to research and respond to the lesser charges.
But, are they usually tacked on afterthe prosecution/defense rested?
They're not tacked on at all. When you charge for any crime, the lesser charges are AUTOMATICALLY assumed as a matter of course. Nobody has to do anything.
The judge just has the ability to instruct the jury about it.
Now, some of the charges mentioned are a bit of a stretch as lesser includeds, so the prosecution is going to have to really make a case that in this case they share enough in common with murder 2 to count. This should not be easy. Some of them are reaaaally a stretch.
Murder III is not a lesser included. As noted, child abuses has to be proven. Thats a different crime. She charges the jury with that and thats a winnable appeal.
Prosecutors' request for a third-degree murder option was denied.
George Zimmerman has been on trial for second-degree murder, but jurors can now consider the lesser charge of manslaughter.
SANFORD, Fla. — A judge said Thursday that jurors in the George Zimmerman case can consider the lesser charge of manslaughter, but she won't allow them to consider third-degree murder.
SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - The judge presiding over the murder trial of George Zimmerman denied a defense request on Thursday that jurors be instructed the neighborhood watch volunteer did nothing illegal in deciding to follow Trayvon Martin, before the encounter in which he shot and killed the unarmed black teenager.
"I am not giving that instruction," Seminole County Judge Debra Nelson told Zimmerman defense lawyer Don West, who said no Florida law makes it illegal to follow somebody and that the proposed jury instruction was key to Zimmerman's self-defense case.
Nelson ruled after West failed to cite any law spelling out the legality of following someone by car or on foot. Evidence at Zimmerman's trial has shown it was his pursuit of Martin, with a concealed semiautomatic handgun, that set in motion the event that led to Martin's death.
Has the judge refused to discharge her duty in refusing to clarify the law for the jury?
Frazzled wrote: Murder III is not a lesser included. As noted, child abuses has to be proven. Thats a different crime. She charges the jury with that and thats a winnable appeal.
There's no "list" technically. There are some like manslaughter that are sure bets because they exist entirely inside the requirements for the regular charge, but if the prosecution makes the case that the charge requirements combined with events that the defense has not contested qualify for something else, then it can count.
In this case, Murder III is too much of a stretch and it looks like it was rightfully denied, but there still isn't an official list that a charge either is on or isn't on.
For instance, vehicular homicide is a valid lesser included for murder II, even though murder II doesn't require a car. It just means that if you have murder II and the defense has not contested the fact that a car was present, then you can include vehicular.
Rented Tritium wrote: They're not supposed to be their own referee, that's the judge's job. They're going to ask for everything they can ask for, that's their job.
I don't want attys on EITHER side to pull their punches. The judge decides what's too far.
I can get behind that, but there is going too far.
If a state prosecutor has to make stuff up (and this one is doing just that in my opinion) then the system is hosed. The state should not be able do that against a citizen and have it be considered good or normal. At what point did it become okay for the gov't to lie in order to take away a citizen's freedom?
Defense attorneys, I expect them to lie to help their clients, but the government should NOT be doing that. They either have a case, or they do not.
CptJake wrote: If a state prosecutor has to make stuff up (and this one is doing just that in my opinion) then the system is hosed. The state should not be able do that against a citizen and have it be considered good or normal. At what point did it become okay for the gov't to lie in order to take away a citizens freedom?
Defense attorneys, I expect them to lie to help their clients, but the government should NOT be doing that.
A state prosecutor should not lie about the law and say that self defense is an indication of malicious intent.
The judge should not refuse to clarify whether the mere act of following someone is lawful or not
My god that was a distasteful, race-baiting speech.... also urged jurors to just "use common sense," rather than close reading of the law and close examination of the facts, to find their verdict.
d-usa wrote: The main screw-up from the prosecution (IMO) was not filing Manslaughter charges instead of murder charges to begin with.
Manslaughter's requirements fit completely inside murder 2's requirements, so it was ALWAYS going to be a lesser included charge, so they really DID charge manslaughter to begin with.
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — Jurors in the George Zimmerman murder trial are asking the judge for a list of all the evidence.
Jurors asked for the inventory list about two hours after the started their deliberations Friday.
Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder, but the jury can also choose manslaughter. He claims he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in self-defense.
The jury question prompted the judge, prosecutors, Zimmerman and his defense attorneys to return to the courtroom. Jurors did not come into the courtroom.
Jurors began their deliberations after listening to closing arguments from the defense and a rebuttal from the prosecution.
This is an interested breakdown of today's closing statements:
Zimmerman Closing Analysis – O’Mara: No Evidence of Guilt; Guy: Martin Deserves the Truth
This morning saw the defense give its closing statement in Florida v. Zimmerman, the last opportunity for them to deliver their compelling narrative of innocence to the jury. And boy, did Mark O’Mara deliver. In a closing rich with evidence, facts, and the law, O’Mara focused the jury on their legal obligation to deliver a verdict consistent with the State’s burden to prove Zimmerman’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
O’Mara stepped them through every significant piece of evidence, and every single witness that had appeared in court. He reminded them of their duty to come to a verdict using only the evidence actually presented at trial, and that any “filling in the gaps” must be seen as contributing towards reasonable doubt, and therefore towards a not guilty verdict. He urged them to do the opposite of what the State had suggested in Bernie de la Rionda’s (BDLR) fact-free closing, when the State seemed to suggest that the jury not be overly concerned with the evidence but rather apply their “common sense.”
