Zimmerman Trial for Trayvon Martin

[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.

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

Grow the fuck up. Let me use some small words which even a moron like you can understand. Go look up Florida's criminal codes. Cite the sections which explain why it's legal to use force in self-defence against a stalker. Then explain why and how it applies to the alleged chain of events in the Zimmerman case. If you can't do that then get the fuck out, the adults are trying to have a discussion.

[Flagg]

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.

Grow the fuck up. Let me use some small words which even a moron like you can understand. Go look up Florida's criminal codes. Cite the sections which explain why it's legal to use force in self-defence against a stalker. Then explain why and how it applies to the alleged chain of events in the Zimmerman case. If you can't do that then get the fuck out, the adults are trying to have a discussion.

Go steal from an elderly couple you stupid cunt. Zimmerman attacked Martin and Martin was in the process of defending himself when he was brutally and callously murdered. That's the prosecutions entire fucking case. But you're probably too busy spanking it to dreams of securities fraud to pay attention. Now kindly fuck off.

[Patroklos]

Cite the evidence for your chain of claims, the DA obviously couldn't be bothered to do so.

[Meest]

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.

That doesn't match his story. He was caught saying in his video with the police the next day that he continued to approach Martin, he magically always ends up knowing the right way he cut through houses (how without having sight of him most of the time), then realizes his error and adds in the "He's coming right at me!" extra line. He went on the dog path to get an address, yet earlier in the video he knows the street name, not only is it cheap movie script like it's also painfully obvious it's due do his knowledge of the laws. Either way Zimmerman's story is full of contradictions and a third party witness testified that it was an argument while standing and flailing arms, no one got jumped, they confronted each other, question is why didn't either of them retreat or stop the aggression.

Zimmerman admits Martin asked him if he had a problem, now all of sudden after a rainy night pursuit or following he's now passive and has no problem. No mention or thought that he should mention his intentions or neighbourhood watch affiliation. Consistent evidence that Zimmerman lied or exaggerated, is that enough to collaborate the forensics, even with the mess of Dr. Bao he wasn't the only one to testify that Zimmerman's wounds were superficial.

Back to the holster issue, are you watching the trial? It was confirmed the make and style of gun and holster, and it was inside the waistband behind the hip, so it was under his back/butt while being mounted there's no way Martin would see it, and Zimmerman get it, something is missing, that was not the position at the time of the shot. The manslaughter charge is sound at this point, just no idea how they will explain it to the jury, even the prosecutors forgot or would skip obvious points.

[TheHammer]

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.

He could have said "You shot me".

When this first came out the extent of Zimmermans injuries weren't seen, but having seen them know, if legitimate, would seem to support his statement that by the time he actually fired his gun he was doing so out of fear for great bodily harm or possibly death. But how he got to that point is at dispute.

I envision three scenarios, I'll rank from most to least likely.
1) Zimmerman provoked a confrontation with Martin, perhaps saying something along the lines of "You fucking punk assholes need to stay out of my neighborhood", or perhaps even getting physical and starts an altercation where Martin gets the better of him and ends up pulling his gun and shooting.

2) Things happen more or less as Zimmerman says. Martin perhaps upset at being followed for "Walking while black" becomes enraged and provokes the confrontation when he sees Zimmerman out of his car. They exchange some words, probably not the ones Zimmerman says they exchanged, but Martin doesn't like what he hears and swings first, again getting the better of Zimmerman and Zimmerman has to shoot him in self defense.

3) Zimmerman goes vigilante. Confronts Martin, likely doesn't like what Martin says, or how he acts, and shoots Martin in cold blood. To cover up his crime he inflicts the injuries on himself, knowing that for it to be a stand your ground defense he would need some sort of evidence showing he was in imminent danger and an ice tea and skittles on Martin weren't going to be sufficient.

Obviously, scenario 3 would take a lot more cunning and be hard to pull off without slipping up. I find scenarios 1 and 2 to be fairly equally likely. The prosecution hasn't really shown anything to prove that scenario 1 occured anymore than scenario 2. Further, as others have noted I don't think they've even contested the idea that at the time of the shooting, Martin was on top of Zimmerman. They would have to effectively dispute that point, I think, for a murder conviction. I think in this case, the most likely result will either be acquital or manslaughter, and I think that you could make the case for either one based on the evidence.

At this point, I'm leaning towards aquital. Do I think Zimmerman should get off "scott free"? No, but unfortunately I don't think the state has proven the case for any of the charges they have leveled against him. Zimmerman definitely acted like an idiot before, during, and afterwards but that doesn't mean he actually did anything illegal.

