Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CptJake wrote:
And in '89, and in the 90s, and as recently as 2003 (but that one was not race related.)

It is honestly amazing to me that many of you dismiss the possibility of riots in Florida, especially when the press and professional race baiters and social media can (and seem to be) pushing race as an issue for this.

1. I wasn't aware of this information. Thanks. I always have difficulties equating Miami with the rest of Florida.
2. I still wouldn't call out the guard. I'd be ready but thats a major deal and lots of opportunity costs. Plus this is in Sanford, thats the middle of the state, near Orlando. I guess Disney could send its einsatztruppen if needed. I'd bet Disney has an entire robot army ready to roll.

It's almost like the prosecution isn't even trying anymore.....

A 2nd degree murder charge was very much an over charge with what was known about the shooting. They may have been hoping Z's lawyers would try to plea down to manslaughter. The elements needed to convict on the 2nd degree charge were going to be hard to prove even with better coached witnesses.

That testimony's brutal. And this was a state's witness?

 Seaward wrote:
That testimony's brutal. And this was a state's witness?

Yup... this is the prosecution team's witness to the fight and um, he pretty much laid out the entire defense case.



Am I wrong about this?

Next witness just affirmed TM on top punching Z "MMA style" when shot.

And that there is what you call witness for the defense establishing self defense ladies and germs. UNless they have a witness showing Z physically starting the fighting they are in deep doo doo because thats self defense at this point.

IT is bad that Im just waiting to see the inevitable backlash from this?

 Frazzled wrote:
I guess Disney could send its einsatztruppen if needed. I'd bet Disney has an entire robot army ready to roll.

Or put them all in time out on the "It's A Small World" ride until they learn to play nice

 whembly wrote:
Yup... this is the prosecution team's witness to the fight and um, he pretty much laid out the entire defense case.



Am I wrong about this?

Nope. The prosecution's eyewitness has told the jury that Trayvon Martin was on top of George Zimmerman, that George Zimmerman had cried out for help, that Trayvon Martin was moving his arms in a downward motion (that will likely corroborate the injuries George Zimmerman sustained), and that the witness from his position as an observer knew that what was happening was serious and serious enough to call 911.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Next witness just affirmed TM on top punching Z "MMA style" when shot.

And that there is what you call witness for the defense establishing self defense ladies and germs. UNless they have a witness showing Z physically starting the fighting they are in deep doo doo because thats self defense at this point.

At this point I don't think the defense even need to call any of their witnesses, they could also rest their case as it stands.

From the looks of it, the prosecution brought in Mike Nifong as a consultant.

I have a query. Why wouldn't an eyewitness account be brought first, rather than pick through the odd hearsay/interpretation stuff that we went through with the over-the-phone "witness"?

Is it simply a coinflip to determine who brings the first one? Standard procedural issue?

 sourclams wrote:
I have a query. Why wouldn't an eyewitness account be brought first, rather than pick through the odd hearsay/interpretation stuff that we went through with the over-the-phone "witness"?

Is it simply a coinflip to determine who brings the first one? Standard procedural issue?

I suspect they were hoping that the young lady would be a much draw a lot more sympathy that the middle aged white dude would.

 Seaward wrote:
From the looks of it, the prosecution brought in Mike Nifong as a consultant.

if the glove does not fit you must acquit!

I've watched a little of the live feed, and I've got to say...

Florida needs to learn to not wear button-down collars with suits.

Hey man. It's hot down there

Take off all your clothes..
Its getting hot in here..
NO RACHEL NNNNOOOOOOOOO


Dang it.....thought this was a Walmart brand......

Jeeez... I feel like they got prosecutors for this trial from the "Law School of Watching Way Too Much Law and Order" as opposed to, you know, actual degree granting institutions. Or they have no case and are just trying to do everything they can so when gak inevitably hits the impeller they can say "Not our fault!"

How much you want to bet that Prosecution failure to indict will center around their Star Witness. As in they're going to "blame" Rachel. Even though they're not trying to make this a racial issue. Its going to turn into a racial issue at the end.

edit
Before we go overboard on Z being calm on just killing M. Z is still mentally coming to grip to what he did.

 Hulksmash wrote:
It's almost like the prosecution isn't even trying anymore.....

It's almost as though they don't have a very good case.

Perhaps, and this is going out on a limb, this is why Zimmerman wasn't charged in the first place.