Mark O’Mara, defense counsel, delivers closing argument
O’Mara’s last few sentences were particularly powerful. He urged the jury, when they went into deliberations, to consider self-defense first. Because unless the State has disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, they must find George Zimmerman not guilty.
It was, in short, a masterful closing of the highest order, appealing to the civilized qualities of the jurors and their legal and moral charge.
In response, Mr. Guy delivered the State’s rebuttal closing in a manner that was even more fact-free than had been BLDR’s–something I hadn’t imagined possible. He started an immediate emotive appeal to the “human heart”, and never looked back. He referred to Martin as a “child” at least a half-dozen times, and Zimmerman as a “grown man”. What he did not do, what he could not do, was argue facts in evidence to exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. This was yet another childish and histrionic “performance” by the State in a prosecution that had long since become their Gallipoli.
Mark O’Mara Delivers Compelling Narrative of Innocence Based on Evidence & Law
Mark O’Mara began his closing argument today with the directness and command that have been his a hallmark throughout this trial. After thanking the jurors for their patience, he immediately focused their attention on his fears. He was concerned, he said, that the the jury might attempt to apply their normal decision-making process, the one that works perfectly well in day-to-day life, in their deliberations of the guilt, or non-guilt, of George Zimmerman.
Necessity for Jurors to be Deliberative and Focused on the Facts in Evidence
In normal life, he noted, we make decisions all the time on vague and incomplete facts–it’s just not worth the time and effort to nail everything down to the last degree of certainty. We move through life with a broad range of assumptions–we assume that car isn’t going to suddenly swerve into our lane, for example. We use these assumptions to fill in the holes left by the fact we don’t have. It’s perfectly normal and natural way to deal with a complicated world.
It is also, he said, completely inappropriate for determining guilt or the lack thereof. He feared, he said, that if the jury applied the vague, assumption-filled decision-making process of day-to-day life to this case, the result would be an injustice to Mr. Zimmerman. Instead, the jury is charged with applying a type of decision making with standards of certainty and proof substantially higher than that used in daily life.
Facts in Evidence, Not Emotion, Lead to a Just Verdict
This higher standard is a direct consequence of the fact that the American legal system places upon the State the burden of proving the guilt of the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not just in a general sense, but on each and every specific element of the crime charged.
The State, he noted, had seemed to suggest in the closing argument of Bernie de la Rionda (BDLR) that a looser standard than what was legally required, a standard merely of “common sense”. While it was, indeed, important to use common sense in deliberations, however, the standard of guilt–beyond a reasonable doubt–meant a finding much more substantive and certain than the phrase “common sense” might suggest.
Assumptions and Speculation Lead to Injustice
In this courtroom, and in the jury’s deliberations, they were not allowed to fill in any gaps with assumptions of what might have been. If there was no evidence on an issue, the issue was as a matter of law unproven, or at least uncertain–and any uncertainty had to be resolved in favor of the defendant, as it contributed to reasonable doubt.
As an aside, at this point in his closing O’Mara delivered what has become one of his trademark moves, a subtle, swift jab to the larynx of the State’s theory of the case. What do you know about Trayvon Martin? Not much. But if a decision was made by the State to not present some particular evidence about Trayvon Martin, you mustn’t’ consider the matter. O’Mara might as well have told the jury to not think about pink elephants-thinking about what the State might have held back about Trayvon Martin could only have been at the forefront of their minds after O’Mara’s low-key remark.
His concern, he said, was that the way decisions must be made in deliberations was sufficiently different from how we normally make them that it requires particular care on the part of the jury to not default to them more normal, comfortable approach.
Zimmerman Has No Duty To Testify, Although In A Sense He Had
O’Mara noted that George Zimmerman was not required to prove anything, was not even required to testimony–although, he noted, you have heard him testify, repeatedly, in the many audio and video recordings introduced into evidence by the State. This was another nice move by O’Mara, as it implicitly gathered to Zimmerman the benefit of a defendant who “has testified,” without ever placing his client in the jeopardy of a cross-examination.
The Jurors Are “Living the Constitution”
The burden, O’Mara emphasized again, is on the State to prove Zimmerman’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Why have such a high burden on the State, why is it important? In answer O’Mara began quoting from our Founding Fathers, including the great American lawyer John Adams, as well as Thomas Jefferson. “You,” he told the jury, “are living the Constitution in your deliberations.”
State Raises Reasonable Doubt, While Defense Drives to Certainty
O’Mara mentioned that he had come to refer to Florida v. Zimmerman as the bizarro case, because it seemed to be turned all around. Normally, it was the State prosecutors who spoke in terms of definite findings of fact, of “did” and “had” and “must,” and it was the defense that spoke in terms of uncertainty, of “what if,” and “could have,” and “might have been.” It is the State that has the charge to provide near-certainty, the defense lawyers who are charged to create a doubt. Yet “how many what-ifs have you heard from the State in this case?” he asked pointedly. (Certainly, this writer lost count weeks ago.)