[Meest]

His nose and head injuries do imply he got floored by a left hook, but again that could happen after a shoving match or flailing like a witness said or even on the ground. How you think those are serious injuries is beyond me, the behind the head abrasions are not consistent with repeated slams, a fall or a new theory was he hit the sprinkler box near the fight scene. Remember it has to be justifiable force, there's still an onus on Zimmerman to exhaust all means to stop it or get away. He admits he was able to wrist lock or at least get control of Martin's hands, so how was that moment deadly peril. Doesn't help that he only shot Martin once he went for his gun, if that was the case he wasn't in fear of his life from unarmed injury. The screams are the even harder to prove either way, but Zimmerman's side again is filled with contradictions. He said Martin was still talking after the shot yet in the call we hear nothing after the shot, sure it wasn't screaming but again what is Zimmerman hiding with the lies. Also how was he screaming while being smothered and pounded.

What about this scenario, they get into argument and struggle, heard and witnessed by a party with no affiliation with either of them. Thinks he can handle this punk and get clocked with a left that floors him, panics and shoots him while they struggle for the gun, to me that's why the screaming was so desperate. The fight was from 15-45secs the injuries and screams aren't consistent with a fight for that amount of time, I think they were fighting for the gun but Zimmerman introduced it, no way he was on his back and got it out if he was mounted. Falls under not justifiable manslaughter. The same arguments to Zimmerman being aggressive and profiling to show 2nd degree murder can also be used to show he was not exhausting his options but escalating them. But I agree the state has been bad in general and not painting clearly their case, and too much time making it all a wash or speculative. Being flabby or a wimp or soft shouldn't give an armed man more leeway in using deadly force.

[aerius]

What about this scenario, they get into argument and struggle, heard and witnessed by a party with no affiliation with either of them. Thinks he can handle this punk and get clocked with a left that floors him, panics and shoots him while they struggle for the gun, to me that's why the screaming was so desperate. The fight was from 15-45secs the injuries and screams aren't consistent with a fight for that amount of time, I think they were fighting for the gun but Zimmerman introduced it, no way he was on his back and got it out if he was mounted. Falls under not justifiable manslaughter. The same arguments to Zimmerman being aggressive and profiling to show 2nd degree murder can also be used to show he was not exhausting his options but escalating them. But I agree the state has been bad in general and not painting clearly their case, and too much time making it all a wash or speculative.

The problem is proving beyond a reasonable doubt that actual events unfolded the way they did in your hypothetical scenario. Recall that this is a criminal case so presumption of innocence applies and the burden of proof is with the prosecution. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the events happened as they claimed to get a conviction.

Being flabby or a wimp or soft shouldn't give an armed man more leeway in using deadly force.

Actually it does. If I knocked a 90 lbs granny to the ground and started yelling in her face while shaking her firmly by the shoulders, she's fully justified in putting a few extra holes in my head. And she will walk free. Because any reasonable person will conclude that she's in fear for her life and has no way to make it stop other than shooting me. If I did the same thing to an NFL linebacker, he's going to jail if he shoots me. No way in hell he can claim he was in fear for his life when he's got 100 lbs on me and can just get up and throw me across a room. No reasonable person would believe that shit.

[Meest]

Interesting that this could have been avoided if the defense went with a Stand your Ground ruling, it wouldn't have gone to trial but they waived it to "vindicate" Zimmerman. Could be a costly mistake but I agree that 2nd degree is impossible at this point and they should have focused on manslaughter. Without the Stand your Ground they just have to show he didn't justifiably kill Martin, which is a lot looser and easier to prove. Just need to prove he didn't do everything he could before shooting, last resort type argument. Prosecution maybe had shot down all the holes in the defense, but like it's been said they need to not disprove the defense but prove their version, not leave it up to common sense.

[Simon_Jester]

Without "stand your ground," it would still be justified to shoot someone who was straddling you and beating you. Unless (MAYBE) the prosecution could prove that you provoked the fight, and even then you might get away with it.

In this case, the prosecution has had the devil's own time proving that Zimmermann provoked the fight.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Isn't "straddling him and beating him" something that's been pretty much disproven by how the injuries were handled? That since the EMTs didn't immediately hospitalise him to treat potential brain injury there's no way it's consistent with him being knocked repeatedly into the pavement unless they handled it with gross criminal negligence?

[Meest]

Also have to consider the point of you have to exhaust all other means to stop the violence or retreat, if you disprove that Martin could have seen or went for the gun it's all about the physical harm done to Zimmerman. So not sure if it will come down to juror opinion on how hurt he was, or if they will consider he was able bodied enough to prevent himself from being choked and get his gun out, why go straight to lethal force. Again the prosecutors needed to give the jury their version not just disprove the defense's, say that "he had no reason to use the gun at that time, there's no way our client could see or attempt to use it". But instead they are letting the jury come up with their own reason and not pushing the manslaughter requirements.

