There is not one shred of evidence Zimmerman was defending himself

[Shankapotomus]

Last edited Tue Jul 2, 2013, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)

For what its worth (not much), here's how I see this particular argument from the defense:

The witness testimony that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman is irrelevant since we don't know who assaulted whom first.

Trayvon Martin could just as easily have been defending himself from Zimmerman, even while winning and on top.

That Martin assaulted Zimmerman remains in the realm of what some people THINK, not what they know.

And so such speculation should not be considered when judging Zimmerman's culpability. Only what we KNOW.

We know Zimmerman mistakenly thought Martin was a burglar. He wasn't. That's Zimmerman error number one.

We know Zimmerman called police on an innocent person. That's Zimmerman error number two.

We know, at least at one point from Zimmerman's own admission, Zimmerman was trailing an innocent person.

We know, for sure, from independent confirmation from both sides of this case, that, at one point, Martin was running away from Zimmerman.

We know, at one point, the two subjects encountered each other.

And finally, we know, for certain, after mistaking him for a burglar, trailing him and calling the police on him, Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman shot and killed someone who would later be found to not have been engaged in criminal activity, as Zimmerman had suspected. That's Zimmerman error number three.

We DON'T know, or have any corroborating evidence that Martin ever double backed and approached Zimmerman.

We DON'T know, or have any corroborating evidence Martin followed, assaulted or even threatened Zimmerman first.

None of those DON'TS people are using to judge Zimmerman's non-culpability are actual independently confirmed facts.

We must stick with the facts, only what we know for certain and when judging what we know for certain, it is best to go with either facts that have been agreed to by both sides or facts that have been submitted by independent eyewitness testimony under oath.

All we know is Zimmerman mistakenly identified Martin as a possible criminal, followed him, alerted police to him, encountered him and shot and killed him.

That's all we know and that's all we need to know to convict George Zimmerman, from my perspective.

Am I wrong?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

1. You are not wrong! Not even close! K&R!!

[Shankapotomus]

3. Thank you

And you are a fast reader. Took me about 30 minutes to write all that. Lol

[snooper2]

58. Hunt and Peck sucks ass doesn't it

LOL

[Shankapotomus]

61. Actually, I'm quite fast

with hunt and peck.

And even though I'm a hunter and pecker, shame on you for assuming that.

Being snarky to the keyboard challenged.

Indeed, for-shame.

[snooper2]

63. look how fast I replied

I've been working on a word doc for a couple days so my skills go up

[Shankapotomus]

68. I worry about carpel tunnel syndrome

or however you spell it. I already play music synth so I'm trying to spare my fingers.

My brother suggests I learn to type normally but my method doesn't stop my sister from asking me to type up stuff she dictates.

[onpatrol98]

104. Dragon Naturally Speaking or Windows Speech Recognition

I'm having the carpal tunnel issues myself. Believe it or not, typing isn't problematic. But, writing can bring me tears.

[lunatica]

2. Zimmerman started the entire thing and continued it until Trayvon was dead

Zimmerman went looking for trouble with Trayvon. He took a loaded gun and stalked Trayvon. Why would he do that? Zimmerman made a conscious choice to take a loaded gun to go after a black teenager. Why? Trayvon tried to get away and Zimmerman, instead of going home, or calling 911 again kept going after Trayvon even after the dispatcher told him not to. Why? Zimmerman found Trayvon and left his car to approach the teen. Why would he do that? He got close enough that there was a physical scuffle and he took out his loaded gun and killed Trayvon. Suddenly Zimmerman feared for his life? Really? He did all the stalking, and the chasing, and the killing. And he did it from the beginning to the end of the incident.

Zimmerman did all that because he wanted to. He wanted trouble. He wanted to hunt Trayvon down. He wanted to scare him and he wanted to feel personal power. Trayvon wasn't doing anything illegal. He was walking to his father's house which means that Zimmerman had to know there were black families there. It's quite possible that Trayvon had walked the same route many times.

[Shankapotomus]

4. I remember you from the old DU2

I'm not as memorable but I recognize your user name.

Very well said and couldn't agree more.

Exactly, all the evidence points to Zimmerman making the mistakes until the moment it was time to shoot Martin? I don't know how some can contort their minds like that.

[lunatica]

5. I remember your user name too

And I thought no one remembers me either. LOL!

[brush]

101. Off topic, I know

but does your user name have anything to do with your golf game?

[Shankapotomus]

110. lol...it could..

since I actually do not play golf and would probably be terrible at it...It's taken from that etrade commercial, which I thought was funny, but regret using since it is so corporate.

I'm considering retiring this username because it makes me think of wall street now and someone told me there is a conservative poster on HP using it.

[Paladin]

12. Well stated. (nt)

[fleur-de-lisa]

33. Excellent summary! - n/t

[dionysus]

67. +1000000

[reusrename]

84. I think Zimmerman was thrilled when he got the opportunity to shoot the Martin kid.

I think he must have had this fantasy for a while. Then he finally made it come true.

[yardwork]

115. Yep

[Glimmer of Hope]

147. Paranoid cop wanna be.

[treestar]

6. None at all

There is evidence that Zimmerman called 911. He was "protected" from then and should have stayed in his car and waited for the cops. There was no logical reason for his chasing Martin after that. Other than would-be vigilantism.

[KurtNYC]

7. and Zimmerman knows it which is why he says he got out of his vehicle to get an address

albeit in a development that has only 3 streets, one of which he lives on. He can't name the other 2 streets. He is neighborhood watch captain and can't name 2 of the 3 streets he patrols ?

Zim tries his best to portray himself as NOT running after TM because Zim knows that it goes against his whole fear and self defense angle.

[Crepuscular]

8. you neglected

to mention the injuries to the back of Zim's head and to his face. Those injuries are evidence that will be used to demonstrate to the jury that there was a physical confrontation prior to the shooting and that Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life, the metric needed in order to justify the use of a weapon in a self defense claim.

Now you can certainly claim, as others have done, that they were self inflicted but if the prosecutor tried to suggest that to the jury, my guess is that he would be laughed out of the courtroom. That is just silly CT babble.

At the end of the day, everything that happened up until the point where the confrontation between the two became physical is largely moot. The case will hinge on whether or not the jury believes whether there was reasonable cause for Zim to fear for his life and from what has been presented in court, there is certainly evidence to support his claim. The pictures of the blood on the back of his head, on his face and the testimony from the EMT that treated him at the scene are going to be very, very difficult for the prosecutor to get past. Any juror that pictures themselves being on their back, being hit and getting their head pounded against a sidewalk, is going to have a hard time denying the picture the defense will paint of Trayvon being the physical aggressor in the confrontation and that Zimmerman simply defending himself from further harm.

While there is still more testimony to come, unless the Prosecution pulls some amazing rabbit out of their hat, based on what has been presented so far, the odds are highly in favor of either a not guilty verdict or a hung jury.

[Dawgs]

9. No. The injuries are not proof that he needed to kill Martin in self defense.

They are proof that he had injuries on his head and face.

The problem, in this case, is that the jury will need to decide if those injuries were caused by Martin. The witnesses, none of whom saw the whole thing, may help them decide.

But, it still doesn't change the facts.

[Crepuscular]

16. They are evidence

that there was a physical confrontation and they provide the defense with the basis for the claim that Zimmerman was acting in self defense. Had Zimmerman suffered no injuries, the claim would have been much harder for the defense to support. But witness's have said that the two were fighting and at least one has place Martin on top. The injuries are consistent with Zimmermans story that Martin was beating the crap out of him and it's going to be very, very difficult for the jury to ignore that claim, bases on the evidence. In order for that to happen, the prosecutor would have to come up with some other plausible explanation for how the wounds occurred and to this point, there has been nothing offered in evidence that would do so. Absent any other explanation, the jury is going to look at those injuries as proof that Zimmerman was facing a physical threat.

[ET Awful]

27. Unfortunately for your argument, you completely neglect the possibility that Martin was acting

in self defense if it was, in fact, Martin who caused the injuries to Zimmerman.

Being that there was no bruising or injury to Martin's hands, it's unlikely that he punched or pummeled Zimmerman.

If Zimmerman started the altercation and Martin acted in defense, then Zimmerman is still guilty of Murder.

[Crepuscular]

64. Not ignoring that fact at all

there is just no evidence to support the idea that Martin was acting in self defense. He had no injuries according to the autopsy except for the gunshot wound, so no evidence that Zimmerman physically attacked him prior to the shooting. One of the two individuals was injured prior to the shooting, that would tend to support the claim that he was being attacked physically by Martin. You are correct that if Zimmerman started the physical altercation and Martin retaliated physically, then it might be different, the problem is that the prosecution has no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation and no way to contradict Zimmerman's account of what happened. There is a huge difference between what might have happened and what you can prove in a court of law and in this case, the prosecution does not have what it needs to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt.

[Sheepshank]

65. The injury on the back of the head easily could have resulted in one fall

bad footing, being punched once in the face (nose) and falling backward.