He knew how prosecutors ought to approach the pursuit of a conviction, O’Mara said, because he used to be a prosecutor before, and used to use those definite terms when asking a jury to return a verdict of guilty. “Those,” he said, “are the words of good prosecutors.” ( There was more than a little emphasis on the “good”.)
The Reasonable Doubt Continuum, and the Threshold for Guilt
At this point O’Mara pulled out two charts, one illustrating the continuum of “doubt” from considerable to beyond a reasonable with respect to the criminal charge, and the other taking a similar approach with regard to the defense of self-defense. In both cases, he pointed out, a guilty verdict could be returned only if the jury was convinced the State had successfully secured a position at the highest levels of certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt. The vast majority of those continuums required, mandated, that the jury return a verdict of not guilty.
State Must Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt That No Self-Defense
In the context of self-defense he noted that the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman did NOT act in self-defense. If the jury concluded that self-defense was likely in this case, their verdict must be not guilty. If they decided self defense was unlikely, but might have been? Not guilty. If they found self-defense was less than likely? Not guilty. Even if they decided that self-defense was highly unlikely in this case, but they retained a reasonable doubt–not guilty.
In terms of the criminal charge the State has to prove guilt to the exclusion of any reasonable doubt whatever. Only then may the jury return a verdict of guilty. Only then.
Let’s Talk About the Evidence
“So now,” O’Mara segued, “let’s talk about the evidence.” That simple sentence could only reinforce how little BDLR had touched upon the evidence in his lengthy, meandering closing the day before.
Zimmerman, the “Wannabe” Cop
He started with the contention by the State that George Zimmerman was a “wannabe cop”, with every evil connotation they could associate with the phrase. Indeed, O’Mara acknowledged, Zimmerman was a “wannabe cop.” And a wannabe prosecutor, lawyer, and helpful neighbor. He reminded the jurors of all the law enforcement officers who had testified during the trial, called by both the State and the defense (sometimes the same individual by both). They were not merely wannabe cops, they had actually become cops–and all, without exception, had found a life calling in honorable service to protect their communities. Just as George, in his own small way, sought to serve and protect.
What Was Learned When State Called Professors To Testify?
The State had an obligation to prove to you that George had engaged in inappropriate conduct, if they wished you to use that conduct in support of guilt. So, who did they bring? Two professors. The first said that George Zimmerman was a nice guy, who wanted to be a lawyer and a State prosecutor. The other professor, O’Mara reminded them, had provided a fairly comprehensive lecture on the law of self-defense. (It’s likely the jurors also recalled Captain Carter greeting George Zimmerman warmly by name as he entered the courtroom.)
Why Had the State Withheld Evidence from the Jury?
O’Mara then reminded the jurors that the State had also provided them with a half-dozen additional audio recordings of Zimmerman phoning the police to report other suspicious activities. Actually, he corrected himself, the State had only provided five of those tapes–it was the defense that made sure the sixth tape was included. Why, he pondered, would the State have left out that sixth tape? He encouraged the jury to listen to that sixth tape themselves, and see if they could discern a motivation by the State that was consistent with the State’s claim that they were simply seeking justice.
And when you listen to the tapes, O’Mara suggested, listen to Zimmerman’s voice. Is he shouting at the police to get over here and get these guys, get these young black males? No. The only shouting, in fact, has been done by the State. Don’t, he urged the jury, allow the State to put their own words, their own ton, into the mouth of George Zimmerman.
The Crime Wave of Twin Lakes
O’Mara talked about the wave of crime through Twin Lakes, and told the juror they would find a pile of police reports about these crimes in the evidence they would receive. Look through it, he urged them. Was George Zimmerman frustrated? Of course, would it not be reasonable to be frustrated under the circumstances?
Where Was the Witness to Zimmerman’s Seething Hatred? Anyone?
At its opening statement the State had suggested that Zimmerman was “playing cop,” and “patrolling” the neighborhood, overzealously looking for trouble. In fact, Zimmerman took the same trip to Target every Sunday evening, to gather the foodstuffs he used to make his lunches for the week. Indeed, there was not a single witness who testified that Zimmerman patrolled the neighborhood. Why not? The State had not produced a single witness who could personally testify as to his allegedly “angry, seething” tone of voice? Why not?
State Asking, Demanding, that Jury Adopt Its Assumptions
Instead, the State wants you to assume that because they say it, it must be true. And you would have to assume it, because there’s no actual evidence. The State wants to make Zimmerman out to be a hateful man looking for people to harass. Yet they have no evidence, none. Well, if Mr, Guy thinks, O’Mara challenged, he can show me wrong in his rebuttal.
Recall the home invasion victim that did testify, Bartolo. If Zimmerman had come to her and ranted like an angry maniac about criminals, somehow swore vengeance, surely the State would have elicited such testimony. Why didn’t they? She did testify about what Zimmerman did, however. Zimmerman gave her a lock to secure her door. He gave her his phone number in case she needed any help. He offered to have her spend time with his wife Shellie, to comfort her.