[Flagg]

Isn't "straddling him and beating him" something that's been pretty much disproven by how the injuries were handled? That since the EMTs didn't immediately hospitalise him to treat potential brain injury there's no way it's consistent with him being knocked repeatedly into the pavement unless they handled it with gross criminal negligence?

If he had been straddling and beating him Zimmerman would in fact be dead unless Martin was pulling every 35-40 punches Zimmerman claimed Martin threw at his face.

[Meest]

Isn't "straddling him and beating him" something that's been pretty much disproven by how the injuries were handled? That since the EMTs didn't immediately hospitalise him to treat potential brain injury there's no way it's consistent with him being knocked repeatedly into the pavement unless they handled it with gross criminal negligence?

If he had been straddling and beating him Zimmerman would in fact be dead unless Martin was pulling every 35-40 punches Zimmerman claimed Martin threw at his face.

That leads me to believe it was a terribly bad fight, as in not skilled by both involved. Think Martin got a lucky one in and then it was all wrestling and flailing but not landing. Question is why is someone is real distress on the 911 calls, is Zimmerman that much of a wuss that he's wailing while barely getting hit or Martin afraid of getting shot, again my opinion the gun was introduced at a different time.

[Flagg]

In my opinion Zimmerman stalked and confronted Martin, tried to grab him, Martin rightly assumed Zimmerman was some weirdo and struck him, Zimmerman may have fallen and hit his head at which point Martin may have stood over him and smacked him around a bit, then Zimmerman pulled his gun, and Martin started screaming for help at which point Zimmerman, knowing he's totally fucked, shoots him and makes up a bullshit story full of holes. I don't think it was second degree murder, it was first degree murder. The prosecution charged what they think they can prove. I think it's a good sign that the jury didn't come back Friday with an early verdict, and am hopeful they aren't going to acquit, but will instead argue over second degree murder/ manslaughter.

[Kamakazie Sith]

His nose and head injuries do imply he got floored by a left hook, but again that could happen after a shoving match or flailing like a witness said or even on the ground. How you think those are serious injuries is beyond me, the behind the head abrasions are not consistent with repeated slams, a fall or a new theory was he hit the sprinkler box near the fight scene. Remember it has to be justifiable force, there's still an onus on Zimmerman to exhaust all means to stop it or get away. He admits he was able to wrist lock or at least get control of Martin's hands, so how was that moment deadly peril. Doesn't help that he only shot Martin once he went for his gun, if that was the case he wasn't in fear of his life from unarmed injury. The screams are the even harder to prove either way, but Zimmerman's side again is filled with contradictions. He said Martin was still talking after the shot yet in the call we hear nothing after the shot, sure it wasn't screaming but again what is Zimmerman hiding with the lies. Also how was he screaming while being smothered and pounded.

The injuries weren't serious. There is no contesting that. However, he may have thought it was worse because of the pain and the fact that Martin had him mounted which is bad news. However, the beating isn't what Zimmerman claims made him shoot. It was his perception that Martin went for his gun.

What about this scenario, they get into argument and struggle, heard and witnessed by a party with no affiliation with either of them. Thinks he can handle this punk and get clocked with a left that floors him, panics and shoots him while they struggle for the gun, to me that's why the screaming was so desperate. The fight was from 15-45secs the injuries and screams aren't consistent with a fight for that amount of time, I think they were fighting for the gun but Zimmerman introduced it, no way he was on his back and got it out if he was mounted. Falls under not justifiable manslaughter. The same arguments to Zimmerman being aggressive and profiling to show 2nd degree murder can also be used to show he was not exhausting his options but escalating them. But I agree the state has been bad in general and not painting clearly their case, and too much time making it all a wash or speculative. Being flabby or a wimp or soft shouldn't give an armed man more leeway in using deadly force.

Zimmerman told the police that the gun was holstered on the side of his hip. Why do you believe it wasn't?

Either way Zimmerman's story is full of contradictions and a third party witness testified that it was an argument while standing and flailing arms, no one got jumped, they confronted each other, question is why didn't either of them retreat or stop the aggression.

What witness are you referring to?

[Flagg]

Actually Zimmerman claims the gun was holstered behind his hip. And the way Martin was claimed to have been straddling him makes it impossible for him to even have seen the gun let alone gone to grab it. And in classic bad action movie fantasy utter the ridiculous line "You gonna die tonight motherfucker!"