If there were multiple contusions (which I haven't heard about), then repeatedly banging Zimmermans head on the pavement would be a more problematic. But a defensive punch in the face resulting in Zimmerman losing his footing and falling backward onto the pavement slamming his head "feels" much more likely to me. My daughter on the baskteball court was caught off guard, pushed hard and fell backwards and slammed her head onto the floor. 3 weeks of concussion...but instead of a wooden floor, it there had been concrete, I could see a laceration resulting for that particular slam.

The brother's public statement that Zimmerman had to shoot in self defense or end up wearing a diaper, is so out of the realm of reality that it brings that repeated testimony into question. It's what Zimmerman told his family, it's what they are repeating and no evidence supports that. Zimmy paniced, was outmatched by a stronger more fit teen, and in his panic knew he realized he made a huge mistake.

He shot Trayvon for no "good: reason. The only possible combination of reasons are that his narcissistic need to be a hero clouded any possible good judgement, and he shot a kid in part to cover the mistakes of the evening, in part because he panicked, and in part because he really did realize he put himself in a no win situation, and his ego needed a masterful boost...the gun. Oh, and because he's an idiot. Idiots carrying guns, showing them off to instill fear and create a false sense of power, seems to be an on going problem and hardly a one off.

[RGR375]

116. maybe not

I do not think zimmerman started the actual physical confrontation with martin. For the sake of the argument let say he did. If martin got the upper hand and started baning his head off the concrete then he brought Florida statute 776.041 use of force by the aggressor into play. Long story short and like it or not if you push it to far you can go from being the victim to the aggressor. If you do not believe me then please look up that statute.

[vaberella]

168. Why would a kid who was LESS than a block away from home start a fight?

While the person who killed him was several blocks away from his car. He was on his way home for a basketball game with his little cousin while he was on the phone and had a drink and a pack of skittles. You sincerely believe he would start a confrontation? Verbal maybe--considering he was being followed and it is something I would do and I am female; a physical one, I sincerely doubt that.

[traco]

188. There was testimony

Sometime in the last couple days that there was abrasions on Martin's hands consistent with punching someone. There was also other testimony that one of the witnesses saw Zimmerman on his back and Martin over the top of him and multiple punching motions with the arms of the person on top.

[Dawgs]

31. But the question is 'who was defending themselves, Zimmerman or Martin?'

That is the question the jury will have to decide. If Martin felt that he was going to die because Zimmerman confronted him, then Martin had every right to defend himself, regardless of who received injuries.

Injuries are not proof that Zimmerman was the one that needed to defend himself. It just means that Martin was able to cause the injuries.

[wercal]

55. There is alot of conflicting evidence in this case

So people are tending to believe the evidence they like, and discount the rest.

Standing back and looking at what the jury has seen so far:

1. John Reed's testimony that the guy in red was on bottom, and screaming

2. The voice analyst's statement that the screams were definitely distorted, because the person screaming was in fear for his life...and it is not possible to fake this type of distortion.

3. Bloody nose and cuts on head

I understand that other witnesses have said conflicting things....but looking at that information, ask yourself - will the jury be confident enough to vote to convict? In order to convict, the jury would have to believe that Zimmerman started the confrontation...but the only evidence of that so far is Ms Jeantel's testimony...but you may have noticed that West got her to admit (without much protest), that she has lied in the past - lied to MArtins about her age, lied to Crump about her age, and lied to Martins about being in hospital. Is her testimony alone enough to establish that Zimmerman started the fight?

And it doesn't really matter if Zimmerman followed him. Zimmerman is a weirdo, who doesn't understand social conventions, especially when dealing with complete strangers. I know the type....I've got him pegged. We had a guy like that in my town...and he was brutally murdered by homeless people. But guess what? The trio that killed him were tried and convicted. Because you can't just deal with weirdos with violence. All the following and phone calls and weird actions leading up to the confrontation don't really matter. What matters is who made it violent.

Zimmerman has claimed that Martin dealt with him with violence...and so far there is very little evidence to the contrary. We will never know exactly what happened...and that favors Zimmerman.

[Dawgs]

62. Talk about "believe the evidence they like"

1) None of the things you listed prove that Martin was threatening Zimmerman.

2) I've never claimed that Zimmerman will be convicted.

3) It does matter that Zimmerman followed him. Martin would still be alive today if Z stayed put.

4) Zimmerman is a known bully and liar, yet he's the one you choose to believe.

[wercal]

123. Its a court case...it doesn't matter what I believe.

1) None of the things you listed prove that Martin was threatening Zimmerman. Before the fight? Nope, there is no evidence either way. During the fight - you've got John Reed's testimony.

2) I've never claimed that Zimmerman will be convicted. Good...I highly doubt he will be.

3) It does matter that Zimmerman followed him. Martin would still be alive today if Z stayed put.

Under the law, it doesn't matter...unless the prosecution can argue this was so out of the ordinary and wreckless, that any reasonable person would know it could result in death...but we've already heard the police dipatcher say that he didn't more adamantly tell Z to stop, 'because of liability to the department'. So, the dispatcher certainly think it was a life threatening action, so that is a tough road for the prosecution to go down.

As far as 'Martin would still be alive today'. That's why I told the story of our town weirdo, who was alot like Zimmerman. He self appointed himself as an advocat for the homeless...and would go tear up their camps, to force them to 'go home'. He was an abrasive, bullying, weirdo. But he didn't deserve to end up murdered. Same with Z...he's a weirdo. Fine. Following people is a little out of the norm, especially at night. But what is the response to that? Violence? That is Z's claim...and if his claim is true, the 'if/then' of the death can easily be transformed to 'If Martin had not punched Z, he would be alive'.

4) Zimmerman is a known bully and liar, yet he's the one you choose to believe. Its not that I believe Z...and it doesn't matter what I think. But do you think the jury will believe the things I cited...will they believe his injuries were cause by Martin? Will they believe John Reed's testimony. They may be inclined to believe the other witnesses...but if its a toss up, and they don't know who is lying...do they convict? Probably not.

But what do I really believe? Listening to the police dispatch call, Z is scared to death when asked to give his own address. He thinks Martin may be within earshot. Now Zimmerman has clearly lost him by now...and the timeline gives M a good 4 minutes between Z's statement 'he's running' to the end of Jeantel's call. So M could have easily traveled the 530 feet from Z's truck to his condo. But M hasn't taken complete flight,and is clearly hanging around.

Now since Z is scared to death, and by his own statement his truck headlights which stay on for a few minutes had gone out by now, and his flashlight wasn't working. So (and I can't believe more people haven't speculated about this) Z probably had his hand on his gun. If the holster had a snap, he probably had it undone. He may have even chambered a round, if he carried it with an empty chamber.

Then the confrontation. You've got M who has doubled back (Jeantel says he made it to the porch...but he's 300 feet away from there now). And you've got Z, who has bitten off more than he can chew, carrying a gun. The confrontation happens. Frankly, I think M had some part in 'starting' it, since he lingered outside and (according to Jeantel) doubled back for a meeting. Now whatever he thought he was going to start may have been amplified exponentially by Z's gun. The presence of the gun, which was probably seen alot earlier than Z states, instantly turned this from a shouting match and shoving contest, to a very violent fight. Z gets very shaky in his re-enactment here. He says he went for his phone, and M thought it was something else and attacked him...that sounds very shaky, and Z most likely was going for the pistol right there.

Then the fight starts...and contrary to the whispers of conspiracy theorists, Martin caused injuries to Z's nose and head...and was getting the best of him. And he wasn't stopping. The 911 call and witness testimony indicate this was a life or death struggle right up until the bullet was fired. Now Martin thinks he's got a strange guy with a gun he's fighting to the death against...and he may have stopped if he had knocked Z out...and Z may have over-reacted, but he clearly thought he was in danger of death. Remember, to him, M is the 'suspect'. He thinks he's a prowler, probably someone witha criminal background...so he's scared to death. And he fires the gun.

That's what I believe happened. The ingredients were one idiot weirdo, and one teen was was too young to know how to deal with weirdos (if he made it home, as Jeantel stated), he could have gone inside, locked the door, and called 9-11 himself). And a tragic ending. What does Z get? Maybe a wrongful death lawsuit..I'm not sure what FL laws are on that. Probably guilty of manslaughter...but that would be difficult to prove. Probably not guilty of murder 2 (acting with malice)....and it was a mistake to charge him with that. I just can't comprehend how some people think he was a robocop on a mission, out to kill himself a black teen...when he knew the police were on their way. The fact that he called police...and even after the dispatch suggested not sending anybody, since Z had lost M, Z still requested a cop...makes it very difficult to believe that he set out to 'hunt' M. It was a tragic misunderstanding, amplified by a weirdo and and immature teen.

[Crepuscular]

69. The prosecution

would have to prove that Martin was in fear of his life prior to physically attacking Zimmerman. I don't think any evidence exists that would prove that claim, at least none has been introduced to this point.

If the two had a verbal confrontation, Martin does not have the right to physically attack Zimmerman and be able to claim self defense. Now, the prosecution may claim that Zimmerman had already pulled a gun on Trayvon and use that as grounds for Martin initiating a physical attack but they have not done so and on what possible basis would they be able to prove that was the case? No witness to support that claim, it would be a pretty hard sell to the jury that Martin would think that he could physically best a larger opponent who was pointing a gun at him. I don't think that is a plausible story to sell to a jury in the absence of any evidence to support it.

