The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by Grimpachi
You guys realize they are still in court. The jury is gone but they are still going.

www.wftv.com...

Yes, they were arguing a long time on the animation.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


I can, you never asked me to.

He was in his early to mid twenties. When I was 25, I had 2 friends that were minors (one a mutual friend of my younger brothers and the other a friend that used to come see my band play). It's not unusal for people in their early to mid twenties to associate with 17/18 year olds.

As for the racist comments, I don't think his comment about Mexicans was really racist. He just referred to them in an annoyed tone as "mexicans" and since he himself is hispanic, I would say it has more to do with their culture than their race.

The Middle eastern comment I don't know. Wouldn't make him a murderer and wouldn't be uncommon considering a country at war with the mid east (though not excusable).

Not aware of what or when his employers said that, but I bet I have a few employers in my past that would give differing accounts of me. I know some would say I am one of their best employees, while one in particular from my early twenties would say I am a total ass.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

you see i knew you would show up to explain away zimmermans past, but how come you can't explain away the fact he was hanging out w a minor in a bar, his ties to biker gangs and his racist comments towards middle easterners and mexicans? how come you cant explain away the fact his employers said he had a dr jekyl mr hyde personality?

I'll tell you why...

Because George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon on Feb 26 2012, in SELF DEFENSE.

in self defense after sticking his head where it didn't belong and going beyond his neighborhood watch duties.

Maybe he shouldn't have gotten out, though there has been absolutely no evidence that Martin wasn't casing the houses (it took him 56 minutes to walk a 14 minute round trip - which included 20 seconds of running. What was he up to?). If past experiences are indicative of future results.. Trayvon might have been up to no good.

That said again, maybe Zimmerman shouldn't have gotten out, but it wasn't illegal for him to do so. He did nothing illegal that night.

trayvon was not committing a crime!!

Actually when he assaulted Zimmerman it was a crime, and the first crime committed that night.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

Does George strike you as the kind of guy who ever runs more than he has to?

Ignorant argument considering he was going to the gym 3 times a week and had lost like a 100 lbs since starting. He only gained the way back after being forced into hiding for a year by idiots like the New Black Panthers.

They were talking about the text messages they want to enter the content found.


The messages about Martin talking about buying and selling guns

And

The messages about his fighting.

There was many messages about different caliber guns even Martin selling one to a friend.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
there may not be anything illegal about following someone in your neighborhood but george was neighborhood watch and they are not supposed to follow, plus following someone is creepy and a 17 year old kid is gonna feel fear, fight or flight, trayvon decided to fight. if anything trayvon was STANDING HIS GROUND.

You don't understand how stand your ground works. It is only a usable defense if all routes of escape have been explored. Martin wasn't in fear or he would have gone in his home when he was standing beside it rather than heading back towards Zimmerman and confronting him. You seem to selectively forget that Martin confronted Zimmerman, that excludes him from SYG. If you can get away then it doesn't apply. Martin HAD gotten away and went back and ambushed Zimmerman.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


SYG doesn't mean you have to explore all routes of escape. It means you do not have to escape you can stand your ground.

It does not mean you can continue attacking a person who is not fighting back. You cannot knock someone to the ground and get on top of them then pound them. You can knock someone down but not become the aggressor.

Martin had 0 right to jump on George after he was down.

That is even if GZ was initialy the aggressor which hasn't been shown and I do not believe either.

If anyone is interested, this link -

live feed

has discussion as to what evidence the defense will be allowed to present regarding the abilities, attitudes, etc., of Martin.

In the United States of America, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat

Based on what I have seen and heard, Zimmerman is headed for acquittal. The prosecution had a poor game plan.

Peace

reply to post by FlyersFan


Tree branches lol..... Yeah sure, if he was running backwards through a thick forest, that might be possible

reply to post by Grimpachi


Not true actually.

You would think that, but that's misleading. You are allowed to stand your ground after you have tried to avoid confrontation.

Look at the case of Jorge, the teen that stabbed his bully to death after Jorge got off the bus early and the bully followed him off the bus and started hitting him.

He was let free because the judge said he showed he tried to avoid confrontation by getting off the bus and so he was cleared of charges.

If you can get away you are supposed to do that. Not that you have to escape from the confrontation if you can, but if you can avoid it at all you have to do that.

Story

reply to post by roadgravel


See my above post. I may have taken it wrong, but when I followed that case the judge implied that the fact he had tried to avoid the fight played into why he wasn't charged (which implies had he not tried to avoid it, ie: stood his ground) he may have been charged.

I was under the impression it meant you are allowed to stand your ground after exhausting all other options.

reply to post by jam321


They should have dropped the case after the state was finished. Every witness I have seen was either in support of Zimmerman, or completely without credibility. I have been trying to catch up on the footage, watching the stuff on YT, and am now mostly through day four (yeah, I know; way behind!). Taking notes on the witnesses, I flat can't understand why they felt they had any hope at all of obtaining a conviction!

