The Zimmerman Trial

Great posts @ Lady Green Eyes...

nice to have a summary of the early parts of the trial that I missed...

Originally posted by TKDRL
It's a miscarriage of justice, that prosecutors can go to their media buddies, and start planting ideas in the public's head about a case, long before the case even hits a grand jury. If you get arrested for a "high profile crime", good luck to you. You will have to spend far more than you will make in a lifetime to some slimy ass lawyer firm if you hope to stay out of prison. If you cannot collect some lawsuits afterwards, you are financially screwed for the rest of your life if you are not rolling in money.......

Not to punch holes in your theory, but if found innocent (or even guilty) I believe he is going to make a fortune off of book an/or movie deals.

The jury needs to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that GZ did not act in self defense. If not it was self defense which is a defense to murder and manslaughter.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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

edit on 9-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

You cannot be the aggressor but you are under absolutely no obligation to back down.

Here is a quote. You specifically said that one must first try to retreat. That is false.

It is only a usable defense if all routes of escape have been explored.

Stand-your-ground[edit]

Main article: Stand-your-ground law

In some states in the United States, one can use deadly force in any location one is legally allowed to be without first attempting to retreat. Such laws remove the requirement that the threat must occur on one's own property.Castle doctrine

SYG is an extension of castle doctrine. All one needs to invoke that right is the fear or imminent peril.

----------------

Not that it matters in this case because this case is about self-defense.

As I was saying even with SYG had Martin been the one who was initially attacked once George was on the ground he would have 0 right to even get on top of him. Either which way Martin would be in the wrong.

Once the threat is gone a person cannot pursue or keep attacking.

Originally posted by roadgravel
The jury needs to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that GZ did not act in self defense. If not it was self defense which is a defense to murder and manslaughter.

Ideally this is accurate, however I believe the truth here is that...


The jury needs to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that GZ acted in self defense. If not it was murder.

reply to post by HomeBrew


I am pretty sure the Martin family already beat him to the punch with that.... Just the feeling I get from it. A lot more marketability told from the innocent murder victim point of view I think.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

I am pretty sure the Martin family already beat him to the punch with that.... Just the feeling I get from it. A lot more marketability told from the innocent murder victim point of view I think.

Well played.

Originally posted by HomeBrew

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes *snip*

There is not much you have said here that I outright disagree with, and I am not taking notes or referencing sources ect... I have simply been watching the trial, and getting a feel for how I think the atmosphere is their, in the jurors minds, the courtroom. And everything I have seen simply makes me think he is going to need to prove his innocence. Just about every 'witness' save a very few were murky at best as to what they saw/heard, and did not Zimmermans father even say the voice screaming for help on the tape was not his sons?

My whole point is that the killing of Martin is not being disputed, Zimmerman openly admits this. His account of what happened is the only real source of evidence that need be concrete to set him free. If reasonable doubt can be cast with his story then he is going to be found guilty, this is how I believe the jurors will see it and that is the overall feeling I am getting while watching the trial. Now, as I said before I 'believe' he is innocent and acted in a 'flight or fight' manner, however my opinion/belief means little. What does matter is his account of what happened, and if that can be shown to have reasonable doubt then all we are left knowing beyond a reasonable doubt is that he killed Martin.

edit on 9-7-2013 by HomeBrew because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2013 by HomeBrew because: (no reason given)

The point is, the jury CANNOT legally expect him to prove his innocence. That isn't how the system works. If the state cannot prove murder, then, by law, he must be, and should be, released. The issue is not that Martin was killed, but WHY he was killed. Self defense is legal in Florida (and many other places), and the evidence supports his story. Reasonable doubt applies to the prosecution's case, not to that of the defense. If the jury convicted because they doubted HIS case, there would be an appeal, and that would be overturned.

Besides, of you look at all the data, there isn't really any reasonable doubt of what he stated happened.

1. We have one witness that is CLEAR it was Zimmerman on the ground, being pinned by Martin. At least one more stated it was the one in the dark jacket (which was Martin) on top.

2. Martin had no wounds other than the gunshot and a small nick or something on one knuckle. Clearly, Zimmerman didn't hit him.