The night of the event, did this angry, seething vengeful wannabe cop run out of his car with his gun in his hand to track Martin down? No, he did just what he was told to do–identify the direction in which Martin had gone.
The Only People In Case Who Ever Shouted Expletives Were State Prosecutors
What about the language, the expletives uttered by Zimmerman, that the State used as the cornerstone for its characterization of Zimmerman as consumed by hate, spite, and ill-will, by a depraved mind? You’ve heard the words enough, O’Mara noted, unwilling to repeat them again. Certainly he was not going to shout them out. Mr. Guy shouted them out. Mr. de la Rionda shouted them out. But George Zimmerman never shouted them out. Not that night, not ever.
Where’s the Hatred, Ill-Will, Spite, Required for a Depraved Mind?
O’Mara then presented a ten-foot long graphic representing the timeline of Zimmerman’s non-emergency call to the police. It was somewhat difficult to follow some of his discussion here, as the chart was not visible to me. But the real key points didn’t really require sight of the chart. O’Mara noted that the State wants to make a big deal out of the dispatcher saying, “We don’t need you to do that,” but also wanted you to ignore, “let me know if he does anything else.” At the point where Zimmerman says, please get an officer over here,” O’Mara pauses and asks, “Is that evidence of hate, ill-will, spite?”
At the moment when Zimmerman mutters, “These donkey-caves, they always get away,” O’Mara paused again and asked, “Is that hate, ill-will, spite? Did George Zimmerman say those words as Mr. Guy did, as Mr. de la Rionda did?
Then Trayvon runs, and the dispatcher asks, “What’s he doing, which way is he going?” Is that, O’Mara wonders, the moment that the wannabe cop was supposed to have cracked, the straw that broke the camels back? Is there some crescendo of hatred evident in the tape?
When the dispatcher asks, “Are you following,” what does George Zimmerman say in response that shows his hatred, his angry desire to track down and kill Trayvon Martin? He says yes. When the dispatcher tells him, “We don’t need you to do that?” is that when George Zimmerman snaps? No, he simply says, “OK.”
Where is the Evidence that Zimmerman Pursued Martin?
Indeed, O’Mara asks, is there any evidence whatever to support the State’s conjecture that George Zimmerman ran after Trayvon Martin after he told the dispatcher, “OK”? O’Mara issued another challenge to the State–let them show you, he told the jury, with evidence that George Zimmerman so much as walked after Trayvon Martin after he said “OK.” Because the evidence is simply not there.
The State wants to suggest that the encounter occurred some distance down the dog walk, as if Zimmerman had pursued Martin toward’s his destination. But based on what evidence. We know that the little flashlight with the key ring was found at the T, right where Zimmerman says Martin confronted him. Jenna Lauer’s testimony was also consistent with the confrontation starting at the T, as was Sudyka’s testimony, and that of Manalo–all State witnesses.
The Animated Video
O’Mara then spun up his animated video, which simply portrayed the actions as purported by the defense. The video itself didn’t strike me as particularly compelling, but the fact that it showed the defense’s recounting of events was completely consistent with the evidence of the case, and therefore both were consistent with a narrative of innocence, was compelling.
What Was Martin Doing During the Four Minutes He Could Have Gone Home?
O’Mara then turned the tables on the State. They’ve raised questions about these mysterious two minutes, he noted, and about what George Zimmerman was doing during that time. But what about Trayvon Martin? What was he doing? He started running at 7:11:47, as noted in the non-emergency call of Zimmerman. The call of Jenna Lauer that captured the sound of the fighting, and which she made within seconds of hearing the first verbal exchange of the confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman, was at 7:16:11. So there are almost four minutes of time from when Trayvon Martin ran until their actual confrontation.
Having the Jury Sit, in Silence, for Four Minutes
At this point O’Mara, who had already been speaking for more than an hour, announced he would take a short break. Before they recessed, however, he wanted to ask the jury to simply stay where they were, sit in place, not talk, until he told them otherwise. Then, in a wonderful piece of courtroom theater, he simply stayed silent for four minutes. Finally, he said, “that’s how long Trayvon Martin had to run, if he wanted to run, four minutes. To reach safety, he had to run perhaps slightly further than a man could throw a football. Yet in the same time that a man can run a mile, Trayvon Martin was unable to move even a couple of hundred feet. Or unwilling to.
And, by the way, O’Mara noted, did the State make any effort to explain to you what Trayvon Martin was doing for those four minutes? Why not? Does that raise doubt in your mind about their theory of the case?
After a brief recess, O’Mara was back on the four minutes. We know, he said, that Trayvon Martin had ample opportunity to secure safety, to get home. We know that. But he didn’t.
Somebody WAS Filled With Ill-will, Spite, Hatred–Just Not Zimmerman
It’s true, he said, that someone was angry that night, filled with ill-will, spite, and hatred. The person who felt those emotions was the guy who could have gone home, but chose not to, who chose instead to wait. The State, O’Mara said in his first show of outrage, dares to tell you that Trayvon Martin made no decisions that night? Well, they say they want you to use your common sense, let’s do so. Trayvon Martin was doing something, for certain.
