Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Stoid]

@Terr

Not according to the law.

Actually, it does. Unless Zimmerman can convince a jury that he had no alternative. And given the evidence, I don’t think he can.

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(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

“Mr. Zimmerman, what did you do to try and escape the danger you were facing before you actually shot Mr. Martin?”

“There wasn’t anything I could do! He had me pinned and he was smashing my head into cement!”

“So he was pinning you down with one arm and smashing your head with the other, and you had no way of freeing yourself?”

“No!”

“But you were able to get your hand on your gun?”

“Yes, finally! It was very difficult, though!”

“And you were able to point it directly at Mr. Martin’s chest and the squeeze the trigger?”

“Yes, but just barely! He was still smashing my head into the cement and holding me down!”

“Once your arm was free, the one that had the gun, did you try using your arm to push him off or hit him?”

“No, I couldn’t!”

“Well, what about your legs, did you try to kick him or menuever him off of you in any way?”

“How could I? He had me pinned!”

“Yes, you said that… he pinned you with one arm, and used the other to smash your head repeatedly into the cement. Even after you had one arm free with a gun in your hand. And the only thing available to you to do at that point was to shoot?”

“Yes, exactly! I was desperate! I thought for sure he was going to kill me by smashing my head into the cement!”

“Mr. Zimmerman, once you got the gun out, did you try showing it to Mr. Martin and simply telling him that you would blow a hole in his chest if he didn’t stop smashing your head into the cement?”

“No, I couldn’t! He was smashing my head into the cement! The only thing I could do was shoot!”

“I’m sorry, I don’t understand…why couldn’t you tell him to stop or you’d shoot him?”

“Because I couldn’t! He was smashing my head! I was nearly passing out! I couldn’t speak!”

“I’m sorry, Mr. Zimmerman, I’m very confused… didn’t you tell us that it was you screaming so loudly that at least four or five apartments nearby calling 911 captured your cries for help? And weren’t you screaming like that right up until the actual second you squeezed the trigger? That’s what we heard on multiple 911 tapes… how is it possible that you could scream like that but you couldn’t quietly inform Mr. Martin that you would shoot him if he didn’t stop?”

“Well, I, um, I was so panicked and confused, wait, I DID tell him! And he didn’t care! That just made him do it harder!!”

“Really? You showed Mr. Martin the loaded gun and told him you would kill him with it and he just got worse, even though he had no weapon himself?”

“Well, I didn’t know he didn’t have a weapon!”

“True, but HE did. And so if you did say this to Mr. Martin and he just got worse, do you think you can describe, listening to the 911 tapes again, at what point you said this to him, between your desperate screams for help?”

And so on. If the prosecutor has two brain cells and the jury has at least 4 or 5 between them I can’t see how Zimmerman is going to sell anyone on the idea that he exhausted every option available to him to stop Martin. Because he didn’t.

So under the law, no self-defense.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

Unless an expert or a state official has vouched for the authenticity of that pic and the credibility of the person who took it, then yes I think it’s stupid not only to assume that it’s admissible, but to decry the state for not citing it in their arrest affidavit.

Even if that pic is legitimate, we have no reason to believe anyone involved in the investigation knew about it.

Oh, I agree that inveighing against the prosecution for not having the picture is foolish.

But I don’t agree that it’s a stupid assumption that it is admissible.

And it is not necessary to have an expert or a state official vouch for it to make it admissible.

Here’s what needs to happen to make it admissible:

[ul]
[li]The person who took the picture takes the witness stand[/li][li]the defense attorney asks the witness if s/he took the picture, when he took it, and if it is a fair and accurate representation of George Zimmerman’s head at that time.[/li][li]the witness answers ‘yes’[/li][/ul]

[Stoid]

@Bricker

(2) is inaccurate. If we get to trial, then George must do (1). If he does, then the burden shifts to the prosecution, who must prove to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killing was NOT justified.

Yes, I understand that. But in practical terms, if he doesn’t make it fly with a preponderance, he can’t just say “Self-defense” without making any attempt to back it up for the jury- that makes it no job at all for the prosecution. They spin it the way they want, present their evidence, and GZ does nothing except hang a sign around his neck that says “self-defense”? I’m sure he’s legally entitled, of course, and I’m also sure the jury would say guilty unless he made an effort to prove that it was actually self-defense. Otherwise the only story they have is the prosecution’s and that won’t support self-defense.

So no, he doesn’t “have to prove it”… but he does if he wants to make the jury believe it.