3. The elderly woman that testified today stated she was certain it was Zimmerman's voice calling for help. For the record, she's black.

4. Martin was known to fight. There are TONS of texts, that the state is fighting to keep hidden from the jury, showing his propensity for violence. Martin was very fit (clear in several pics), was a former linebacker on a football team, and athletic. Zimmerman, on the other hand, is described by the man that runs the gym where he exercised as "soft", and NOT a fighter.

5. The gunshot evidence is very telling. The holes in Martin's clothing are contact holes. The hole in his chest is NOT. This shows that his clothing was not against him, was pulled down (by that Arizona juice can, confirmed to have been in the pocket) when he was shot. This matches Zimmerman's story completely.

6. Many, MANY state witnesses gave conflicting testimony, and changed their statements from earlier ones. The state concealed evidence from the defense. The judge allows the state to lead witnesses, and won't allow the defense to even show much evidence.

Nothing here shows that Zimmerman is anything but innocent.

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by HomeBrew

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes *snip*

There is not much you have said here that I outright disagree with...

The point is, the jury CANNOT legally expect him to prove his innocence. That isn't how the system works. If the state cannot prove murder, then, by law, he must be, and should be, released. The issue is not that Martin was killed, but WHY he was killed. Self defense is legal in Florida (and many other places), and the evidence supports his story. Reasonable doubt applies to the prosecution's case, not to that of the defense. If the jury convicted because they doubted HIS case, there would be an appeal, and that would be overturned.

Besides, of you look at all the data, there isn't really any reasonable doubt of what he stated happened.

1. We have one witness that is CLEAR it was Zimmerman on the ground, being pinned by Martin. At least one more stated it was the one in the dark jacket (which was Martin) on top.

2. Martin had no wounds other than the gunshot and a small nick or something on one knuckle. Clearly, Zimmerman didn't hit him.

3. The elderly woman that testified today stated she was certain it was Zimmerman's voice calling for help. For the record, she's black.

4. Martin was known to fight. There are TONS of texts, that the state is fighting to keep hidden from the jury, showing his propensity for violence. Martin was very fit (clear in several pics), was a former linebacker on a football team, and athletic. Zimmerman, on the other hand, is described by the man that runs the gym where he exercised as "soft", and NOT a fighter.

5. The gunshot evidence is very telling. The holes in Martin's clothing are contact holes. The hole in his chest is NOT. This shows that his clothing was not against him, was pulled down (by that Arizona juice can, confirmed to have been in the pocket) when he was shot. This matches Zimmerman's story completely.

6. Many, MANY state witnesses gave conflicting testimony, and changed their statements from earlier ones. The state concealed evidence from the defense. The judge allows the state to lead witnesses, and won't allow the defense to even show much evidence.

Nothing here shows that Zimmerman is anything but innocent.

How the jury decides to decipher the evidence is their job, if they decide that Zimmermans testimony is simply not beyond a shadow of doubt, supporting evidence is inconclusive, and are left with only one undisputable fact, that he killed Martin, then they are well within their rights to find guilty.

Also, I believe it was said that Martin had no bruising because he was shot in the heart. If he had not been and his blood allowed to flow freely afterwards then bruising may very well have shown up. A die injection would have proven this one way or another but was never done. Mind you, all this proves is that the 'evidence' of no bruising on Martin proves nothing.

As for his clothes, which were baggy, could have been pulled down during the struggle and subsequent shot. That too actually proves nothing factually. And the fact that many, many (as you say) witnesses are putting forth conflicting testimony only adds to the murkiness of Zimmermans testimony with regards to supporting evidence.

I wish you could step out of your skin and read your post through unbiased eyes as it's clear you have a 'GZ is Innocent' bias that outstretches actual evidence.

zimmerman can still be found guilty of manslaughter or even aggravated assault both which carry multiple decades long jail sentences so he is not out of the woods yet, since the beginning i have personally thought he is guilty of manslaughter.

Originally posted by AlexG141989
Great posts @ Lady Green Eyes...

nice to have a summary of the early parts of the trial that I missed...

You are welcome! I still have to catch up with the rest, but it's very interesting stuff. Having coverage like this means we can see ALL the data, not just the bits and pieces some talking heads wants us to see.

www.sheriff.org...

