Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

[Kamakazie Sith]

We now have a prosecution witness saying he saw Zimmerman pinned to the ground by Trayvon, who was throwing punches at Zimmerman. And on cross-examination, he said that Trayvon in fact performed a "mixed martial arts" maneouvre called the "ground and pound" on Zimmerman. WTF? This guy is a prosecution witness? These prosecutors are worse dopes than the ones who tried OJ.

They may have wanted the opportunity to cross examine him first. Sometimes that can be an advantage. Other times, like this time, it can be disastrous. They can still focus on the physical evidence of this ground and pound. Zimmerman's injuries are mild at best. Of course, the problem with that is the discussion starts to become more subjective.

[Metahive]

Could a passing mod please spit this tangent about ethnic separatism into a separate thread? I think there's much to discuss about it and it's not really related to the Trayvon Martin case.

[hunter5]

Back to the topic on hand No active deception from Zimmerman according to police at the trial.

[Edi]

Black Nationalism discussion split here.

[Kuja]

Update: the prosecution's rested.

Link

SANFORD, Fla. — Jurors in the George Zimmerman trial are leaving the courtroom after an eventful day.

Prosecutors rested their case Friday, a day in which Zimmerman's mother and Trayvon Martin's mother each testified that it was her son, not the other woman's, who can be heard screaming for help on a 911 call.

Judge Debra Nelson denied a request by defense attorneys to acquit Zimmerman of second-degree murder after prosecutors rested.

Defense attorney Mark O'Mara argued that the state didn't prove its case, and that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.

Prosecutor Richard Mantei told the judge Zimmerman was a liar and had changed his story.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

The prosecution in the murder trial of George Zimmerman wrapped up its case after a dramatic day of testimony Friday, with Travyon Martin's mother and brother saying the screams for help that can be heard in the background on a 911 call came from the 17-year-old.

Before the defense began its case, defense attorney Mark O'Mara argued Zimmerman should be acquitted, saying prosecutors hadn't proved their case.

"What is before the court is an enormous amount of information my client acted in self-defense," O'Mara told Judge Debra Nelson, who continued to listen to arguments late Friday afternoon.

Before the state rested, Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, sat expressionless on the witness stand while prosecutors played the 911 recording, in which high-pitched wails can be heard as Zimmerman's neighbor urges a dispatcher to send police quickly. Moments later on the call, there is a gunshot and the crying stops.

"Who do you recognize that to be?" prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asked Fulton.

"Trayvon Benjamin Martin," she replied.

She was followed on the stand by her son Jahvaris Fulton, Martin's 23-year-old half-brother, who also testified the cries came from Martin.

Identifying the voice could be critical to the case because it could help the jury determine who was the aggressor during the scuffle that ended with Zimmerman killing Martin. Zimmerman's father has claimed it's his son yelling.

Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch volunteer charged with second-degree murder, has said he shot the teen in self-defense during a fight.

Late in the afternoon, the prosecution rested after calling 38 witnesses over two weeks.

When introducing herself to jurors, Sybrina Fulton described having two sons, one of whom "is in heaven."

During cross-examination, O'Mara suggested – haltingly, in apparent recognition of the sensitivity of the questioning – that Fulton may have been influenced by others who listened to the 911 call, including relatives and her former husband.

O'Mara asked Fulton hypothetically whether she would have to accept that it was Zimmerman yelling for help if the screams did not come from her son.

"I heard my son screaming," Fulton answered firmly.

The defense attorney also asked Fulton whether she hoped Martin didn't do anything that led to his death.

"I would hope for this to never have happened and he would still be here," she said.

O'Mara asked Jahvaris Fulton why he told a reporter last year that he wasn't sure if the voice belonged to Martin. Jahvaris Fulton explained that he was "shocked" when he heard it.

"I didn't want to believe it was him," he said.

O'Mara asked to play the TV interview for jurors, but the judge denied his request for the time being.

Before testifying, Sybrina Fulton posted on Twitter: "I pray that God gives me the strength to properly represent my Angel Trayvon."