[Dawgs]

70. We'll see if they can prove it. What you think happened has nothing to do with it. n/t

[ET Awful]

138. If somebody I don't know follows me carrying a gun, damn right I'll be in fear for my life.

It doesn't matter if the gun is drawn or not. If you're being followed by someone who is carrying a firearm, that's threatening.

[Crepuscular]

139. Not if you are unaware of it.

Sorry, it just isn't, regardless of how much you may hate firearms.

[ET Awful]

153. So you're telling me that if someone was following you with a gun in an area you had every

right to be, you would be totally comfortable and unafraid?

Forgive me for doubting the veracity of your claim.

[Crepuscular]

160. How would I know he had a gun?

Did he brandish it or point it at me? Is it exposed on his hip?

If someone was following me in an area where I had every right to be, I might be cautious or wary but I would not be confrontational or particularly scared. I would probably ask them if I could help them.

If I was a teenager in Martin's situation, I probably would have just run to my Dad's house, which was what, about 30 yards away? I don't think at that age I would have confronted someone.

Now, we don't know who confronted who, it's certainly possible that Zimmerman confronted Martin first but thinking that and proving it to a jury are two different things and I have not seen the evidence yet to support that claim. Maybe it will be forthcoming.

[ET Awful]

166. If, as Zimmerman says, Martin reached for his gun, I'd say it's a safe bet that Martin KNEW he had

one. Otherwise he's unlikely to have reached for it.

[Llewlladdwr]

162. I agree with Crespuscular.

How would you know you were being followed by a man with a gun unless it was being brandished? And if it was wouldn't you run rather than confront the individual following you? Why would you go back to where you last saw the man following you once you lost him?

[Shankapotomus]

53. So if Martin had any indication

Zimmerman had a gun, and given that he had no idea who Zimmerman was, Martin too could have been trying to defend himself.

So Martin dies because of a mistake initially made by Zimmerman and his killer gets off???

Is everyone okay with that? Presumptuous idiot makes mistake, kid makes similar mistake identifying Zimmerman and now he's dead?

Chalked it all down to an unfortunate mistake?

Nothing further to see here?

Case closed.

Really?

[stranger81]

140. And. . . . crickets.

Unfortunately, there are a whole lot of folks on this board who are perfectly fine with that outcome.

[Shankapotomus]

142. Some have expresed to me

they found it frustrating too. But hearing some of the analysis on msnbc today I am starting to regain hope. A lot of the experts are saying Zimmerman's injuries, while they can be from a physical confrontation with Martin, are not enough to justify the use of deadly force.

[traco]

189. It's not necessary to have injuries

in order to claim you were in fear for your life. You don't even have to have one scratch. If the aggressor claimed they were going to kill you, and came at you with their fists raised; you have every right to defend yourself from the attack by shooting them to stop the attack.

[Shankapotomus]

10. That is evidence of a struggle

Not evidence of a defensive struggle by one or the other party. We don't have that information.

Since there is no evidence of who assaulted who first, talk of self-defense is a mute point.

We can only go by what we know for sure leading up to the encounter and the resulting death.

[Roland99]

14. And the lack of evidence of the beginning of the struggle is thus a hangar full of reasonable doubt

[Shankapotomus]

15. Except for the bullet

in Trayvon Martin's chest.

[Roland99]

34. That's the end, though. There is plenty of doubt that can be sewed in the minds of the jury...

as to what started it all.

And that's all the defense needs to do.

[Shankapotomus]

39. But it seems to me

a bullet in the chest is a bigger assault than a punch in the nose.

[Roland99]

41. True...but if the jury believes Zimmerman feared for his life...welll.......

[TorchTheWitch]

119. well, that's where I have a problem

Were I o the jury I'd be wondering why the guy with the gun had such fear for his life. I would wonder why he would have allowed himself to be assaulted to such an extent that he feared for his life before pulling the gun. People that carry guns carry them to avoid such situations. It's why they have them. It was what gave Zimmerman the courage to get out of his car and pursue Martin in the first place. That gun made him feel that there was no danger to him whatsoever. At the time Z and M encountered each other the very moment that Z would have felt in danger he would have either displayed the gun to thwart any perceived danger or even drawn it out and pointed it at the source of the perceived danger. People that carry guns use them not necessarily to shoot someone with but to brandish or display to eliminate any danger to themselves. It is not believable that the person with the gun the presence of which was what gave Z the courage to get out of his car and pursue this person that we know he perceived as a bad person, a "fucking thug" that he thinks has something to do with previous robberies in his neighborhood.

The injuries that I see on Z don't correlate to how he claims they occurred. Aside from the blood, he hardly looks injured at all from the photos of him at the police station mere hours later. I just don't believe that those two bitty little cuts on the back of his head came from his head being repeatedly smashed on concrete. I don't believe the fight that occurred whoever started it was anywhere near the sidewalk given where Martin's body came to rest. I do believe that those tiny little abrasions came from the two of the tussling around on the ground. They simply do not correspond to having one's head smashed repeatedly into concrete. So, I think Z is full of shit. And after seeing his re-enactment video with the police there are so many major inconsistencies in his story from evidence already presented that I have to wonder why in the world the defense wanted this in the public eye in the first place.

I believe that from Z's own words and actions that are not disputed that M was afraid of this guy that was following him in his car and then running after him on foot, and that when they encountered each other M was not the aggressor - all along it had been Z that was the aggressor, so I don't believe that M who was afraid of this creepy guy and ran away from him would for no reason circle back and confront him and certainly not ambush him as that would be a total reversal of what it is clear he was feeling - fear of him.

[Voice for Peace]

143. +++

[premium]

42. True,

but all the jury has to believe is that Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life to find him not guilty.
And a punch in the nose can kill a human if delivered right.

[Crepuscular]

17. The term

is "moot" point, sorry it's a pet peeve of mine.

Injuries to one party in a physical confrontation are certainly evidence of a defensive struggle. Absent those injuries, justifying a physical threat as a basis for self defense becomes much harder but if someone is injured in a physical confrontation, it's much easier to convince a jury that "Yeah, he was getting the crap beat out of him" and was justified in using a weapon to counter that physical aggression.

[Shankapotomus]

20. Lol

Of course, you're correct about "moot."

I hardly ever use that word and was typing and posting too fast to even notice, actually. But you're right. D'oh. :smacks head:

Real criminals get beat up and injured all the time by police and private citizens. It doesn't mean they were fighting from a position of self defense or that they shouldn't have been physically roughed up.

If it turns out you're right (and it's looking like it might), this is a horribly unfortunate and stupid mistake.

And there should be some kind of legal consequence for people whose stupidity sets in motion a series of events that lead to a tragedy where the victim is later found to be innocent of the original suspicions.

For this kid to be dead because of some vigilante's mistake is unacceptable.

[John2]

75. That is where you

are wrong and giving the Theme of the defense. The Prosecution will be very4y incompetent, if they fail to point out the flaw in your theory.

Suppose a female fought off an attacker by clawing and scratching him. Suppose that same attacker lost, his gun and the female got it and shot him. The assailant would have gotten all the physical injuries. So, how do you prove the female was telling the truth?

Let's take Zimmerman and Martin. Suppose it was Zimmerman, who surprised Martin, out of the dark. Suppose Jenteal was telling the truth. Suppose Zimmerman already had his gun out? It was loaded and not on safety. Suppose Zimmerman walked right up to martin and physically grabbed Martin, so he couldn't run away with the gun already pointed towards him.

Suppose Martin struggled with Zimmerman, just like the female, but threw punches towards the back of Zimmerman's head and on the face trying to escape while screaming for his life. Jenteal did say, she heard the wet grass and cell phone going dead, while he thought she heard martin saying Get off me when Zimmerman approached him. If it was raining and bouncing off the surface when the cell phone fell, you can hear the sounds.

Now suppose Martin was trying to prevent Zimmerman from aiming that gun, but Zimmerman managed to fire it into Trayvon's chest, killing him. Now Trayvon is on top with Zimmerman on his back. Zimmerman moves out from the body, with Trayvon in a forward position, and arms underneath. Zimmerman then proceeds to return to his truck, but met one of the witnesses, who took photographs.

Now lets look at the forensics. Trayvon had only two visible injuries. Keep in mind the situation with the female. He had gunshot wound to the chest and an abrasion on one knuckle. There was no other visible injuries. A person fighting for their life, would not necessarily have more physical injuries than the attacker.

Now lets look at the assumed attacker (Zimmerman). In this case, Zimmerman would have no reason to throw punches or fight off Trayvon if he had a loaded gun, pointed towards Trayvon. Trayvon would have every reason to knock Zimmerman off his feet and punch him several times to disorient him. Therefore Zimmerman would appear to have been in a fight with a wildcat. There is nothing life threatening either about the wounds to Zimmerman either. The prosecution would be incompetent if they don't go into this area. And Zimmerman's wounds does not suggest he fought back. He had none on his hands or knuckles. The only sign of his self defense was shooting a gun. If he was defending himself, it is very hard to believe this man who trained in martial arts never landed any blows on this kid. Just like he claimed Trayvon said you got me, after being shot, is just as ludicrous to believe.