I will list a few examples, and apologies to all if this information has already been posted. I flat can't read 183+ pages to check. I am not sure if there is some rule about posting names or not, so I will use witness numbers and initials. For brevity, "TM" will = Trayvon Martin, and "GZ" will = George Zimmerman.

1'st witness - CJ - This one lost all credibility from the start, when he didn't even respond, until prompted, when sworn in. He gave his phone number with only nine digits, instead of ten. He claimed first to have watched television and played games with TM all day, and later stated they only played games. He stated that TM went to the store, but could not state, at all, when this happened. He also stated that he called him, and was told by TM that T was "headed back", but doesn't state why he would have called, or why, when TM never arrived, he took no action. Most interesting, he stated that his mother and the senior Mr. Martin did arrive back that evening, before he went to bed. So, if he expected TM, and TM never arrived, and the adults returned that evening, why wasn't TM reported missing till the next day? This was a teen on suspension from school, after all. So, he and this witness are left alone, unsupervised, and no one reports TM missing that night? Something is seriously wrong there.

2'nd witness - AG - Mostly, he confirms that the video footage is authentic, but he has NO recollection of TM being there that night. He does state one fascinating thing, though; that his height is 5'10". Looking at the stills from the footage, TM looks a bit more than a single inch taller to me! Yet, he's being stated to have been 5'11" in court. Earlier reports had him listed as 6'2". So, what's going on there?

3'rd witness - SN - This was the man that took GZs non-emergency call. Professional fellow, with years of experience. Very credible. He stated clearly that he didn't detect anything in the tone or content of GZs speech that would raise any alarms for him. Nothing that would indicate to him that GZ might be a problem. He also acknowledged that he could understand that, after he had asked GZ twice to let him know if the guy (TM) did anything else, that when he asked GZ, "Which way is he running?", how GZ could have interpreted that to mean he should leave the vehicle to check. Even though that wasn't SNs intent, he understood how the conversation could leave that impression. He also states that the second time GZ mentioned the race of the person, it seemed like simply a confirmation, since previously, GZ had sounded unsure.

5'th witness - WD - This is the lady that coordinated and trained people for Neighborhood Watch (NW after this) programs. She discussed the various security issues that were brought up in the initial meeting with interested residents. These included the poor lighting in the "dog walk" area, an unsecured area on the perimeter that allowed easy access, and, most interestingly, the fact that the residences seemed to have a known issue with the sliding glass doors. Apparently, there was some sort of hinge that would pop open all the time, something a resident would know about. I can't help but wonder if perhaps some resident(s) had involvement in some of the burglaries. This witness also stated that she was very impressed with GZ., so much so that she recommended him for the Citizens on Patrol program. GZ declined. That shoots this "wannabe cop" idea completely out of the water, in my opinion! Finally, she stated emphatically that the NW program does NOT, EVER tell people that they cannot carry a gun. She stated that she doesn't even bring up this issue, because of the 2'nd Amendment. So, those claiming he was wrong to carry one, as part of the NW, are wrong, at least in this case. She was also clear that being part of NW doesn't mean a person cannot protect themselves if they are attacked. As a witness for the state, she did a lot to help the defense!

(to be continued)

(continued from last post)

8'th witness - DS - She is a crime scene tech, that worked the scene. After much discussion on how carefully they detail the scene, she was unable to list the distance between the a keychain flashlight and the body. She is unclear as to whether or not she uncovered the body before the ME arrived, to take pictures. She stated that, while she checked for blood, this was by simply walking around with a flashlight. She obtained no details from police on where to look for blood, and no chemicals were used that would show any blood trace, where the visible blood might have been washed away by the rain. The pictures she took of GZ were many hours after the incident, and she can't state whether or not he was able to wash of blood before she took those pictures. Earlier pics show, clearly, that he had to have done so. She was unable to state whether or not she opened the bag of clothing from TM when picking it up from the ME. All in all, it seems this scene wasn't handled properly.

Earlier comments by the defense 8ndicated that TMs hands weren't bagged, and that clothing was placed in plastic, wet, instead of wrapped in paper as it should have been, which can lead to evidence degrading.

9'th witness - SB - This witness claims to have been in residence at the time. She makes statements about seeing two people, arms flailing, and later seeing people on the ground, and the neighbor (another witness) asking if he needed to call police. Her testimony in court was different from earlier statement s that she made. She claimed before to have heard noises, but on the stand, adds in that they were "from left to right". This information never came out in any earlier statements from her. When asked why her testimony was different, she claimed that there wasn't an earlier discussion of this, and that she only read a transcript. The state then objects to the transcript being written, making the very peculiar statement that it is "isn't the same" as the one they have. Hmmmmm.....why would they be different? Seems there is a lot of concealing and changed evidence from the state in this case! After much questioning, she can't explain any reason she would add, only at the trial, testimony about a direction for the sounds, that she never mentioned in the past. The defense has her page through multiple documents looking for the comment, and of course, she can't locate it. It's clear from the evidence, and her demeanor, that she changed her testimony. The defense even asks her if she's aware of her sister (supposedly also a resident) had duplicated her story. I would love more details on that! Even after stating that she was sure someone was shot, she did NOT call 911. The first time she stated she saw or heard anything was at some community meeting. She claimed this was because she didn't want to be on national TV, but she did in fact go on national TV. She also signed a petition for the prosecution of GZ, and liked a "justice for TM" page on FB. This witness was clearly without credibility, and biased. I seriously doubt she witnessed a single thing.