Broward County Sheriff's Office pleading with the public to behave themselves when the verdict is read.

Okay, so I haven't really been keeping up today. I stopped watching the trial soon after I heard that the Jury had been dismissed for the day.

Apparently a lot has gone on since.

Has the defense rested? Will they play the animation tomorrow? Will the judge allow Trayvon's phone records or whatever else someone was talking about earlier?

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
www.sheriff.org...

Broward County Sheriff's Office pleading with the public to behave themselves when the verdict is read.

Looks like they think he's going free!

Originally posted by AlexG141989
Okay, so I haven't really been keeping up today. I stopped watching the trial soon after I heard that the Jury had been dismissed for the day.

Apparently a lot has gone on since.

Has the defense rested? Will they play the animation tomorrow? Will the judge allow Trayvon's phone records or whatever else someone was talking about earlier?

I missed some of that, from about six EST to 9-ish EST. I did catch the last hour or so, and some before that. From what I gather, the judge didn't give any decision today regarding the animation or the texts, etc, from Martin's cell phone. I really hope they get both in, as they seem to be crucial evidence!

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


I don’t think they are crucial to the defense but they are more like icing on the cake.

----------------

BTW have you noticed that 99% of the TM supporters have stopped posting anything about this case. They were all so sure he was guilty and talked so much smack now they are nowhere to be found.

Especially the ones that were making this out to be about race.

news.investors.com...

A Case Of Corrupt Justice In Florida

Posted 07:18 PM ET

Mob Rule: It's come out in the George Zimmerman murder trial that the state of
Florida withheld key exculpatory evidence in its arrest affidavit and charged
Zimmerman under false pretenses.

Forty-four days after local police released neighborhood-watch captain Zimmerman
from custody, ruling he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in self defense, a
special state task force set up under pressure from the Obama administration
decided it was murder — with no grand jury input. Among evidence to support the
charge, the affidavit noted Martin's mother listened to a recorded 911 call and
"identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's."

Left out of that April 11, 2012, document was the fact that Martin's father also heard
the same tape and concluded unambiguously — according to the testimony of two
detectives — that it was not his son screaming.

(snip)

But it conveniently failed to mention a toxicology report finding traces of marijuana
in Martin's blood and urine — which would have corroborated Zimmerman's remark
to a 911 dispatcher that Martin acted like he was "on drugs."

(snip)

It's now clear that the decision to arrest Zimmerman and put him on trial — which
again, came 44 days after Zimmerman was questioned and released — was,
unconscionably, a political response to pressure from a race-obsessed president
and his attorney general and the racial arsonists like Sharpton with whom they run.

This article really sums it up, doesn!t it? Too bad it took this long for the media to catch on.

reply to post by HomeBrew


What are you talking about? The burden of proof is and should always be on the prosecution. How could anyone change their mind after watching the trial is crazy.

reply to post by HomeBrew


I think you have the people confused! It was trayvon martins father that said it wasn't his son. I think your whole opinion is based on information you have incorrect. That one thing you are confused about weighed heavy in you deciding Zimmerman was guilty, now you find out you were wrong and it was Trayvons dad so do you think now that Zimmerman was innocent. It's pretty undeniable it was Zimmerman on the call yelling.

Also I really don't think you understand how it works. The jury will be very clear that Zimmerman doesn't have to prove he is innocent but that the state has to prove beyond all doubt that he is guilty. They didn't even come close to doing that.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Ah. Well I may be wrong. I was going off what that judge in the seveedra case said. You know I think Zimmerman is innocent regardless.

Originally posted by roadgravel
The jury needs to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that GZ did not act in self defense. If not it was self defense which is a defense to murder and manslaughter.

After the most recognized expert in the field testified today that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he pulled the trigger he will be acquitted. There is no way to see it any other way unless this trial was already decided as the OJ trial was even before it started.

I agree with your statement in the prosecution never provided a true case and now the defense is ripping every aspect of it apart. In the end we have wounds on Zimmerman, we have Martin on top at the point of pulling the trigger...what else is needed, I see nothing else to suggest anything but self defense within the laws of Florida.