[darkangel218]

79. Good post.

[Cronus Protagonist]

165. I can help you with that...

Suppose a female fought off an attacker by clawing and scratching him. Suppose that same attacker lost, his gun and the female got it and shot him. The assailant would have gotten all the physical injuries. So, how do you prove the female was telling the truth?

You find the deceased's dna under the fingernails of the female and matching scratches on the deceased's face and/or neck, back arms and legs. You check for defensive/offensive injuries on the deceased. You find dna from both parties on the gun. You find the angle of entry and exit for the bullet is consistent with the claims of the female and all the trace evidence supports it.

In the case of Zimmerman, the admitted killer of a teenager, the trace evidence does not support his claims. There was only the killer's dna on the gun. There was no dna from the killer under the deceased's fingernails. There were no fresh abrasions on the deceased's body. The deceased's body had no knuckle abrasions or torn skin or torn ligaments. That's odd, isn't it? It seems more consistent with an execution than a struggle, doesn't it?

[Roland99]

13. Has there been evidence submitted of ANY injuries to Martin?

If the only thing on Martin was bruising/cuts on his hands, then it would lead a jury to likely think that Martin turned on Zimmerman first.

[riverbendviewgal]

26. I think i read that undertaker for martin

Said martin had no bruises or scratches. Just a bullet hole. I googled and found two news accounts on the mortician stating there was no indication martin was in a fight or struggle.

[Dawgs]

32. Not necessarily true. Zimmerman could have shown Martin that he had a gun.

At that point Martin had every right to defend himself; especially if Zimmerman failed to mention that he was on neighborhood watch.

[Roland99]

36. But that's purely conjecture, eh?

[Dawgs]

38. Of course, but so is suggesting jury can only come up with conclusion. n/t

[Roland99]

40. And who is doing that? I came up with one "likely" scenario given that the defense only need prove..

reasonable doubt

[Dawgs]

66. Same thing I did, and I'm not arguing for whether Z will be found convicted or not. n/t

[Shankapotomus]

59. Yes

A bullet wound to the chest.

[Roland99]

78. wow...how cute.

you know exactly what I meant

[mbperrin]

35. Those so-called injuries are so laughably minor that they must be self-inflicted.

On any construction site, that "severity" of injury would warrant a trip to the first aid kit for peroxide and a band-aid.

I'd be ashamed to display those marks and claim that someone else had done that to me.

My first reaction on seeing these "injuries"? Oh, and did he give you a dirty look, too?

[Crepuscular]

71. Uh-huh, Sure.

If the prosecutor tries to sell the idea that Zimmerman's injuries were self inflicted to a jury, it would be an early Christmas present to the defense and would almost certainly result in a not-guilty verdict. He would be laughed out of office for doing so, unless there was some shred of evidence to support such a claim.

[mbperrin]

121. There's no real injury there is the point.

Literally, he was not hurt in any way that would affect anyone older than 5 years old.

The evidence they are self inflicted are:
their slight nature;
the struggle took place in the grass, where no injury could occur;
no marks or bruises or any kind on the dead young man's hands.

George has sure gained a lot of weight living off the gun nut donations, but that's his nature - soft, lazy, easy way out. His wife is the same - tell a lie when the truth would do.

Gets it from his hustlin' daddy - trying to sell a $3.99 e-book over the body of a dead young man.

I'm nearly rooting for him to be turned loose - I do believe his donations have about quit, and living in the general population might be quite unpleasant for him.

[Voice for Peace]

144. he would likely be hired as an expert on Fox News.

[demwing]

44. If Zimmerman feared for his life - if his injuries were so grievous

that he was justified in killing Martin, then why the hell did he refuse to have those injuries treated at the hospital on the night of the incident?

I think this is pretty damning evidence regarding Zimmerman's true state of mind.

[Crepuscular]

114. He was treated at the scene

by a medical professional and chose to see his own physician the next day. The defense does not have to prove that the injuries were so grievous, they merely need to show them as evidence that Zimmerman was physically attacked and then postulate that had that attack continued, that the resulting injuries could have been serious. The person claiming self defense does not have to wait until they are severely beaten or killed before it becomes a valid defense, they only need to show that they feared that they would be seriously injured. Showing bloody pictures to a jury and hearing testimony from an EMT that his nose was fractured will suffice in that regard.

[ET Awful]

155. The chief medical examiner for the county says that Zimmerman's injuries were "small" and

"insignificant" requiring only Band-Aids.

Seems to contradict any claim that there was any "threat".

[Crepuscular]

157. Didn't watch the testimony

What was the date that she physically examined Zimmerman?

[droidamus2]

45. Some conjecture

A possible alternate explanation for injuries on the face and back of the head. Yes this is pure conjecture but still possible. Zimmerman is chasing Trayvon in the dark. He catches Trayvon. Trayvon is scared because he does not know what Zimmerman wants or is up to so he throws a wild elbow or punch knocking Zimmerman down on his back where he bangs his head against the ground. Zimmerman is now pissed because a black kid knocked him on his ass so he shoots him in retaliation. Again pure conjecture but I could sure see it happening that way with all the actual evidence.

[Crepuscular]

112. pure conjecture

that will never be introduced into the courtroom and which will never be considered by the jury. Meaningless outside of the courtroom.

[SaveAmerica]

47. I feel the injuries on his head are too high to have been

the result of having your head bashed on concrete. The part of your skull that protrudes in the back would take the blows on the lower part of the protrusion. His butterfly bandages were at a mid-range of that ridge and 3 inches or so above that. I can't even imagine how Tryvon would have had to hold Zimmerman's head to cause injury to those parts of his skull.

Also, are you suggesting that the jury disregard everything that happened before things got physical between Martin and Zimmerman? I think it's very important information for them to know in order to make a decision as to who was defending himself.

[Crepuscular]

60. I'm suggesting that

according to what the prosecution has offered so far, the events leading up to the physical confrontation are largely moot. Doesn't matter what Zimmerman was doing unless he threw the first punch and there is no evidence to document whether he did or not. Once the confrontation became physical, then it's a matter of determining whether or not there was a serious and compelling threat of bodily harm to the person who is claiming that he acted in self defense. In this case, the photo's and testimony from the EMT are going to be powerful evidence supporting that idea and I don't see the prosecution being able to offer anything that will contradict them.

[Voice for Peace]

145. he bumped his head when he fell down and got some scratches.

repeated bashings, even one, would have opened up those tiny
wounds wwwwaaaaaaaaayyy more

[magical thyme]

95. punches to the nose very rarely are lethal

And there is no clear proof that Martin punched him in the nose.

Based on Zimmerman's claim that Martin was straddling him while he was on his back on the ground when he pulled out his gun and shot Martin in the chest, combined with the *fact* that no Zimmerman blood or dna was found on Martin, combined with the *fact* that Zimmerman's blood was found on his gun, it seems at least possible that, given the awkward shooting position, kickback from Zimmerman's gun caused him to punch himself in the nose with his gun.

It is equally possible that Zimmerman slipped and fell back onto the concrete sidewalk, causing those 2 very small cuts to the back of his head.

Nobody saw Martin punch Zimmerman and nobody saw Martin pound Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk.

There are other equally possible and plausible ways those injuries could have occurred, and no clear indication of how they occurred.

[Crepuscular]

111. equally plausible

and totally unsupported by any evidence. There is testimony on the other hand, that places Martin on top of Zimmerman in a physical confrontation. Get back to us when the prosecutor actually tries to convince the jury of some other cause of Zimmerman's injuries, until that happens, you can speculate till the cows come home but it's meaningless. As far as I know, the prosecutor has not claimed that the injuries were anything but the result of the physical contact with Martin. Unless there is evidence presented to that effect, the jury will have to place a great deal of weight on those injuries as a basis for claiming self defense.

[yardwork]

117. Yes. The killer is not a reliable source of info

A lot of people are taking Zimmerman's word for what happened. He had a rather obvious bias.

[DonCoquixote]

102. This is because of "stand your ground"

Which, if it was phrased honestly, it should be called the:

"White people need a legal right to shoot Black people" defense.

[WinkyDink]

106. Sorry. Z was the aggressor by stalking.

[Marrah_G]

118. Lack of injuries to TM's hands, no blood on them either

So he punched man hard enough to break his nose, continued to punch him and grab him by the head slamming his head into the ground and then smothered him with his hands while magically getting no blood or dna on his hands?

Not a hair, no blood, no little injuries.....

[Crepuscular]

120. I don't believe

that the forensic evidence has been introduced yet, so let's wait and hear the expert testimony. I know there has been speculation by some that bruising would not have time to occur if the trauma happened so close to death but that is merely speculation. As far as DNA, it was raining. Whether or not that would wash any blood or DNA off does not matter, only that the defense can raise the possibility that it might have, leading to questions about reasonable doubt.

If you are suggesting that Martin never physically touched Zimmerman, then it certainly contradicts several witnesses who said they saw a physical struggle between the two.