The state had to know what the only actual eye witness from before the shot was fired was going to say (namely that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and appeared to be beating the gak out of him). Based on the line of questioning this afternoon, and the amount of time the prosecution spent discussing Zimmerman's injuries and state after the shooting with the EMT, the first responding officer, etc., it seems pretty obvious that they're not going to bother arguing that Zimmerman was both winning the fight and decided to shoot.

Rather, it seems like they're going after two points:

1) Zimmerman initiated the conflict. The "star witness" from the first day is the linchpin to this point, and while I don't think she pulled it off, you never know what the jury's going to think.
2) Zimmerman's injuries weren't serious enough to reflect a deadly attack, and therefore he had no cause to be in fear for his life, and thus no justification for shooting Martin. This might actually succeed for reasons I won't go into that will inevitably sound sexist.

Although, it occurs to me that the prosecution focusing on Zimmerman's MMA gym membership might open the doors to getting Martin's own interest in MMA on the record. If the defense manages to get the various videos of Martin engaging in street fights into evidence, they might as well rest, because it's over.

 Seaward wrote:



2) Zimmerman's injuries weren't serious enough to reflect a deadly attack, and therefore he had no cause to be in fear for his life, and thus no justification for shooting Martin. This might actually succeed for reasons I won't go into that will inevitably sound sexist.

That point is the silliest one I've heard the prosecution attempt. I can swing a baseball bat and miss your head by a fraction of an inch, and threaten to bash your brains in. You would have no injuries at all but would be very justified in feeling threatened for your life. I can choke some one until they pass out , and they will have 'non life threatening' red marks on their neck. I can point a gun at a person and again leave zero injuries, but they could very well feel threatened with death.

What matters in regards to this point is: At the time Zimmerman was on the ground, did he justifiably feel threatened? I know if I had some dude pounding me and smacking my head into concrete I sure would.

I hope the jury can understand that.

Well....Prosecution Eyewitness has took pictures of the damage to Z head right after the incident. I also remember somewhere that M also reached for Z holster weapon when it exposed itself....

 Jihadin wrote:
Well....Prosecution Eyewitness has took pictures of the damage to Z head right after the incident. I also remember somewhere that M also reached for Z holster weapon when it exposed itself....

According to Z. His statement was that when M saw the gun, he said to Z "Your gonna die tonight..." probably with a racial expletive in there.

There is nothing to corroborate that though.

The defense just has to preserve the reasonable doubt that already exists. They don't have to really argue anything crazy, they just have to keep the murkiness as it is.

The prosecution, on the other hand, even with a better prosecutor would have had a very hard time with this just because of how much reasonable doubt there is. They will have no problem presenting a believable scenario where Z is guilty, they just won't be able to show that the other scenarios didn't happen.

If Z is found not guilty I really hope that M parents accept that verdict and not go out and torch the prosecution and jurors.

They won't. They'll go after him in civil court. While marching alongside Jesse Jackson.

Think Jesse Jackson be out the picture on this. He be dealing with the aftermath of his son going to jail....including his son wife....court has to stagger the jail terms for their two kids...Actually I'm not sure how they will do that. I think both got 15 yrs.

 Jihadin wrote:
Think Jesse Jackson be out the picture on this. He be dealing with the aftermath of his son going to jail....including his son wife....court has to stagger the jail terms for their two kids...Actually I'm not sure how they will do that. I think both got 15 yrs.

Court appointed guardians? I wouldn't leave the children in the care of two convicted felons.

And you think Jesse will actually care about family when he can cause more racial issues in America?

I can imagine that question popping up in FLA at Jesse. So how's your grandson's doing now that your son and his wife in jail for buying homes with campaign funds? He be making statements up north instead of down south.

Something else I noticed that I may be misinterpreting, as no one else has mentioned it that I've seen:

Jeantel's testimony included the tidbit that when she reconnected with Martin, he told her he was in back of his father's fiancee's home. The actual fight took place 70 yards from that house. Not sure how those two facts can both be true if Martin didn't go back out to look for Zimmerman.

 Seaward wrote:
Something else I noticed that I may be misinterpreting, as no one else has mentioned it that I've seen:

Jeantel's testimony included the tidbit that when she reconnected with Martin, he told her he was in back of his father's fiancee's home. The actual fight took place 70 yards from that house. Not sure how those two facts can both be true if Martin didn't go back out to look for Zimmerman.

That is an interesting fact if true... I'm having a hard time finding her actual testimony, as opposed to pundits discussing it. Can anyone help provide links for that?

If he did make it back to the house, and then come back out... well then that's a closed case.

Edit: oh man... I just read about how she admitted to committing perjury while on the stand, and effectively admitting the prosecution had coached her on what to say...