[Stoid]

@Bricker

Here’s what needs to happen to make it admissible:

[ul]
[li]The person who took the picture takes the witness stand[/li][li]the defense attorney asks the witness if s/he took the picture, when he took it, and if it is a fair and accurate representation of George Zimmerman’s head at that time.[/li][li]the witness answers ‘yes’[/li][/ul]

I had a very funny exchange with the judge in the second half of the trial over this “foundation” stuff…niggling little details, very pesky. But important…

[DaHarder]

@Magiver

That’s not not what Zimmerman “solely” described. He said Martin was acting suspicious and appeared messed up. Believe it or not, people can act suspicious and not be doing anything wrong.

…nor did I ever say that’s what Zimmerman ‘solely’ described.

Rendering your (already weak) point is moot.

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

But I don’t agree that it’s a stupid assumption that it is admissible.

If it was discovered that it was photoshopped or had a fradulent time stamp, would it be still admissible? I’m just wondering what exactly what would make it inadmissible, if all someone has to do is get on the witness stand and claim that it’s real.

[you_with_the_face]

I still stand by my statement that it’s a stupid thing to say, by the way. The witness may not have any problems selling the pic to the press, but could be reluctant to take the stand for Team Z.

[Bricker]

@Stoid

Yes, I understand that. But in practical terms, if he doesn’t make it fly with a preponderance, he can’t just say “Self-defense” without making any attempt to back it up for the jury- that makes it no job at all for the prosecution. They spin it the way they want, present their evidence, and GZ does nothing except hang a sign around his neck that says “self-defense”? I’m sure he’s legally entitled, of course, and I’m also sure the jury would say guilty unless he made an effort to prove that it was actually self-defense. Otherwise the only story they have is the prosecution’s and that won’t support self-defense.

So no, he doesn’t “have to prove it”… but he does if he wants to make the jury believe it.

Yes, but that’s an issue with every defendant. Theoretically, every defendant is entitled to sit there and say nothing, and require the prosecution to prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, in my opinion, there is sufficient evidence of self-defense to meet the defense’s burden, which means that the prosecution must disprove the self-defense idea beyond a reasonable doubt. But of course every little bit helps.

The defense can introduce its case without Zimmerman’s testimony, though in this case I don’t see why they would want to.

Bottom line, though: the prosecution must prove there was no self-defense, and they must do so beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, if the jury ends up thinking, “Well, it probably wasn’t self-defense, but it might have been,” then they cannot convict. They must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt in order to convict.

“Yeah, it coulda happened that way, but it probably didn’t?” = not enough to convict

[Stoid]

Magiver, you have had so many difficulties with correctly tracking what’s being said… I strongly urge you to more carefully examine what you think you’re reading before you respond.

@dngnb8

1. Zim was Ricky Rescue with a trigger finger
2. Trayvon was a wannabe thug
   JMHO, but this is what I believe was the scenario. These confronting aggressive personalities caused the powder keg to go boom

@Stoid

I know that there is a lot of solid evidence for the portrayal of George Zimmerman as Ricky Rescue, can you share the copious matching evidence for Martin as a wannabe thug?

@DaHarder

I’ve been following this story since the day it broke, and I’d reason that said ‘evidence’ (read: [U ignorance) is based solely upon the fact that Martin was a young black male wearing a hoodie while walking at night, and very little else.

@Magiver

That’s not not what Zimmerman “solely” described. He said Martin was acting suspicious and appeared messed up. Believe it or not, people can act suspicious and not be doing anything wrong.

@DaHarder

…nor did I ever say that’s what Zimmerman ‘solely’ described.
.

[Stoid]

@Bricker

In this case, in my opinion, there is sufficient evidence of self-defense to meet the defense’s burden,

This really amazes me.

As for juries… If only we could peer inside their hearts…

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

If it was discovered that it was photoshopped or had a fradulent time stamp, would it be still admissible? I’m just wondering what exactly what would make it inadmissible, if all someone has to do is get on the witness stand and claim that it’s real.

@you_with_the_face

I still stand by my statement that it’s a stupid thing to say, by the way. The witness may not have any problems selling the pic to the press, but could be reluctant to take the stand for Team Z.

Well, unless reluctance means, “Willing to perjure myself,” no. The witness can be subpoenaed and asked under oath the questions I mentioned above.

Now, as to the first question… questions like that are usually directed to the weight of the evidence, not to it’s admissibility. As long as the proper foundation is laid, via the questions I laid out, it’s admissible. Or to use your words, yes: all someone has to do is get on the witness stand and claim that it’s real.

If there is a claim it’s been faked, then the other side presents its evidence and the jury weighs it, deciding how much weight to accord the picture.