In an interesting twist, O’Mara then highlighted how weak the State’s theory of the case was in the face of countervailing evidence. Let’s toss away, he suggested all of George Zimmerman’s statements consistent with self-defense. The State says they are self-serving lies. Ok, let’s say he never made them. What does that leave us with?
It leaves us, O’Mara said, with this–and he held up the worst of the bloody photos of Zimmerman’s face, his nose crushed sideways and blood running down his lip, taken by Officer Tim Smith while Zimmerman sat in his patrol car.
You, he told the jury, should tell the State with your verdict, don’t ever come back to us with a case like this. Because you can go into deliberations right now, place the burden of proof of self defense on the defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and you would still have to conclude not guilty. But of course, that’s not the legal standard, the legal standard is the State has to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It merely illustrates how far they are from being able to do so.
Of course, O’Mara said, I’m not going to suggest that Trayvon Martin did anything bad . . . (and don’t think about pink elephants).
Zimmerman, Wannabe Cop?
O’Mara then moved back to the State’s wannabe cop theory. This wanna be cop, he noted, was offered a chance to be as close to a police officer as his life was likely to take him. A patrol car, with flashing yellow lights. A uniform of sorts. A charge to genuinely patrol the neighborhood. And what did this desperate wannabe cop say to this offer? No thanks. Hatred, spite, ill-will?
Evidence Favorable to the State, Gutted
O’Mara then spoke to the few witnesses who presented some appearance of favorable evidence for the State. Frankly, he needn’t have bothered, because neither Bernie de la Rionda nor Mr. Guy ever referenced any of these witnesses (but, of course, he could not know yet what Guy might say in his rebuttal). Bahadoor’s credibility was quickly exposed for the shell it was, Sudkya he treated kindly as simply traumatized by the event, Manalo as having been misled by the widespread distribution of the 12-year-old Trayvon photos.
Then O’Mara got to Rachel Jeantel, and sighed. Clearly, he said, she didn’t want to be involved in the case. Did he care that she’d lied about her age, or her name, or about being in the hospital? No. But clearly her crystalline memories at her deposition by BDLR, Crump, et al. of a phone conversation that took place weeks earlier was simply not credible. In any case, the setting in which the deposition was taken–in Trayvon Martin’s living room, seated next to the crying mother, surrounded by Trayvon’s family and family lawyers, and speaking to a State prosecutor whose job is to send people to jail–it’s hard to imagine a more coercive environment or how that would have affected her recall. Remember, “oh, you want that, too?”
Indeed, the more coercive the environment and the more it might have influenced her testimony, the more that testimony must be discounted, and the greater the uncertainty and reasonable doubt.
Stepping Through Every Witness, State and Defense, In Search of Guilt–Nothing
At that point O’Mara continued to transition from one witness to the next, both State and defense, providing a brief recollection of their testimony and its implications for a verdict. Of the few whose testimony seemed to favor the State, he had already addressed Bahadoor, Sudyka, and Manalo. Drs. Rao and Bao pretty much discredited themselves. Sabryna Fulton, well, of course she wanted to believe it was Trayvon’s voice. The half-brother Jaharvis didn’t really know. Tracey Martin had first concluded that the screams were not those of his son.
All of the other witnesses, whether called by the State or defense, provided testimony that was entirely consistent with Zimmerman’s narrative of self-defense and innocence. Many of them compelling so, especially the defense witnesses Jorge Meza, Dr. Di Maio, Adam Pollack, Mark Osterman, and Dennis Root.
“He Had No Other Choice”–Uncontested Testimony of Dennis Root
Speaking of Dennis Root, the expert in the defensive use of force, he was asked by BDLR, “George Zimmerman had other choices that night other than to shoot Trayvon Martin, didn’t he?” And Root answered, “No, he did not.” So, sure, Root was a defense witness, maybe you want to discount his testimony because of that. But why didn’t the State offer its own defensive use of force expert, to describe these purported alternatives that Zimmerman had at his disposal? Did they provide so much as one shred of evidence for these claimed alternatives?
Recall the grass stains on Martin’s knees, and the wetness on the back of Zimmerman’s jacket and pants—totally consistent with Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense, of being knocked to the ground, mounted, and beat upon, head smashed into sidewalk.
Weighing the Testimony–Credible, nor Not?
O’Mara also spoke to how the jurors were to evaluate and weight the testimony of different witnesses. Were they all honest or straightforward? Take Mora, the Sanford PD coordinator for Neighborhood Watch programs and her forthright responses to questions, all entirely consistent with her earlier depositions. Compare her to Bahador, whose key piece of testimony–that she had heard movement from left to right, suggestive of a pursuit–was uttered for the first time when she appeared in court, after having consulted with Prosecutor de la Rionda the night before.