[Marrah_G]

122. I'll check back in after the forensics

[csziggy]

183. The ME testified today that Zimmerman's injuries were insigificant

I've always thought they were superficial. All that blood from his nose did not come out of the nostrils, but from a couple of tiny prick marks at the tip. The two lacerations on the back his skull are smaller and not as deep as the "love slashes" my cat gives me weekly.

As for the blood, head wounds always bleed like crazy. Any mother or anyone that gotten a nick on their head knows that - and more than half the jury is made up of mothers.

[onehandle]

11. He was just acting on the number one gun nut fantasy.

Hunting humans.

[In_The_Wind]

18. yep

[reusrename]

85. Absolutely!

That's exactly who Zimmerman is. This was his favorite fantasy.

[Little Star]

19. From your lips to the prosecutions ears! k&r

[Soundman]

21. Yes

You are wrong. Can someone explain to me why Martin gets a pass for anything and everything and Zimmerman gets vilified even when the evidence says otherwise?

The hair will be on fire here in a week or two. You should begin preparing now.

[Shankapotomus]

22. What does Martin get a pass on? Nt

[Soundman]

76. Wow, a lot of replies.

First I am not sure how address everyone. Most importantly here is the web address to the live feeds and blog I have been using. It is a local Florida station and I believe they have excellent coverage. http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/ you can even ask them questions, pretty cool.

Travon has gotten a lot of passes. It sickens me to have to piss on the grave of a young man.

All the evidence that I have seen points to a different person than the media has packaged. The questions that the Zimmerman haters refuse to ask themselves follow; Why did his mom kick him out? Why was he suspended from school three times? Why did they find a screw driver and woman's jewelry in his locker. Did they find a bag contain weed in his locker? Did they find a roach clip on him after he was shot? What about the videos he posted showing him apparently refereeing street fights? Why is it ok for him to refer to Zimmerman as a Cracker, Nxxxxxx, old man, crazy, and so on. And yet there is no evidence that Zimmerman has a racist bone in his body. That's what I am saying.

Travons dad (I will remind you) lived in the same gated community, as did the other minority residents. The community is made up of 30 percent minorities. You are going to have a hard time convincing me Zimmerman was some vigilante, cop wanna be, that was only protecting the 70 percent of his "privileged white" community. In zimmerman fantasy land I suppose he wouldn't report break ins of the black neighbors? If you can't grasp this I would say you have some issues.

I have posted quite a bit on this issue. Before you cast out labels, maybe you should read what I have said, and address the facts, not your feelings.

[Shankapotomus]

90. I,personally, am not accusing Z of racism

And of the two, I think it is Zimmerman who was the one arrested before and had a record, once for domestic battery, I think it was. He also had issues with calling in false alarms, I recall.

[premium]

91. He was never convicted of domestic battery,

just because someone is arrested for a crime doesn't mean they actually committed that crime.
He has no record of conviction for domestic battery, otherwise, he would be federally prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

[Just Saying]

96. I must have missed the facts in your post.

I see a bunch of questions about Trayvon insinuating things but no answers and certainly no proof.

Do any of your questions have anything to do with what happened the night he was murdered?

[Voice for Peace]

146. I thought Zimmerman was on trial, not Trayvon Martin.

a lot of passes??

A LOT OF PASSES?

[uppityperson]

151. On the positive side, you've only been on 2 DU juries.

[Soundman]

190. I Don't beleive I

Understand your point? I don't do well well with inuendo. Nor do I care for those who are so wishy washy they don't say what they mean.

[Dawgs]

37. "Zimmerman gets vilified even when the evidence says otherwise?"

Whaaaaaaaa???????

Zimmerman profiled a black kid that was doing nothing wrong, followed him, and because of those things ended up in a situation where Martin is dead.

Martin would still be alive, having done NOTHING WRONG, if Zimmerman didn't profile him and confront him.

And your response to the OP is 'Martin gets a pass' and 'Zimmerman did nothing wrong'.

WOW!!!

[ejpoeta]

43. well, he's dead. the only account we are getting is zimmerman's.

i contend that even if zimmermann had any bruises, there is no evidence that martin wasn't acting in self defense. i mean, you are walking along minding your own business and some guy starts following you.... wouldn't martin have the right to defend himself? but even still the only one who can give the information is zimmermann as martin is dead. and one could argue that zimmermann has a reason to slant his account to suit his purposes.

[demwing]

46. DAMN MARTIN

for his illegal possession of an unregistered hard shelled candy, and for daring to be out, after dark, wearing a hoodie while black.

Who the HELL did he think he was, and damn DU for defending his right to walk unmolested through the streets. Don't we all get it? 9/11 changed everything...




god help us that I had to add this tag...

[SaveAmerica]

49. Don't forget his locked and loaded can of tea...

[demwing]

51. OMG the TEA

how did I ignore this crucial evidence?

Maybe Martin shot himself, just to take down Zimmerman. Damn that candy munching tea swilling scary black man...

[noiretextatique]

128. he gets "a pass"

if martin was white, would these assholes be talking about "a pass?"

[noiretextatique]

127. a pass? he's dead

and the other person who knows what happened killed him. he gets "a pass" because he is the victim of a crime

[demwing]

131. Racism sucks.

Please dont do things that suck

[frylock]

133. yes, martin gets a pass on everything, including his life..

piss off.

[uppityperson]

154. Did you know Trayvon Martin was SHOT AND KILLED? Hardly "a pass". Good lord.

[ctsnowman]

23. No you

are not wrong and all this fucking trial is going to do is create enough smoke for GZ to get off. This whole thing reminds me of the right wing blue bloods who are against abortion but would have their daughter on the table in a heart beat if she were raped by some low life especially if said low life were of color. I expect my child to attack a stalker with everything she can and am sure every damn parent would. GZ should have stayed back and let the police do their job end of fucking story.

[madville]

24. I predict not guilty of 2nd degree but

The jury does come back guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter. Without video evidence and the vagueness of the witnesses I just can't see them getting the 2nd degree conviction.

I think they will split the choices and go with manslaughter.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. This sounds like a reasonable conclusion.

[Shankapotomus]

28. I would have to agree

From someone, and a private citizen no less, to make so many stupid mistakes and false presumptions leading up to killing someone and then not be convicted of something would be disgusting.

[joeglow3]

29. You assume the onus is on the defense

That is NOT how our court system works. All they have to prove is that their is a reasonable possibility that his story is true. Without any concrete evidence to the contrary, there will be difficulty it convicting him. And I am okay with that. Not that I will be happy with this one case, but if that level of evidence you are advocating was the new standard, we would be seeing millions more of innocent black men going to jail for crimes they did not commit.

[SaveAmerica]

52. How about his video re=creation of events and the testimony

by the officer that shows how Zimmerman was making stuff up as he went along? He said that after he shot Trayvon he sat on his back and stretched his arms out on the ground to make sure he didn't reach for the gun he was sure he had. Police said his arms were tucked under him. That's just one little thing. I hope the prosecution uses that video the police took and they break it down even more than this one point.

[joeglow3]

73. I will not claim to be an expert on the case

However, from what I have seen on the news and most of the comments here, I will be disappointed if he is convicted. Not for him personally, but if that is the new standard of evidence needed to convict someone, the prison complex is about to be even more overloaded with innocent black men.

[SaveAmerica]

81. Photo Evidence and the cop's testimony of Trayvon's position when

he was found show that Zimmerman has changed his story from the video re-enactment in the days after the shooting.

If he is convicted based on his lies and a need to change his story because he can't keep the story straight, and 'innocent black men' are put in jail for the same reason, then those men aren't really innocent are they? I call that justice.

[joeglow3]

105. You and I have a different opinion on what the burden of proof should be

[Voice for Peace]

148. but his own personal standard of self-defense was good enough to justify killing Trayvon?

is that what you are believing?

[joeglow3]

156. I believe in objective application of the law

You seem to think we don't even need a trial with the prosecutor having the burden of proof. I fear the country you seem to be advocating for.

[Voice for Peace]

158. why is the testimony of rachel jeantel worth less than any other testimony?

[joeglow3]

169. Where did I say that

Sorry, but I have not seen evidence enough to convict and cannot support doing so until said evidence is provided. All legal experts I have seen comment on this have come to the same conclusion.

[Voice for Peace]

177. no, I didn't say you said it,

but it comes through in many posts (don't know
if yours or not) -- people saying that all the
evidence and testimony of witnesses blahblahblah
is good for the defense, and I am wondering, did
anyone even LISTEN to her? She was the only
one present for a significant amount of time,
even though it was by phone. And her version
of what took place is NOT the same as Zimmerman's
and there is NOBODY who can disprove her
testimony.

[joeglow3]

178. He doesn't need to prove his side

He only needs to prove it is possible. It is up to the state to prove what happen (not just provide a second possibility of what happened).

While her story has credibility, it does not prove what happened, by itself.

[Voice for Peace]

184. neither side can be proved. nor proven.