It is possible to imagine such strong, incontrovertible evidence of alteration that the judge could rule that, as a matter of law, the photo was unreliable and not admissible. But that would require… er… strong, incontrovertible evidence of alteration.

So to be sure I understand you… You say it’s stupid to assume the photo is admissible, because the photographer might be reluctant to testify?

I’m sorry, but I don’t agree. I agree that some problem might arise affecting the admission of the photo as evidence, but it would be a rare event. Under the ordinary course of events as we see them now, it’s very likely that the photo is admissible, and it would be a rare or unusual event that would make it not admissible. Do you disagree?

[you_with_the_face]

If we take Zimmerman’s statement off the table and simply look at the picture communicated by both the circumstantial and physical evidence, I don’t see how one can assume Zimmerman shot Martin for self defense.

The 911 call tells us 3 things: Zimmerman had prejudged the kid as a bad person (state of mind), he actively pursued this supposedly bad person against 911 advice (poor judgement, impulsiveness, and lack of respect for authority), and he really really didn’t want Martin to get away (intent to restrain or stalk him).

Martin was unarmed and smaller than Zimmerman. We have no evidence of any agenda on Martin’s part to start shit with Zimmerman. His apparent mission had been to get snacks and talk to his girlfriend.

Zimmerman had a gun and an agenda. His apparent mission was to keep Martin the Asshole from getting away.

Martin ends up being killed by Zimmermans gun. The location suggests he was on his way home. There is no decent explanation for why Zimmerman was back there though. His truck was parked some distance away on the street. This suggests he got out of his car to go after Martin.

Zimmerman possibly has injuries but none that leave him so incapacitated by pain or discomfort that he needed emergency care before enduring a 5 hour stay at the PD. He is seen breathing out of his nose on a surveillance video and his head is in without bandageds.

Witnesses report some conflicting things. But there’s some audio of someone yelling desperately for help, that abruptly ends when the gunshot goes off. Multiple witnesses say it was a boy who was yelling. Martins mother says it was her son. Two forensic voice experts rule out Zimmerman.

Question: how does any of this paint a picture of self-defense? It seems to me we have more compelling evidence against Zimmerman than we do for most murder cases. The only difference is that it’s undisputable that Zimmerman killed Martin. If we ignore his claim of self-defense and just connect the dots, it takes little imagination to paint of picture of an impulsive, stupid man with a need to feel important and heroic, who jumps to conclusions about Martin, assumes an authority that he doesn’t have by going after him, corners the boy and incites a struggle that causes him to panic and pull out of his gun, the boy screams for help at that point, and Zimmerman shoots him to restore control to his world. The end.

[you_with_the_face]

And that’s not even factoring in Zimmerman’s previous arrests and employment history, and the statement from Martin’s gf.

[Stoid]

@you_with_the_face

If we take Zimmerman’s statement off the table and simply look at the picture communicated by both the circumstantial and physical evidence, I don’t see how one can assume Zimmerman shot Martin for self defense.

'zackly.

Zimmerman possibly has injuries but none that leave him so incapacitated by pain or discomfort that he needed emergency care before enduring a 5 hour stay at the PD. He is seen breathing out of his nose on a surveillance video and his head is in without bandageds.

Oh PLEASE dont’ forget the physical scene! That has to be part of the picture! Zimmerman’s back is wet with grass clinging to it, the very strange position of Martin’s body: facedown, arms underneath, body on the grass, legs partially on the sidewalk.

Witnesses report some conflicting things.

Including (just to be thorough… I can’t remember all of them):

[ul]
[li]Guy in red was on the bottom, guy in gray on top[/li][li]Someone saw martin screaming[/li][li]Someone saw two shadows, one chasing the other[/li][li]Two people (I believe) report seeing the guy in red on top of the dead guy, pushing on his back, it appeared.[/li][/ul]

Question: how does any of this paint a picture of self-defense? It seems to me we have more compelling evidence against Zimmerman than we do for most murder cases. The only difference is that it’s undisputable that Zimmerman killed Martin. If we ignore his claim of self-defense and just connect the dots, it takes little imagination to paint of picture of an impulsive, stupid man with a need to feel important and heroic, who jumps to conclusions about Martin, assumes an authority that he doesn’t have by going after him, corners the boy and incites a struggle that causes him to panic and pull out of his gun, the boy screams for help at that point, and Zimmerman shoots him to restore control to his world. The end.

By jove I think you have it on the NOSE.

Nicely done, you.