[Kamakazie Sith]

Actually Zimmerman claims the gun was holstered behind his hip. And the way Martin was claimed to have been straddling him makes it impossible for him to even have seen the gun let alone gone to grab it. And in classic bad action movie fantasy utter the ridiculous line "You gonna die tonight motherfucker!"

Okay. Do you have the transcript. Here is the part of the transcript from the first interview on the day of...

Singleton: OK. What are, what are they saying to you, the police?
Zimmerman: He said who shot, what, who shot him? And I said I did.
Singleton: OK. That’s when you did this.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am. And I said I have my gun on my right side
Singleton: OK
Zimmerman: in my holster in my waistband. And he said, I know you do, he goes but I have to handcuff you first. And I said I just want to make sure you know I’m not going for my firearm.

[Flagg]

Yeah, well in a video interview he pointed to behind his right hip, almost to his lower back when asked where he had his gun.

[TOSDOC]

I'm still not understanding something about this case, and that is the lack of attention to Zimmerman exiting his car, which seems to be a case of seeking a confrontation with someone who also must be presumed innocent. Zimmerman was instructed by dispatch not to follow Martin, and yet did so. What kind of precident will this set should Zimmerman be acquitted?

[Gaidin]

It won't set precedent. The dispatcher was quite clear in their testimony that they don't have authority to give instructions and they didn't give any, only suggestions.

[Zaune]

So... someone just linked me to this on Facebook.

Are they grasping at straws because they desperately want to pretend their argument doesn't amount to "it's not murder if you do it to a nigger", or do conservatives just lead really, really boring lives?

[energiewende]

In my opinion Zimmerman stalked and confronted Martin, tried to grab him, Martin rightly assumed Zimmerman was some weirdo and struck him, Zimmerman may have fallen and hit his head at which point Martin may have stood over him and smacked him around a bit, then Zimmerman pulled his gun, and Martin started screaming for help at which point Zimmerman, knowing he's totally fucked, shoots him and makes up a bullshit story full of holes. I don't think it was second degree murder, it was first degree murder. The prosecution charged what they think they can prove. I think it's a good sign that the jury didn't come back Friday with an early verdict, and am hopeful they aren't going to acquit, but will instead argue over second degree murder/ manslaughter.

Neither charge seems provable. It hinges on who started the fight, and we don't know that. None of the prosecution witnesses gave any solid reason to assume it was Zimmerman. While I'm personally sympathetic to the view that Zimmerman's actions look dodgy and there's a good chance he was up to no good, I'm even more sympathetic to the fact that that is not enough to convict somebody. Absence of proof of Zimmerman's innocence is not the same as proof of his guilt.

[Meest]

The injuries weren't serious. There is no contesting that. However, he may have thought it was worse because of the pain and the fact that Martin had him mounted which is bad news. However, the beating isn't what Zimmerman claims made him shoot. It was his perception that Martin went for his gun.

That's the point, in his story Martin going for the gun makes no sense, Zimmerman demonstrates to police and his marshal friend who advised him what gun and holster to purchase that it was an inside the waist concealed carry type that was behind his hip more over his right butt. So if the bodily harm didn't cause him to shoot it's pretty much manslaughter.

Zimmerman told the police that the gun was holstered on the side of his hip. Why do you believe it wasn't?

What witness are you referring to?

Selene Bahadoor was a resident of the Retreat at Twin Lakes, who works in IT for a hospital. She was at home with relatives and friends on the night of the shooting. She testified that she heard noises outside, moving from the south (left) towards the north (right) towards the top of the T (where two sidewalks met), and went to her window and did not see anything, but moved to her sliding glass door and saw "figures and arms flailing" and that two people appeared to be standing, but it was too dark to identify them or their clothes.

This along with another witness who heard flustered voices then scuffling noises like a basketball game then grunting and wrestling before hearing yelps or screaming. To me this points to them having an argument or at least being aware of each other while standing and he didn't get jumped.

Don't expect everyone to watch every minute of the trial but makes me wonder if where you get your shorthand points or review of the cases skews the opinion. These are key points and people don't seem aware of them.

[Zaune]

Zimmerman told the police that the gun was holstered on the side of his hip. Why do you believe it wasn't?

[/quote]
Well, from that angle it looks like he has the holster positioned directly over his right arse-cheek, so it's technically true if perhaps a little misleading.

[CaptJodan]

I live a suburb over from Sanford, and have been to jury duty in the courthouse they're trying this case in. I also go through Sanford on a semi-regular basis.

The long deliberations and the jury asking for clarification on "manslaughter" earlier today pretty much suggests that there is disagreement and this may drag on for a bit as they try and figure out what they're going to do. It's not an open and shut case, anyway.