After the mother and brother testified, the doctor who performed an autopsy on Martin took the stand. Associate Medical Examiner Shiping Bao started describing Martin as being in pain and suffering after he was shot, but defense attorneys objected and the judge directed Bao away from that line of questioning.

He later estimated that Martin lived one to 10 minutes after he was shot, and said the bullet went from the front to the back of the teen's chest, piercing his heart.

"There was no chance he could survive," Bao said.

With jurors out of the courtroom, Bao acknowledged under defense questioning he had changed his opinion in recent weeks on two matters related to the teen's death – how long Martin was alive after being shot and the effect of marijuana detected in Martin's body at the time of his death.

Bao said last November that he believed Martin was alive one to three minutes. He also said Friday that marijuana could have affected Martin physically or mentally; he said the opposite last year.

The judge ruled before the trial that Martin's past marijuana use couldn't be introduced, and so the jury did not hear Bao's opinion about the drug's effect.

Zimmerman attorney Don West questioned why Martin's hands weren't covered to preserve evidence on his fingers and why it took three hours to remove the body from the scene. West and Bao talked over each other at several points, prompting the judge to tell everyone to speak one at a time.

[Col. Crackpot]

CBS News

Forensic Pathologist is now stating that gunshot wound is consistant with Zimmerman's story of Martin being on top...

I would say that would introduce a sufficent reasonable doubt into the minds of more than one juror... Thoughts?

[Meest]

Going to have to be a manslaughter charge now really, even with Zimmerman's story being inconsistent and contradicting the prosecutors haven't done a good job to point that out yet or really press that Zimmerman's case is all over the place. So it does introduce doubt because of all the unknowns but think the defense's extremely bias witnesses really hurt their case because Zimmerman's past contradicts them painting him being super passive and docile man that can't hurt a fly. Depends on Florida law now, don't see how it's reasonable self defense when they are implying that he's incapable of determining that by saying he's a huge wimp and it's known he pursued the other person.

[TheFeniX]

Under Florida law, it doesn't matter if Zimmerman instigated the harassment. If Zimmerman's story is true, that Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground, and began striking him while on top of Zimmerman: it's legitimate self-defense under the law. They'd have to prove Zimmerman was acting unlawfully at the time, which I haven't seen them offer anything it that area, instead trying to focus on his motives.

I believe Zimmerman was acting in the the most irresponsible way leading up to the shooting, but even under Texas law (which has a duty to retreat in that kind of situation), I don't think I could vote to convict on a murder charge if I was on the jury. Provided Zimmerman's account of events is truthful, his use of deadly force was legally justified once it got to that point. At the least though, Zimmerman should be found guilty of Deadly Conduct for forcing a situation he could have easily avoided, even his course of action was technically legal, if not extremely bone-headed.

I consider it in the same vein as the "Last Clear Chance" rulings. Yes, it's not your fault some idiot pulled out in front of you, but if you can avoid a dangerous situation without endangering others, you should have a legal responsibility to do so. Zimmerman should have been aware that if a physical confrontation took place that he could kill someone with his weapon. He had an obligation to do everything he could to keep that confrontation from happening, even if his course of action was lawful.

[Patroklos]

I don't think that flies either unless you can show Zimmerman regained sight of Martin and started the altercation. You might disagree with it but so far all we have evidence of is Zimmerman following someone at a distance, calling the cops on him, and then going to get an address to give the cops.

That really is entirely separate from the struggle if we go with Zimmerman's account, there was a clear break from when he had sight and was following Martin to just going to get an address and going back to his truck. At that point, if we believe Zimmerman, everything involving the confrontation is solely on Martin. If Zimmerman is at fault for following a person he thought was suspicious Martin is far more at fault for chosing to beat up a guy he thought was following him.

[Meest]

Under Florida law, it doesn't matter if Zimmerman instigated the harassment. If Zimmerman's story is true, that Martin attacked him, knocked him to the ground, and began striking him while on top of Zimmerman: it's legitimate self-defense under the law. They'd have to prove Zimmerman was acting unlawfully at the time, which I haven't seen them offer anything it that area, instead trying to focus on his motives.