Setting Sympathy for Martin Family Aside in Seeking A Just Verdict
He reminded the jury that he had asked them at voir dire if they would be able to return a verdict of not guilty with the Martin family in the courtroom, if the State had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and they said they could. It was their duty, he said, to base their deliberations on the facts in evidence, and their common sense, but not assumptions, not speculation, as the State had suggested. You must, he said, leave your natural sympathy for the Martin family’s loss at the door, outside of your judgment of guilty or not guilty.
The Law of Self-Defense
Next O’Mara transitioned into the law of self-defense. Zimmerman did not need to think he was going to die, he noted, in order to be justified in using deadly force in self-defense. He merely needed to have believed he was going to suffer serious bodily injury. The threat didn’t even need to be actual or real, so long as a reasonable person would have perceived it to be real.
The jury would be read a number of laws by the judge, he told them, but there were also laws they would not be read because they did not exist. There was no law against merely following somebody, for example. Following somebody suspicious and reporting them to police is not a crime, not an act of wrongdoing.
Why Had the State Withheld, Distorted Evidence?
He then returned to the theme of the many things the State had, for whatever reason, not chosen to present to the jury.
Why had it been the defense who showed the jury that Tracey Martin had first denied that the screaming was the voice of his son? If the State was seeking justice, the truth, why hadn’t they presented that evidence to the jury?
Why didn’t the State tell you about the many robberies, the veritable crime wave, overrunning Twin Lakes, almost entirely the work of young black men? Why had it been the chore of the defense to ensure those records were in the evidence for the jury’s consideration, if the State was seeking justice, the truth? Where was the State’s expert on defensive force? The State’s expert on gunshot wounds? Remember how in their opening the State claimed that a key indicator of guilt that Zimmerman had pressed his gun into Trayvon Martin? Where was their expert to counter Dr. Di Maio’s conclusion that this never occured?
Why, O’Mara asked, had Mr. Guy and Mr. de la Rionda shouted those expletives at you, over and over. You heard the tapes, he reminded them, and Zimmerman never shouted those words. Were they shouting them to help you find the truth? Do we really need demonstrations of anger from the prosecutors towards the jury?
Where Was Even One Piece of Evidence That Zimmerman Attacked Martin?
Clearly there was a confrontation between the two men, O’Mara noted, given Zimmerman’s plain injuries. But where were Martin’s injuries, if it had been Zimmerman who attacked him? There were none, except some minor cuts on his hands consistent with having punched someone.
Indeed, he asked, was there even one piece of evidence that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin. That Zimmerman did anything to justify Trayvon Martin’s blows against him? Mr. Guy, he noted, could point any such evidence out when he rebutted. Even the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, if believed, showed only that ZImmerman may have verbally challenged Martin. But what’s the appropriate response to such a verbal challenge. Mr. Root, the defensive force expert, told us–a counter verbal challenge. Not striking a blow, breaking someone’s nose, driving them to the ground, mounting them, and continuing to beat them while they screamed for help and neighbors threatened to call 911. Indeed, if Martin had been shot through the hip and survived, is there any doubt that the State prosecutors would have charged and tried him for aggravated assault?
Martin Armed Himself with His Fists and the Sidewalk
The State made much of the fact that Zimmerman was armed with a gun, and Martin merely with Skittles, O’Mara said. He then lugged out into the court room a large piece of sidewalk. That, he said, was not an unarmed teenager, with nothing but Skittles trying to get home. Martin had armed himself with dangerous items, with his fists, and with concrete. Further, the claim by the State that a concrete sidewalk could not be a weapon, could not cause great bodily harm, was disgusting.
As he began to conclude his remarks, O’Mara said that he believed that the defense had actually proven Zimmerman innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Not that this was the burden, of course. The burden was on the State to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But that’s how lopsided the evidence was.
Consider Self-Defense First–If That, We Can All Go Home
In a few minutes, he noted, Mr. Guy was going to stand up and call my client a liar, and a murderer. Let’s skip the details of the criminal charges for a moment. Let’s look only at self-defense. Do you think that Zimmerman may have acted in lawful self-defense. Just may have? If so, you can stop right there. Because if you have a reasonable doubt that self-defense has been disproved, you have to find George Zimmerman not guilty. Because unless the State has disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, self-defense stands, and if it stands it is an absolute defense to any use-of-force criminal charge–to murder, to manslaughter, to aggravated battery, everything.
If you conclude that the State has not disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you need go no further–your only choice is not guilty. And if you look at this evidence, these photos of these injuries, you have to have at least a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
It doesn’t mean he acted perfectly in every way. Your job is not to find the defendant “innocent”. Your job is merely to determine whether the State has me their burden to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they have not, the verdict must be not guilty.
And then O’Mara closed with perhaps the strongest line of an excellent close: “Go back in that room, he urged, and talk first about self-defense. Because if it’s self-defense, we’re done here.” And, he didn’t need to add, you all get to end your sequester and go home.
With that, the defense was done.
State Prosecutor John Guy Offers Rebuttal
Next up for the State’s rebuttal, was Mr. Guy. From the first words out of his mouth it was clear that his presentation was to be even more fact-free than that of Mr. de la Rionda had been.