[joeglow3]

185. Which is why the case is going so well for him

[Voice for Peace]

194. don't agree it's going well for him.

the rashomon phenomenon

[happyslug]

30. Also Remember Florida is NOT a "retreat to the wall" state.

Actual Statute: Title XLVI, Section 776.013 (3) of the Statutes of Florida:

776.013?Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html


In those states that have adopted the "Retreat to the Wall" doctrine, one can NOT use deadly force UNLESS one can not retreat. This also includes the duty NOT to engage in an action that would force the use of Deadly force. Thus in my home state of Pennsylvania (and other "Retreat to the Wall" States) Zimmerman would be up on manslaughter charges do to a mistaken belief in the rules of Self Defense. In "Retreat to the Wall" states one has to avoid confrontation and make every effort to do so, before one can use deadly force.

Side note: Pennsylvania use to be a "Retreat to the Wall" State, but that has been affected by Statute:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.005.005.000..HTM

The problem is the above is the law in Florida. The law in Florida is that one can go in a public sidewalk (Which Zimmerman did) even if you think it may lead to a confrontation that may require self defense including the use of deadly force. There is NO Duty to retreat. Thus the fact that the Police told Zimmerman not to follow Martin is not relevant. That was advice not an order, and even if it was an Order, it was not a Legal Order. Zimmerman had the right to walk on that public sidewalk and follow Martin. That is NOT illegal. Zimmerman also had a pistol, but he was licences and thus legal.

That is the law Zimmerman is being tried under. Thus the issue is who attacked whom is critical at this trial. If Martin confronted Zimmerman, the same rule would have applied UNLESS some sort of physical contact occurred (i.e. if Martin yelled at Zimmerman why Zimmerman was following him, that was also legal). The illegal action was who attacked whom? If Zimmerman is correct and Martin attacked him, then Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, including the right to use deadly force. If on the other hand Martin just yelled at Zimmerman to stop following him, and Zimmerman took that as a threat, then no deadly force was needed to end the confrontation and the use of deadly force was NOT legal, even in Florida. IF Martin had hit Zimmerman and then walked away, again no Self Defense for the attack was over and with it the need to use deadly force to end the attack.

Thus the Trial's concentration on the confrontation and what happened THEN, not what the Police told Zimmerman to do and what Zimmerman did BEFORE the confrontation.

I mention the LAW involved for to many people on this thread either do not know the law involved or it ignoring it. The Judge has to follow Florida law, whether we like it or not.

[demwing]

50. Zimmerman is claiming self defense

anything that speaks to his motives and his state of mind before, during, and after the incident is relevant.

[madashelltoo]

74. Florida, the sunshine state where . . .

A white man follows, calls police on, and kills unarmed African American teen = innocent

African American woman being intimidated by her abusive husband shoots ceiling = guilty (life sentence)

That sunshine must be blinding.

[reusrename]

87. I think what Zimmerman actually did is legal in FL. Even though he was the aggressor.

776.041?Use of force by aggressor.—

The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(2)?Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a)?Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

As long as he was afraid of the black kid, he had every right under FL law to pick a fight with him, get his ass kicked, and then shoot him to death.

I honestly believe that had Zimmerman told the truth about everything, even how the fight started, from the very beginning, then the law would not be able to touch him at all here. There wouldn't even be an arrest because stand your ground prohibits it.

Ironically, it's his lies that brought this thing to trial.

[premium]

92. He's not using the SYG defense. nt.

[reusrename]

93. I thought that was clear in my post. He chose to lie instead.

I was just explaining that what he actually did, the killing, had he told the truth about it, is legal here.

He can stalk, assault, and then shoot a black kid and it's all legal. Not sure it would be just as legal for him to shoot a white kid though.

[premium]

97. There is nothing illegal

with following someone and confronting them, although he should have followed the dispatcher's instructions.
We don't know who assaulted who and if a white kid was doing the same thing that Zimmerman is alleging that Trayvon had done, then it would be legal to use lethal force.
All the defense has to prove is that Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life when he shot Trayvon to claim self defense, which is applicable in all states.
Personally, I think the DA's office overreached with 2nd Murder, Manslaughter is more appropriate charge.

[reusrename]

100. The DA didn't have much of a choice here. Had Zimmerman been arrested that night, maybe.

I think he will make his case.

[premium]

103. Judging from what I've seen so far,

and many, many lawyers who've been interviewed, they're saying that there's not enough evidence to support a 2nd Murder charge, which is a big problem for the prosecution.

I've testified in enough court cases to know that the prosecution is struggling to make their case and quite frankly, I will be surprised if they get a conviction for the lead charge.

Time will tell.

[WinkyDink]

108. "I think what Zimmerman actually did is legal in FL." Then there would be no trial.

[reusrename]

132. Correct, that's exactly what I was saying.

[Voice for Peace]

152. but under Florida law, Trayvon had the same right.

"As long as he was afraid of the black kid, he had every right under FL law to pick a fight with him, get his ass kicked, and then shoot him to death. "

As long as he was afraid of the creepy ass cracker,
he had every right under FL law to pick a fight with him.

[Voice for Peace]

150. this completely exonerates Trayvon, if he did start the fight

(3)?A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

IF Trayvon said "tonight you die, mothafucka" or whatever
Z's story is -- he had a perfect right to say that, even to threaten
Zimmerman with death, IF that's what he did, which I don't
believe.

But according to the law, Trayvon was where he had
the right to be, and was committing no crime,
had good reason to believe his life was in danger from
the creepy assed cracker, and had the right to use
force, EVEN LETHAL FORCE, to protect himself.

[Crepuscular]

191. The statute that you quoted

allows an individual to "meet force with force" if they reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. What force was Martin met with? No evidence that would indicate Zimmerman hit him or caused any other injury prior to the shooting. Meeting force with force means that the person invoking self defense does not get to be the physical aggressor in the first place, only that they can use force in response to force. Not sure the evidence is there to prove that Martin had grounds for self defense, while there is physical evidence that Zimmerman sufferred injuries consistent with Martin hitting him.

[Voice for Peace]

193. nothing zimmerman claims can be proved. it's just as likely, or more likely, that he initiated the

physical contact.

[Voice for Peace]

195. evidence not consistent with Zimmerman's exaggerated claims

[Demo_Chris]

48. The only evidence for self defense is Zimmerman's word and judgement...

Which have been shown to be false and questionable.

Despite Z's claim, Martin was not under the influence of drugs. Despite Z's claim, Martin did noy have anything wrong with him, nor was he up to no good. Despite Z's claim, Martin almost certainly did not return from behind the buildings at the T to circle Z's truck in a threatening manner. Despite Z's claim, Martin almost certainly did not approach Z with his hand in his waistband, then while holding something in his hand.

Despite Z's claim to the contrary, we know from the location of the fight that Z did conntinue to pursue Martin all the way to the point of the fight. Despite Z's claim we know that Martin did not knock Z down and begin pounding his head on the sidewalk at the T intersection. Despite Z's claim, we know that Martin did not punch him in the face twenty times, or smother him, or muffle his cries.

We know that there was a fight of some kind. We don't know who started it, we don't know who was winning, but we do know that neither party was particularly injured prior to the gunshot. We know, based on witness testimony and physical evidence, that Zimmerman plays fast and loose with the facts, and we know that Martin was scared and had tried to avoid the fight altogether. We know, based on physical evidence and witness testimony, that Zimmerman pursued Martin over and over and over again.

At SOME point Zimmerman must advance some kind of evidence to support his claim that this was self-defense. He's the one making this claim, and his team needs to support it in some way. So far they have not done so.

[SaveAmerica]

57. Exactly

[Crepuscular]

72. The evidence

that he was acting is self defense is going to be the photo's showing him covered with blood and the testimony of the EMT that he sustained injuries, coupled with the autopsy report that showed that Martin was uninjured except for the gunshot wound. Clearly, Zimmerman was getting the worst of the physical confrontation between the two. There is no evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's story that Martin initiated the physical confrontation. That really is all that the defense needs to sustain the self defense claim. Claiming that neither party "was particularly injured" is not going to fly with the jury, when there are pictures of blood and testimony from the EMT that Zim's nose was fractured. I know you would like that to not be the case but denying the existence of physical evidence is just plain silly.

[Nevernose]

149. Good lord.

It's not about the injuries, it's the fact that Zimmerman lied about them. It's not about who hit whom first, it's about what caused the victim to be in fear. It's about the fact that all we have is Zimmerman's word, which has shown to be generally worthless, and the fact that none of the evidence backs up Zimmerman's claims.

[Crepuscular]

159. No, it's really not.

In order for Zimmerman to walk, the defense needs to show that a reasonable person might think that they were in danger of suffering death or grievous bodily harm. Who the physical aggressor was, what injuries were suffered and what a reasonable expectation of whether the injuries might have escalated had Zimmerman acted in self defense, are the core of what the jury will be deciding this case on. The medical examiner can look at some pictures and give testimony that in her opinion the injuries were not particularly serious but she can't speak at all to the potential that more serious or even life threatening injuries might have occurred had Zimmerman not used the gun in self defense. I think the prosecution faces an uphill battle at this point. I see almost no chance of a conviction on 2nd degree murder and only a partial chance of a conviction on a lesser charge. More likely a hung jury.