I believe Zimmerman was acting in the the most irresponsible way leading up to the shooting, but even under Texas law (which has a duty to retreat in that kind of situation), I don't think I could vote to convict on a murder charge if I was on the jury. Provided Zimmerman's account of events is truthful, his use of deadly force was legally justified once it got to that point. At the least though, Zimmerman should be found guilty of Deadly Conduct for forcing a situation he could have easily avoided, even his course of action was technically legal, if not extremely bone-headed.

I consider it in the same vein as the "Last Clear Chance" rulings. Yes, it's not your fault some idiot pulled out in front of you, but if you can avoid a dangerous situation without endangering others, you should have a legal responsibility to do so. Zimmerman should have been aware that if a physical confrontation took place that he could kill someone with his weapon. He had an obligation to do everything he could to keep that confrontation from happening, even if his course of action was lawful.

This is what I don't understand and never gets brought up. What about the part of Justifiable Use of Force, 776.042:

"(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; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force."

Never see or hear them talk about that point, did he use every reasonable means to escape, he said he was able to control Martin's hands to prevent choking and still had enough freedom to get off a shot, he admits that it was Martin going for the gun that turned it into a deadly event not the fight itself, but from the position they are arguing from it's impossible for that to happen in a fully mounted position where Zimmerman's gun would be under his body blocked by Martin's leg/feet in that position. This doesn't support 2nd Degree but I think it still falls under Manslaughter.

[TheFeniX]

I don't think that flies either unless you can show Zimmerman regained sight of Martin and started the altercation. You might disagree with it but so far all we have evidence of is Zimmerman following someone at a distance, calling the cops on him, and then going to get an address to give the cops.

I spaced on the idea that Zimmerman lost contact with Martin. And Martin started the next encounter. Considering the abandonment, the assault by Martin comes off as unprovoked, which makes an even better case for self-defense.

Never see or hear them talk about that point, did he use every reasonable means to escape, he said he was able to control Martin's hands to prevent choking and still had enough freedom to get off a shot, he admits that it was Martin going for the gun that turned it into a deadly event not the fight itself, but from the position they are arguing from it's impossible for that to happen in a fully mounted position where Zimmerman's gun would be under his body blocked by Martin's leg/feet in that position. This doesn't support 2nd Degree but I think it still falls under Manslaughter.

IIRC, Zimmerman was carrying his gun in a shoulder holster. This would support the idea that he could clear his weapon while being on his back and his attacker striking him since it would be located under either armpit depending on if he were left or right handed.

In that situation, not only did Zimmerman not have a duty to retreat, but it's next to impossible to do so when someone is on top of you. You can draw your weapon as a deterrent to force, even if deadly force isn't justified. However, as pointed out by our CHL instructor, once an attacker grabs your firearm, they then have access to deadly force and you can respond in kind.

The problem with unarmed encounters is the intentional vagueness of laws concerning it and the reliance on the also vague "reasonable person." One punch can knock someone out, but police (generally) don't immediately shoot anyone who resists arrest. However, an LEO may be forced to fire on an unarmed attacker even before he knows he's going to lose the fight. And even then, sometimes it happens too quickly to accurately judge how a fight is going. But if you happened to knock him on his back and try to mount him, if he has a chance to clear his weapon, you're most likely a dead man.

This is when specifics play a major role. Few would blanch at an elderly woman shooting an attacker twice her size and half her age. But what happens when you're attacked by someone about your size and age? Then what happens if you're put into a position where they have easy access to deadly force, like being on top of you? In that situation, you don't have the luxury of thinking "maybe he's just going to rough me up a bit."

[Flagg]

I think the biggest thing that gets ignored is Martins right to defend himself against a 30 year old creep stalking him in his own neighborhood.

[TheFeniX]

If Zimmerman's story is anywhere near true, he lost contact with Martin and Martin could have used the opportunity to report the creepy stalker to the authorities and/or cut and run. Hell, he could have just yelled "I live here, what's your problem?" Deciding to instead find and assault his stalker makes it hard to believe he was actually afraid at the time.