“The human heart,” he stated, “guides us in big things and little things. Let us look into the heart of this child.”
Referring to the towering, 17-year-old high school athlete Trayvon Martin as a “child” and the clinically obese 28-year-old George Zimmerman as a “grown man” was to be a recurring theme throughout Guy’s remarks.
He emphasized to the jury that Rachel Jeantel–the State’s key witness–was a “human being,” as if the issue were in doubt.
He seemed desperate to return to the State’s long standing practice of shouting “a-holes” and “f’ing punks” at the top of their lungs, but this utility of this technique had been destroyed by O’Mara’s mockery of the practice.
Guy spoke in histrionic scary/creepy voice reminiscent of some kind of serial-killer preacher from a low-budget horror movie, in an apparent effort to add weight to statements completely unmoored from any facts or evidence.
“The defendant LIED, about stuff that REALLY MATTERED,” he said, although he neglected to specify the lies or why they really mattered. “The defendant told SO MANY lies, that’s why we’re here.” But again, he declined to state what these lies were.
“Where was the defendant for those critical two minutes,” he asked, peppering the jury with questions as if that would advance the State’s theory of the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
“I don’t have any charts or timelines,” he said, referencing O’Mara’s demonstrative tools, “I’m asking you to use your heart.” I only wish I made up that last part.
“That child”–there it is again–”had EVERY RIGHT to be at 7-11, to walk home.” As if anyone had contested these matters. “To be afraid of being followed, after all isn’t that every child’s greatest fear, being followed home by a stranger.” It was as if he believed the only photo the jury had ever seen of Trayvon Martin was that of the smiling 12-year-old, and not the 7-11 photo of the 17-year-old Trayvon Martin towering over the 5′ 10″ clerk.
He mocked the claims that Zimmerman had been able to draw his gun while Trayvon Martin was mounted atop him, and urged the jurors to learn this for themselves by mounting each other in their deliberations. (Seriously.) [whembly: eh... wtf?]
Guy then began a series of speaking points, every one of which was a question, “If this . . . ,” and “If that . . . ,” in a manner perfectly appropriate for a defense counsel seeking to raise a reasonable doubt, but bordering on the mad for a prosecutor seeking to advance his theory of the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
At some points he seemed to spin off into the simply nonsensical, as when he announced “This is not a case about self-defense, it’s a case about self-denial.” What?
He then jumped on the “Zimmerman lied,” train. “It wasn’t 10 seconds from the time ZImmerman got off the phone with the dispatcher until Trayvon confronted him, it was two minutes.” Yet . . . now the State conceded that it was Martin who confronted Zimmerman? [whembly: I'm confused as hell 'bout this too]
Zimmerman could not possible have had his head smashed against a sidewalk as many times as he claimed, or he’d be dead. So how many times would be an acceptable number? 10, 5, even once?
Then things got very strange when Guy asked, “Didn’t Trayvon Martin have the right to self-defense, too?” So, apparently the complete absence of injuries of Trayvon Martin (other than the gunshot that ended the beating) allowed for him to act in self-defense, but George Zimmerman’s real and bloody injuries did not?
Guy mocked the alleged assertion by the defense that Zimmerman was a responsible gun owner by noting, “What did he do after he shot Trayvon Martin? Did he yell for an ambulance?” Having been a firearms trainer for more than two decades, that was the first time I’ve heard “calling an ambulance” as one of the characteristics of a responsible gun owner.
At one point Guy began to read an incorrect characterization of reasonable doubt to the jury, leading to O’Mara’s sole objection.
And with that, the State ended their rebuttal, and the matter returned to Judge Nelson for the charging of the jury, and to the jury for their deliberations.
This is an interesting video about the evidence of the case.
This video is of Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, where he discusses the background, evidence and reality of the George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin situation.
Spoiler:
Zimmerman is innocent. There is no way to come to any other conclusion when you look at the facts involved. people need to stop thinking and making conclusions based on emotion and start using some objective logic.
DeathReaper wrote: This is an interesting video about the evidence of the case.
This video is of Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, where he discusses the background, evidence and reality of the George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin situation.
Spoiler:
Zimmerman is innocent. There is no way to come to any other conclusion when you look at the facts involved. people need to stop thinking and making conclusions based on emotion and start using some objective logic.
It was interesting in the first part, but he seemed to be going a bit afield in the second half.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One of the things that was interesting that was brought up in the video was how Skittles and the drink Martin had are ingredients mixed in with Codiene to make something called "Lean" that can make a person violent and how Martin's autopsy revealed brain and liver damage consistant with consumption.
If he was in fact a user, I wonder how long it would have been before this stuff killed him.
Florida doesn't seem to have the imperfect self defense clause--which while IANAL--if I understand correctly--states that either it was self defense or it wasn't.
Florida doesn't seem to have the imperfect self defense clause--which while IANAL--if I understand correctly--states that either it was self defense or it wasn't.
That's what the legal eagle community that I follow are questioning the defense's tactic.... another reason why they didn't really try to bring in the Stand Your Ground thing is that ZM was already on the ground.