10'th witness - JD - This woman was one that did call 911. Her call was quite lengthy, too, because she was basically hysterical on the phone. Nothing she stated would refute the claims of GZ, and her comments on who she thought did what were clearly based on nothing but emotion. She was sure, because she heard a "child" had been killed, that the cries for help must have been that child. She utterly ignored the fact that many teen boys have deeper voices (mine did, at 15...), and that GZs voice is very soft, and not low pitched. She claimed to have no knowledge of such voice differences, even though she taught school for many years. Even with all her preconceived notions, and utter lack of logical though processes, she still stated that the guy on top had a dark jacket, NOT a red/orange one, as GZ wore. All the personal opinions aside, that supports the defense.

11'th - JM - This is another resident witness. She could not, that night, ID the two by size, race, age, or anything, but LATER formed the opinion, based on pics of 12-yr-old TM< that it must have been GZ on top. When asked if she knew the pictures were of a much younger TM, she still refused to adjust her assumptions. After it's clear this witness was influenced incorrectly by the media, the judge actually allowed the state to LEAD the witness, in suggestions about height, which she'd already stated she could NOT see that night. Too easily influenced, and she really didn't see anything to contradict the defense at all.

(to be continued)

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


In my state a person is not required to retreat first before use of force.

But force is not necessarily deadly force.

Although I have not been as vocal or opinionated as some, I have been following this case and this thread closely. And although I believe Zimmerman to be innocent, I recently came to the conclusion that he should be found guilty. First let me say that I am obviously no lawyer and although it may be difficult to go against my own personal belief, I just do not see how they can find him anything other than guilty. Allow me to express my train of thought.

First, I really do not care how or why the interaction started. As long as no laws were broke, and that seems to be the facts of the case, it really does not matter who followed who or who started what. However, what matters is who escalated this interaction to something unlawful. For example lets say I kick a rock, that rock hits a frog, the frog jumps and lands on a womans foot, the woman screams, a car driver looks to see her scream and runs through a red light, running over a pedestrian crossing the road. Even though I may have started the ripple effect kicking the rock, it was the driver who escalated the ripple in to something unlawful (running the red light and running over a pedestrian).

Ok, having said that, it is clear that whatever happened leading up to a physical interaction, the point where it had escalated in to something that could be determined unlawful, it really a moot point. But what really matters here and the only real question that needs be asked is did Zimmerman act in a 'fight or flight' manner, fearing for his life with the only recourse of deadly force? Some may feel it is the prosecutions task to prove this was not the case and the killing of Martin was unjust however I disagree. I believe it is Zimmerman and his team that needs to prove that this IS the case.

Normally, I agree that innocent before proven guilty is the standard but does this apply here? Zimmerman has already admitted to killing Martin. This is fact. And considering this, I believe it should be he who needs to provide reasonable proof that this level of lethal force was required. Or at the very least, not have his story of what happened (that supports his case) have reasonable doubt. And I believe that there is reasonable doubt in his account.

Now, like I said before, I do believe him (Zimmerman) however after following the trial there is just too many 'less than' supporting facts and shreds of reasonable doubt everywhere to consider his account of what happened 'truth' beyond reasonable doubt. Again, he admits to killing Martin, but if his account of what happened has shadows of doubt (which it does with regards to courtroom testimony and evidence), how can he be found innocent? If he can not show beyond a reasonable doubt that his account is accurate and true then all that is really left is that he killed Martin.

I believe this is how the Jury will see it, and will be found guilty. Which is sad because I do believe that he was getting pummeled, feared for his life, and acted in a manor he felt was the only option left, to use lethal force. But, and again, that's just my gut feeling/opinion. Based on the facts, evidence, or lack there of, I think he should be found guilty.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

They should have dropped the case after the state was finished

Don't think the judge wanted people blaming her for everything.

Good detective work you done there.

Peace

reply to post by HomeBrew

I believe it is Zimmerman and his team that needs to prove that this IS the case.

Normally, I agree that innocent before proven guilty is the standard but does this apply here?

Stopped reading there. Sorry, but it applies to every criminal case ever. So yeah it applies here. The proper way to be a juror is to assume the defendant is innocent, and it's the prosecution's job to change your mind with no reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

I believe it is Zimmerman and his team that needs to prove that this IS the case.

Normally, I agree that innocent before proven guilty is the standard but does this apply here?

Stopped reading there. Sorry, but it applies to every criminal case ever. So yeah it applies here.

No problem, clearly following someone's train of thought is too much to ask of you. Mind you, that was a ? and not a statement you quoted.