[Nevernose]

161. I will agree on one important point:

I think second degree murder was an overreach. In this case, there's just no way to prove Zimmerman's mind frame, not unless there's some kind of bombshell that we don't know about.

My point about the injuries, if I have not been clear enough, is this: Zimmerman lied about their extent. That was testified to not just by he ME, but his own doctor. Furthermore, even the police said during the interrogation that his injuries didn't match the story. The fact that immerman lied about this important issue, making things seem worse than they really are, seriously damages the credibility of his self-defense claim. Zimmerman is asking jurors to believe that he was walking back to the car, minding his own business, when Trayvon leapt from the shadows and attacked him.

A reasonable person can conclude that following a kid in your car for a while, before grabbing a gun and chasing him into the night, is intimidating to that child. The act of intimidation alone negates his claim for self-defense in the manslaughter charge. Zimmerman, at best, was seriously irresponsible and it led to the death of a child.

[Shankapotomus]

164. When I was a kid I didn't want anything

to do with adults. You would never catch me going toward one if I didn't have to.

[The Wizard]

54. Zimmerman stalked Martin

first by car and then on foot until there was a face to face confrontation. He forced his presence on an innocent person and wrongfully tried, convicted and executed the innocent person because he wanted to be hailed as a hero in his community. In essence a mentally unstable person was granted a conceal and carry permit because even crazy people have the right to bear arms.
If Zimmerman really wanted to be a well armed hero he could have joined the military, but wouldn't because he's a punk who liked hunting for unarmed victims.

[Whiskeytide]

56. I am afraid you ARE wrong...

The defense doesn't have to "prove" anything. They just have to muddy the waters with some doubt. The prosecution bears the burden of proof, and they must prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". Its not supposed to be easy to put someone in prison, and our system is designed to give the accused the benefit of the doubt in almost every phase of the process.

What you have stated in the OP is a good analysis of how the defense may not be able to prove their theories, or at least an observation of the holes in their theories. But that doesn't matter if the prosecution doesn't meet their burden in the first instance, and there are holes in their theories as well. There is not a lot of solid evidence here either way, to be honest, and that means you have to speculate some to reach conclusions of guilt or innocence. Anytime speculation is part of the jury's decision making process, the prosecution is in trouble.

Someone up-thread stated that people here need to be prepared for a not guilty verdict. I suspect they are correct.

[darkangel218]

77. -1

[Whiskeytide]

82. How am I wrong?

Or is your thumbs down merely dissatisfaction with the unfortunate reality? If it's the latter, I understand. I don't think Zimmerman is a good guy. I think his "tough guy" fantasy and the fact that he was carrying a gun is what motivated his extremely stupid behavior that night. But being stupid doesn't mean the prosecution is going to be able to give the jury enough evidence to get him for 2nd degree homicide.

[darkangel218]

83. Zimmy is not gonna be aquitted.

And I have no idea of which "reality" you talking about.

[premium]

88. And 99% of America said the same thing

about Casey Anthony, how well did that work out?

[Whiskeytide]

99. The "reality" that, based on...

... what I've seen so far, a conviction is very unlikely. That's just my opinion, but obviously I think I'm right.

[Shankapotomus]

86. Granting your argument

(and it is not an implausible outcome or verdict), we are left with a case of competing cases of mistaken identity and self defense where the killer walks.

That may indeed be the law but that is a stupid reason for someone to be dead and his killer to not be convicted.

All just an unfortunate mistake? Case closed?

So all I have to do to get away with killing someone is annoy them enough to the point that they attack me physically, back up against a wall and then pull out my gun and shoot them.

[Whiskeytide]

89. I agree with your frustration...

... but your analogy sort of proves my point. The problem is that the prosecution doesn't appear to have the evidence - without reasonable doubt - that Z annoyed M enough to provoke him into an assault so he could then shoot him. We might speculate that such occurred, - in fact, that's exactly what I speculate happened. But speculation about what Z did is not allowed by a jury. The prosecution has to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ReRe]

80. No, you are not wrong.

Has anyone questioned the "state of mind" of Zimmerman? Did they do a drug & alcohol blood test on him on the night of the murder? His judgement was really fucked up that night. That police dept did a bad bad thing when they didn't take him straight to the hospital to get his injuries documented and get the needed blood test. For all the world, it looks like the police dept was defending him! I know a Physician's Assistant from a clinic examined him the next day and testified to that fact, but has there been an actual Doctor testify yet? What about Zimmerman's Doctor who subscribed the meds he was on?

For all the world it looks like the Defense is the Prosecution and Prosecution is the Defense. Like the trial is about the guilt or innocence of Trayvon Martin and not GZ. This trial is really screwed up...

[onenote]

94. I invite you to read this Florida court decision.

It may make you reconsider the certainty of your post.

http://www.4dca.org/Sept%202006/09-13-06/4D05-3691.op.pdf

[kudzu22]

98. There doesn't need to be

IANAL, but my understanding of FL law is that the state has to prove it was NOT self defense.

[WinkyDink]

107. Exactly. Suppose, let's say, a woman had turned on Jack the Ripper & bloodied his face before he

stabbed her to death.

Would HE be the victim of an aggressive female?

[Shankapotomus]

113. +1

It is looking more and more to me that our laws are inadequete to all the possible scenarios that come up. That a person can get away with killing someone that started out as a mistake is unacceptable.

[RGR375]

129. Impossible to cover all scenarios

Most self defense laws were very strict at one point. But what happened was a lot of people ended up doing hard time that should have been acquitted. Now most of the laws are much more in favor of the person that had to use deadly force. I carry a firearm all the time. I do not put my hands on anybody, i don't start shit with anybody and if they start it with me i walk away. If i every get ito a situation where god forbid i did have to shoot somebody it is nice to know that the law should back me up.

[RGR375]

124. No he is still a murderer (Jack the Ripper)

People that are not ccw holders or gun people in general have not looked into the laws on the use of deadly force in their respective states. I would bet most of the people posting here would have a hart attack if they read through them. I keep telling anybody that will listen do not put your hands on another person unless you have no other choice and if you do don't push it over the limit. If you go to far then the other person may have grounds to use deadly force on you.

[LynnTTT]

109. I missed the first responder testimony, so

Did the EMT's mover Travon's body at all?
If not, then the photos tell the truth. Travon's covered body is lying at least 8' from that very narrow idewalk. Zimmerman says he was having his head pounded down on the sidewalk and was also being smothered, but pulled out his gun and shot Travon. Then how does the body end up entirely in the grass?

[noiretextatique]

125. no...you are right

and zimmerman is a liar.

[d_b]

126. sure there is

his word. and dead kids tell no tales.

[noiretextatique]

130. the archtype of the dangerous black man

is his only "evidence" that martin attacked him. and unfortunately, it is a powerful stereotype that resonates with otherwise reasonable people. like all those who are soooo certain that martin hit zimmerman first. like the person in this thread who is claiming martin gets "a pass," while poor zimmerman is on trial
as we all know, if the races were reversed...if martin was white, and zimmerman was black, all the people whining about poor zimmerman would be calling for his head.

[DrewFlorida]

134. Unfortunately he does not have to prove his innocence, the prosecution has to prove his guilt.

We already know beyond any reasonable doubt that he is a murderer, a scumbag, a piece of S##t.
I hope the prosecution is able to get a conviction, Trayvon Martin deserves justice, all Americans deserve justice.

[davidn3600]

135. The state has to prove that it's NOT self defense

That's how the law works.

You are innocent until proven guilty. The government must prove your guilt.

[gollygee]

136. Self defense is an affirmative defense

So the state would have to prove he shot TM if he hadn't admitted it, but he has to prove that it was self-defense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

[DirkGently]

170. Not really.

Zimmerman has to establish the basic facts of a self-defense claim for the court to allow the jury to consider it. If he does that -- and I think his narrative of what happened is probably enough -- the state then has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it isn't true.

That's what I think a lot of people aren't getting here. Zimmerman's story IS the evidence. There's no proof we've heard yet that it couldn't have happened the way he said, and if it did, the state cannot convict.

[onenote]

181. Wikipedia isn't a good source. Florida case law is.

And Florida case law establishes that the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. The defendant merely has to present a bare minimum of evidence in support of its self defense claim.

http://www.4dca.org/Sept%202006/09-13-06/4D05-3691.op.pdf

[bravenak]

137. You are right.

If he was defending himself, h needs to prove that. I'm not taking his word for it.

[Voice for Peace]

141. simple and excellent.

[DirkGently]

163. Kind of. That's not how evidence works. This is not going well for the state.

Full disclaimer: Zimmerman is at fault. He appears to have needlessly initiated a fatal encounter based on idiotic racial profiling and an irresponsible belief he was entitled to "play cop" with a real gun. But for him being an asshole, an innocent young man would be alive. This post is not a covert argument for stupid cop wanna-bes carrying guns and leaping out of their cars to confront people they deem "suspicious," or that a young man deserved death for wearing a hoodie and being black in an idiot's neighborhood.

Zimmerman is stupid and an ass and at the very least racially biased, and he shot an innocent person, and this is not the way things are supposed to be.

Here are the problems with convicting him as I see it.

