The Zimmerman Trial

i don't think the jury is buying that zimmerman thought he was afraid of dying from those injuries in the fight, i also don't think they believe it was george screaming, if you have a gun and are about to shoot someone why would you be screaming for your life? it is far more likely that trayvon saw the gun being pulled on him and was screaming for his life. of course pro zimmerman crowd will say that is pure speculation but i call it logic.

reply to post by firemonkey


It is not up to the defense to prove anything.

Trayvon was a thug who was traversing a decent neighborhood (which had had recent crime problems) and to which he did not belong.
GZ was following him for good reason.
He attacked GZ.
He injured GZ and almost surely would have killed or seriously wounded GZ had GZ not been able to fire in self defense.

To pretend otherwise is to ignore the facts. He should never have been charged with a crime.

please avoid future jury duty....

Originally posted by firemonkey

Originally posted by roadgravel
I don't see enough to say it wasn't self-defense. The standard is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

I don't know what you mean, the prosecution doesn't have to disprove self-defense...they only have to prove the killing...that isn't in doubt. It is up to the defense to prove that it was in self-defense...I don't think they did that.

The facts are:
1. Zimmerman killed Trayvon.
2. Zimmerman brought the gun to the situation.
3. Zimmerman was following Trayvon.

Those are really the only "facts" we have...everything else is fuzzy. We don't know who started the fight, we don't know if Trayvon was reaching for the gun (only Zimmerman says he was...and he didn't testify), we don't know anything else besides the "facts" above.

Zimmerman's injuries grave or even threatening...they were injuries anyone would get in a fight...I don't believe, and I don't think the jury will believe, that his life was in danger to the point that he had to kill Trayvon in "self defense".

you have that backwards, the defense doesn't have to prove anything. they just have to show reasonable doubt. the system in the U.S. is innocent until proven guilty. or at least it use to be.

now for your facts.

1. Zimmerman killed Trayvon.

this is a fact. he claims self defense, it is the burden of the state to prove he had ill will, intent or or any other thing that applies. and that he used force beyond what was reasonable. they didn't prove that.

2. Zimmerman brought the gun to the situation.

this is not a crime he has a cc permit. means he can carry a gun anywhere there is no law against carrying one.

3. Zimmerman was following Trayvon.

again this is not a crime, he was not stalking TM.

Zimmerman's injuries grave or even threatening...they were injuries anyone would get in a fight...I don't believe, and I don't think the jury will believe, that his life was in danger to the point that he had to kill Trayvon in "self defense"

no one can say whats someones fear level will be triggered at, some may not show fear at all, some might until they see blood, some when they get their bell rung and some one is on top of them pounding away.

if you were in fear for your life and thought someone was gonna pound your head repeatedly on a sidewalk, and you couldn't get out from under them and you had a gun that you had a cc permit for you telling me you wouldn't shoot.

i don't believe you.

Someone claims self defense in a killing. The prosecutor say it is not. Prosecution brings in no witnesses or evidence. Would the person be found guilty? Not by a reasonable, unrigged jury.

Originally posted by MuzzleBreak
reply to post by firemonkey

 

It is not up to the defense to prove anything.

Trayvon was a thug who was traversing a decent neighborhood (which had had recent crime problems) and to which he did not belong.
GZ was following him for good reason.
He attacked GZ.
He injured GZ and almost surely would have killed or seriously wounded GZ had GZ not been able to fire in self defense.

To pretend otherwise is to ignore the facts. He should never have been charged with a crime.

Trayvon's dad lived in the neighborhood and he was walking home...nice try at the character assassination though.

Zimmerman was following him...Zimmerman caused the situation.

There is no clear evidence to point to who attacked first.

I have to laugh at you thinking a scratch on the head would kill someone.


I think I will exit this thread, I didn't realize it was a Zimmerman fanboy thread....carry on.

reply to post by firemonkey


Killing someone is not unlawful by default.......

782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—
(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Bolded the important bits, the state has to prove those for it to be called manslaughter. They have not done so IMO.

reply to post by firemonkey


Martin's father did not live there, his mistress did.....
Try speaking with a medical doctor about head injuries sometime. Educate yourself.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by firemonkey

 

Killing someone is not unlawful by default.......