Regardless the outcome of this case, this will be parsed/reviewed ad nauseum for days.
EDIT: I wish I can post twitter posts (get on that legos!)...
One of the guys on the grounds is reporting that it's 5-1 in favor of acquittal. The lone hold out is the one asking clarification on the Manslaughter instructions.
EDIT #2: I don't see how anyone would know that... isn't it almost impossible to know this already? o.O
d-usa wrote: I was hoping that it would be manslaughter, but not guilty it will be.
I would not be surprised if there will be protests, but this bloodlust for riots in this thread is pretty sad.
Well, I am sure civil trials will be next.
Bloodlust for it? Come on man, your stretching pretty damn hard on that one. At the worst, it's acknowledging the multitude of social media postings calling for riots in this event.
I've already seen the reactions coming in over facebook. It seems that my peers are still very much in the, "Trayvon was just an innocent kid" that we saw at the beginning of the trial...
Justice as our society calls it was done, nothing we can do about it.
d-usa wrote: I was hoping that it would be manslaughter, but not guilty it will be.
I would not be surprised if there will be protests, but this bloodlust for riots in this thread is pretty sad.
Well, I am sure civil trials will be next.
Bloodlust for it? Come on man, your stretching pretty damn hard on that one. At the worst, it's acknowledging the multitude of social media postings calling for riots in this event.
Like the "lets carpool down there" twitter posting here that said nothing about riots?
d-usa wrote: I was hoping that it would be manslaughter, but not guilty it will be.
I would not be surprised if there will be protests, but this bloodlust for riots in this thread is pretty sad.
Well, I am sure civil trials will be next.
I believe that Not Guilty by means of self defense--removes all civil culpability (so no civil suit). Not sure though.
Was he actually found guilty by means of self defense? I thought that he would have bad to file some special motions and stuff, and that this wasn't the course the lawyers took?
The possibility of riots is a very real fear for many. As someone that's seen them happen first hand in Cincinnati, the mob mentality that initiates a race riot is frightening. The media is as much to blame for this due to their wildy irresponsible coverage of this case.
MSNBC has Al Sharpton as one of their primary commentators for gods sake.
d-usa wrote: I was hoping that it would be manslaughter, but not guilty it will be.
I would not be surprised if there will be protests, but this bloodlust for riots in this thread is pretty sad.
Well, I am sure civil trials will be next.
I believe that Not Guilty by means of self defense--removes all civil culpability (so no civil suit). Not sure though.
Was he actually found guilty by means of self defense? I thought that he would have bad to file some special motions and stuff, and that this wasn't the course the lawyers took?
His plea did claim self-defense, as far as I know.
Relapse wrote: Now we shall see if Zimmerman get nailed for violating civil rights the way the LA cops were after they were acquitted.
Why would he?
"Violating civil rights" is something that, effectively, only an agency or other government entity can do to you.
So unless his "neighborhood watch" was funded with tax dollars and actually part of the local police department and not an initiative that he and the other neighbors came up with very little oversight/collaboration with local law enforcement, there is very little room for a "violation of civil rights".
He didn't pick up his shell casing and it ended up in a protected watershed. Obama is going to have the EPA arrest him and convict him and throw him into a federal jail full of black people!
Relapse wrote: Now we shall see if Zimmerman get nailed for violating civil rights the way the LA cops were after they were acquitted.
Why would he?
"Violating civil rights" is something that, effectively, only an agency or other government entity can do to you.
So unless his "neighborhood watch" was funded with tax dollars and actually part of the local police department and not an initiative that he and the other neighbors came up with very little oversight/collaboration with local law enforcement, there is very little room for a "violation of civil rights".
It depends on how involved the police were with the watch I imagine.
SickSix wrote: Those 6 women have renewed some of my lost faith in humanity.
Not guilty was the right call.
Yep, with all the evidence in, there was no way there should have been any other verdict. I am still surprised, though that he was found totaly innocent and I somehow think that he hasn't seen the last of a courtroom. The mob wants him and will try to get him one way or the other.
After that disastrous execution of their case, I don't blame the jury. That would be silly. If anyone should really be blamed its the prosecution for turning a toss up into a clear land side.
So this basically means that it is legal to kill anyone in Florida as long as there are not witnesses. You can corner an unarmed person with a gun, shoot them, and claim it was self defence. And there is no way for prosecutor for prove beyond shadow of a doubt that it wasn't.
I cannot know what what happened that night, but what is clear that Florida's laws on self defence are absolutely insane.
Crimson wrote: So this basically means that it is legal to kill anyone in Florida as long as there are not witnesses. You can corner an unarmed person with a gun, shoot them, and claim it was self defence. And there is no way for prosecutor for prove beyond shadow of a doubt that it wasn't.
I cannot know what what happened that night, but what is clear that Florida's laws on self defence are absolutely insane.
So... you don't know what happened that night, but your still passing judgement?
I don't think it's Florida's laws that are in the wrong here...
In America you are innocent until proven guilty. Proof of guilt was not in anyway shape or form presented, and so Zimmerman has not been found guilty.
that's some serious railroading going on down there.