The "DON'Ts" you're talking about aren't required. Zimmerman doesn't need corroboration. The state has to OVERCOME what he is saying. Casting doubt won't do it. They need a narrative where Zimmerman killed deliberately AND not in self-defense. They don't seem to have one.

EVIDENCE:
The critical thing, at the end of the day, is what happened just before Martin was killed. The rest of it -- the profiling, the stalking, the likely harassment and confrontation, is despicable, idiotic, likely racist, but not illegal, and does not take away the legal theory of self-defense. Zimmerman, whether he testifies or not, will get his version of events in. Sure, the jury could decide it's all baloney, but they need some basis other than the appearance Zimmerman is a racially profiling idiot to do that.

You can't convict on the basis that something other than what Zimmerman says must have happened because he is a terrible person. This is what people did not understand about the Casey Anthony case. The fact that a defendant appears to be despicable, and / or liar, does not create a set of facts on which you can convict them of murder.

All of this about whether Martin circled or Zimmerman zigzagged doesn't come into play. Who chased who first does not matter. This case boils down to who was on top, doing what, to whom, at the very end. The rest is uncertain and largely irrelevant to the murder charge.

Martin's story will not be told. The phone call, the confused statements of a couple of barely-there witnesses, will not carry much weight, because they're not clear. There is no alternative narrative to Zimmerman's story in evidence at this point. At best, the state seems to be implying he unfairly thought of Martin as a "suspect." That's not enough.

Zimmerman's nose was broken. His head was bloody. Sure, a million things other than his story about being pinned and beaten and in fear could have happened. There is no proof of that, though, and the burden is not on Zimmerman to show he isn't lying.

So the jury's going to be left with a man saying he was fighting for this life and shot to save himself. Guessing that Zimmerman is lying because he started things rolling by being an asshole is not evidence that something other than what he says happened in those final crucial moments.


BURDEN OF PROOF:
The state has to show beyond a reasonable doubt, not ONLY that Zimmerman killed Martin, but that he did it with a "depraved mind regardless of human life," AND that he was not in fear of death or great bodily harm when he did it.

Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. If the state doesn't show beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered Martin with a depraved mind, AND show his claims of self-defense are false, also beyond a reasonable doubt, he wins.

THE CHARGE
Manslaughter would be a lot easier here. That's culpable negligence -- carelessness. The state's not trying for this though. Everything I've seen indicates they've omitted this as a lesser included charge. I think that is a mistake.

It doesn't matter whether the jury thinks Zimmerman is a racist. It doesn't matter if they think his terrible judgment is the ultimate cause of Martin's death. It doesn't matter if they have a some doubt about his story or his wounds or whether he had some other option than lethal force. It matters whether the state can affirmatively show he killed Martin deliberately, and not when defending himself. *Beyond a reasonable doubt.* If the burden went the other way, the state would win, but that's not how the laws are written.

Not calling the case. He could be convicted. But this thing is not slam-dunking its way toward a murder conviction. It is not a "no brainer" for the state. The best evidence of what happened so far is what Zimmerman said to the cops. There is NO clear alternate narrative. Trayvon Martin is not here to tell another story. If he walks, blame the gun laws, blame the self-defense statutes, blame the way the state handled the charge. Bear in mind when you do that a lot of states have similar laws.

But don't pull your hair and claim it's impossible, or the jury were racists, or Florida law is insane. These facts, as egregious as they are, are not providing a great case for the prosecution of a murder charge, and I don't think it's going that well for the prosecution. Maybe they have some great forensic evidence, or a witness we haven't seen.

So far though, they're not making the case.

[Shankapotomus]

172. I'm not one to pull my hair out

I can accept facts.

I just can't accept a kid being killed because some bozo decided he was up to no good when he wasn't.

I just hope the people who allow Zimmerman to walk can live with that.

[DirkGently]

173. Ha. I know. I was addressing "the room" as well.

It sucks. I think the largest blame for why this case MAY not afford any justice belongs with the gun-carry laws. I don't think Martin was in the process of killing Zimmerman.

I speculate that Martin was in the process of delivering a well-deserved ass-beating when the gun came into view. I think Zimmerman panicked, worried that Martin would take it and use it, and shot because once the gun was in play, he didn't know what else to do.

[Shankapotomus]

175. I agree

And I think recognizing that Zimmerman had a gun and was reaching for it may have prompted Martin to fight all the harder, thus inflicting more damage to Zimmerman than he might have otherwise intended for someone with no weapon.

The presence of the weapon just made things worse and worse.

[RGR375]

176. Do not put your hands on anybody

Why? because depending on the laws of your state you may get your ass shot off. The golden rule do not touch anybody unless their is no other choice. These laws were wrote the way the are for a reason.

[DirkGently]

182. Jesus god, don't agree with me.

Please.

[Llewlladdwr]

167. I suppose if one ignores the broken nose and lacerations to the head...

...then yeah, there's no evidence that Z was defending himself.

And your so-called errors one and two are nothing of the sort. Z saw a person he considered suspicious in his neighborhood. He then called the police to report it. That's exactly what one is supposed to do in such a situation.

[Skittles]

171. this has to be a joke

HAS to be

what EXACTLY was suspcious about Trayvon? DO TELL US.

[Shankapotomus]

174. So killing a kid

who wasn't up to anything was supposed to happen?

[Honeycombe8]

179. You don't understand criminal legal cases. Much of what you list isn't an element of the crime.

It's just froo froo stuff surrounding the guts of the case.

It doesn't matter whether TM was a burglar or not. That has nothing to do with it.

It doesn't matter that GZ called 911, except to show that he didn't intend to kill TM (you don't call the cops right before you kill someone).

There IS evidence that TM hit GZ first: it's GZ's testimony. A lot of people don't believe it, and TM isn't here to give his version. But GZ's testimony is evidence. Just like if TM had stated the opposite, TM's testimony would be evidence, too. (Note: GZ hasn't testified, but his version of the story has been entered as evidence via videotape and statements and by police testimony.)

What you mean is there is no corroborating evidence.

I tend to think that TM did hit GZ first, though, because GZ was consistent in that part of his story (all significant parts of his story, actually), when telling it several times AND when his story was videotaped at the site. He has never changed his story. And he was telling it right after the incident, without a lawyer, which he could have requested.

[onenote]

180. sadly, a large number of the posts about this trial are made by people who have made no effort

to learn about or understand the applicable legal principles.

Again, because apparently its necessary, my pointing this out is not meant to suggest that I think Zimmerman is or should be acquitted. Its simply to point out that a lot of posts assume, mistakenly, that the burden of proof in this case is on the defense.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

192. "It doesn't matter that GZ called 911, except to show that he didn't intend to kill TM"

Not at issue, as this isn't a 1st Degree Murder case where premeditation is an issue. However, statements on the 911 call are potentially relevant for a 2nd Degree (depraved heart) murder case, which this is. Most notably, Zimmerman's "These assholes always get away" and "Fucking punks" remarks.

You note that there is evidence that Trayvon hit Zimmerman first in the form of Zimmerman's own statements, and that's correct. And then you speculate that if Trayvon had made statements too, it would be evidence too, but there aren't any, so there's essentially only one side of the story out there.

However, you are forgetting Rachel Jeantel's witness testimony. And maybe some people might want to discount here because she didn't present herself as a polished witness, didn't speak clearly enough for her tastes, testified as to conversations with Trayvon using certain less than savory terminology, etc. But she did testify to facts that suggest that Zimmerman was the aggressor. And the jury will have the right and ability to make their own judgments and determination on the evidence, whether you like it or not.

As for Zimmerman's stories and his believability, there were some minor inconsistencies with the various statements, nothing major. However, inconsistencies aren't just internal. If there are inconsistencies with other evidence beyond those statements, as well as inconsistencies with basic logic, those can and should be considered too.

You chastise the prior poster about not knowing much about criminal legal cases, but it looks as though you could use some education on the process yourself as well.

[freshwest]

186. No, and you are more generous in your assessment than I am. Answer me this:

Going to common media personas from movies and television, and centuries of literature, let's paint a picture, as they are biased.

A person I'll describe for maximum effect, such as media has presented over the years as an innocent and sympathetic figure:

A young, attractive, middle class white girl who is well known and respected, is followed by a stranger in a vehicle on her way home.

He is talking on the phone about her character and how she isn't going to get away from him, even uses profanity to describe her.

Said stranger, a large male, gets out of vehicle and follows said girl.

They engage in a struggle, or so the big male says.

The girl ends up dead of a bullet to the heart.

How would media portray this incident?

How would those who have slandered the dead walker Trayvon Martin, see it if the slain person was instead Yvonne Martin?

IMO, since the dead was not caught or convicted for anything that night, and should be regarded as innocent until convicted by a court of law, they would never have carried as they have.

[Shankapotomus]

187. We all know how a court or jury

would rule on such a case.

Society is often blinded by who it thinks people are or expect them to be. There is no doubt people are being swayed in this case by Martin's gender, color and age.

The laws are inadequate to handle such cases.

If a kid can wind up dead after some idiot's series of errors and presumptions mixed with the presence of a firearm, and there be no legal repercussions for it, that is an unacceptable legal system.