Excellent post!
Thanks.

Originally posted by TKDRL
WTF was that? Sounded like someone said "they slammed my head down"
Anyone else catch that?

Nah, but I'm listening. The last time I heard the jury (?) was after the testimony of the Medical Examiner...they leaned toward the defense, in my opinion. It could have been the audience, but it was some of that feed that eventually gets bleeped and off air cuz we aren't supposed to be privy to it...

I'm listening to them now...I see a blue curtain up. Do you?

reply to post by ButterCookie


I think they just forgot to cut the MIC off lol. Hearing all kinds of weird backround noises and people in the distance now lol.

OH a press conference.

Wow, Zimmerman was considering testifying. Someone called it.

782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.
History.—ss. 4, 5, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2378; ch. 4967, 1901; s. 1, ch. 4964, 1901; GS 3203; RGS 5033; CGL 7135; s. 66, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-24; s. 45, ch. 75-298; s. 1197, ch. 97-102.

782.03 Excusable homicide.—Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner.
History.—s. 6, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2379; GS 3204; RGS 5034; CGL 7136; s. 1, ch. 75-13.

It could easily fall under 782.02, assault and battery is a felony.
Sorry, a bit rusty. Link

I just can't get over this Judge demanding that the defendant indicate whether or not he intends to testify on his own behalf. The only thing any defendant must enter into the record is typically a plea.

It's not as if it is uncommon for defendant's to not testify at their own trial.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
too bad zimmerman is not taking the stand, with all his inconsistencies the prosecution would have eaten him alive. they would have caught him in lie after lie.

Yeah, because they've been so effective in everything else so far! Yeah!

Looks like the plan is finish the trial by mid day friday.

reply to post by Wiz4769

You guys crack me up, stand up and fight, you must be no older than a twenty something for sure. You grow out of that.

Guess it depends on what you value. Personally I would rather go home with my head busted in a couple of places, and a broken nose, than have to live out the rest of my life knowing I had killed a teenager - (or anybody for that matter).

I wouldn't have liked having my arse beat, but it would have been a better conclusion to this situation than the existing one.....

Originally posted by AlexG141989
What do you think the verdict will be and how long till the jury reaches a verdict?

I think Zimmerman will almost certainly be found not guilty, which surprises even me, because before this trial started, I expected this to be a joke of a trial and for him to get railroaded into a conviction. If anything, the case the prosecution has presented has been pretty weak, as far as I'm concerned.

Needless to say, I expect a fairly quick verdict, something along the lines of 6 hours or so.

Originally posted by BellaSabre
Guess it depends on what you value. Personally I would rather go home with my head busted in a couple of places, and a broken nose, than have to live out the rest of my life knowing I had killed a teenager - (or anybody for that matter).

I wouldn't have liked having my arse beat, but it would have been a better conclusion to this situation than the existing one.....

edit on 7/10/2013 by BellaSabre because: (no reason given)

If I knew that the person would have stopped giving me a beat down at that point, yes I would have rather it stopped. But if I feared that the person would not stop beating my arse, I would try and do anything possible to stop it.

Ok I have lurked enough. I swear most of you are so consumed with fear and insecurity that the part of your brain that is supposed to be used for logic and reason has been overloaded with BS. Someone please answer me how someone who is mounted and getting punched in the face and his head slammed into pavement has the ability to draw a weapon and fire a " life saving shot" to his would be attacker. How did this happen? How would Trayvon even allow him to do this if he was dominating Zimmerman physically. Did they call time out? The gun was supposed to be in his shirt under his jacket so how did he get to it while mounted. Natural reaction would be to put your hands up to block the blows. I do mma training I know this from first hand experience. There is now way this could have happened as described. Also the back of your head is one of the worst places you can get hit you would not be conscious after one or two of those plus the ground and pound that was described.

reply to post by RickKilgannon


Ya, if I thought he was going to actually kill me, I would have defended myself also. I'm way to young to die.