Even if Zimmerman had been shouting at Martin to get out or whatever (From what I know, no verbal communication took place between them), it doesn't justify Martin's use of violence unless you buy into "fighting words" insanity.

Nitpick: the neighborhood was not Martin's place of residence.

[Flagg]

Why would Martin attack Zimmerman? That's the biggest hole in the entire fucking Zimmerman line of horseshit. Zimmerman had every motive to stalk and attack Martin because "These assholes (niggers) always get away".

[Gaidin]

Has a self defense case ever had to account for the motive of the attacker? Or have they just had to deal with the fact that proving reasonably that they were being attacked? Because the prosecution hasn't really contested that Martin was on top of Zimmerman swinging and that was one of their big mistakes here.

[Flagg]

Have you heard what Zimmerman has said happened? It sounds like a bad action movie. He actually claims that Martin saw his gun and said something to the effect of "you gonna die tonight" and then after he was shot exclaimed "you got me!" It's ridiculous.

[Gaidin]

What does that have to do with him needing to account for the motive of an attacker before defending himself? Why hasn't the prosecution really contested the story that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and swinging?

[TheFeniX]

If Zimmerman is lying about the circumstances of Martin's assault (as in it wasn't assault, Martin was actually fending off an attacking Zimmerman and got the upper-hand) and the testimony and physical evidence convinces one juror of his lie, then he gets away with murder.

[Gaidin]

Except all through the defense's case the prosecution hasn't tried to hammer home that some aspects of the testimony from the forensic pathologist and the use of force expert was rather extraordinary given what we know of the situation and Zimmerman's story. They sort of let it all stand. They didn't try to really knock down his story, and it's mostly why their biggest hope right now, at least logically, is that the jury will go for a lesser charge in deliberation.

[TheFeniX]

That's why I'm not bothering to argue that Zimmerman is lying. The prosecution has done nothing, from what I've read, to attack his interpretation of the events leading up to and including the shooting. They're merely trying to paint his motivations in a poor light and that doesn't lead to a murder conviction in this case. All I can say that if he is lying and it can't be proved otherwise: he walks.

Manslaughter isn't even a valid charge considering the circumstances of what lead to the shooting, so they're really gambling. I say Deadly Conduct could apply only because he was specifically told by police to not pursue Martin and in pressing the matter put himself and others in danger, even though him defending himself from said danger was legal. It would still be a hard sell.

[une]

Maybe the prosecution doesn't really want to convict Zimmerman.

[Patroklos]

Manslaughter isn't even a valid charge considering the circumstances of what lead to the shooting, so they're really gambling. I say Deadly Conduct could apply only because he was specifically told by police to not pursue Martin and in pressing the matter put himself and others in danger, even though him defending himself from said danger was legal. It would still be a hard sell.

Not really, they just said "you don't need to do that." A cop on another board also pointed out dispatchers are not normally police officers and probably don't have any legal authority to tell you anything but I am not sure about that and Zimmerman wouldn't know either way.

Its irrelevant though because Zimmerman DID stop following Martin, the incident occured after that.

[aerius]

I think the biggest thing that gets ignored is Martins right to defend himself against a 30 year old creep stalking him in his own neighborhood.

Would you like to cite the appropriate Florida law which covers this?
Cause if there ain't one or it doesn't apply to the claimed sequence of events then it's irrelevant in a court of law.

[Gaidin]

Not really, they just said "you don't need to do that." A cop on another board also pointed out dispatchers are not normally police officers and probably don't have any legal authority to tell you anything but I am not sure about that and Zimmerman wouldn't know either way.

Its irrelevant though because Zimmerman DID stop following Martin, the incident occured after that.

Well, in testimony, the dispatcher specifically said he did not give Zimmerman an order, only a suggestion.

[Flagg]

I think the biggest thing that gets ignored is Martins right to defend himself against a 30 year old creep stalking him in his own neighborhood.

Would you like to cite the appropriate Florida law which covers this?
Cause if there ain't one or it doesn't apply to the claimed sequence of events then it's irrelevant in a court of law.

The same one Zimmerman tried to use to shield himself with you fuckwit.