[Steophan]

@Stoid

Yes, I understand that. But in practical terms, if he doesn’t make it fly with a preponderance, he can’t just say “Self-defense” without making any attempt to back it up for the jury- that makes it no job at all for the prosecution. They spin it the way they want, present their evidence, and GZ does nothing except hang a sign around his neck that says “self-defense”? I’m sure he’s legally entitled, of course, and I’m also sure the jury would say guilty unless he made an effort to prove that it was actually self-defense. Otherwise the only story they have is the prosecution’s and that won’t support self-defense.

So no, he doesn’t “have to prove it”… but he does if he wants to make the jury believe it.

The defence still don’t have to prove anything - they have to cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. If they can prove he’s innocent, of course they will, but there’s no need for them to do that. All they need to do is show that there is a plausible alternative to what the prosecution claim.

Now, in practical terms, if a great deal of the evidence points to it not being self defence, the defence will have a tough job doing this. In this particular case, where the evidence against Zimmerman is weak, showing the holes in the prosecution’s case may well suffice.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

If we take Zimmerman’s statement off the table and simply look at the picture communicated by both the circumstantial and physical evidence, I don’t see how one can assume Zimmerman shot Martin for self defense.

The 911 call tells us 3 things: Zimmerman had prejudged the kid as a bad person (state of mind), he actively pursued this supposedly bad person against 911 advice (poor judgement, impulsiveness, and lack of respect for authority), and he really really didn’t want Martin to get away (intent to restrain or stalk him).

Martin was unarmed and smaller than Zimmerman. We have no evidence of any agenda on Martin’s part to start shit with Zimmerman. His apparent mission had been to get snacks and talk to his girlfriend.

Zimmerman had a gun and an agenda. His apparent mission was to keep Martin the Asshole from getting away.

Martin ends up being killed by Zimmermans gun. The location suggests he was on his way home. There is no decent explanation for why Zimmerman was back there though. His truck was parked some distance away on the street. This suggests he got out of his car to go after Martin.

Zimmerman possibly has injuries but none that leave him so incapacitated by pain or discomfort that he needed emergency care before enduring a 5 hour stay at the PD. He is seen breathing out of his nose on a surveillance video and his head is in without bandageds.

Witnesses report some conflicting things. But there’s some audio of someone yelling desperately for help, that abruptly ends when the gunshot goes off. Multiple witnesses say it was a boy who was yelling. Martins mother says it was her son. Two forensic voice experts rule out Zimmerman.

Question: how does any of this paint a picture of self-defense? It seems to me we have more compelling evidence against Zimmerman than we do for most murder cases. The only difference is that it’s undisputable that Zimmerman killed Martin. If we ignore his claim of self-defense and just connect the dots, it takes little imagination to paint of picture of an impulsive, stupid man with a need to feel important and heroic, who jumps to conclusions about Martin, assumes an authority that he doesn’t have by going after him, corners the boy and incites a struggle that causes him to panic and pull out of his gun, the boy screams for help at that point, and Zimmerman shoots him to restore control to his world. The end.

The thing is that the defense is also allowed a chance to present a theory of the case to the jury. Many of the arguments you urge on the finder of fact have other arguments that can be presented.

For example, you say that Martin was smaller than Zimmerman. He wasn’t: he towered over the 5’8" Zimmerman by a full seven inches. I have no idea how you saw Zimmerman breathing through his nose; I saw a man with a broken nose breathing through his mouth. His head had no bandages because the EMTs used cyanoacrylate, the GluStitch product they carry, to close his wounds. The jury can’t hear from the forensic experts because their technique doesn’t meet the Frye standard for admissibility. And the defense has experts who will testify to the contrary anyway.

All of these points have been raised before. Why did you fail to include them in your summary?

And then we get to this gem: “… it takes little imagination to paint of picture of an impulsive, stupid man with a need to feel important and heroic, who jumps to conclusions about Martin, assumes an authority that he doesn’t have by going after him, corners the boy and incites a struggle that causes him to panic and pull out of his gun, the boy screams for help at that point, and Zimmerman shoots him to restore control to his world.”

The jury cannot rest a verdict on imagination. Even though the scenario you paint is possible - for this discussion I’d even go “probable” - but you can’t say that this is the only reasonable scenario, can you? The jury has to be able to rest a verdict on so etching beyond, “It probably happened this way.”

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

And that’s not even factoring in Zimmerman’s previous arrests and employment history, and the statement from Martin’s gf.

Not admissible.

Well, the GF statement might be. Zimmerman’s arrest is definitely not.

And you suggest it’s stupid to assume the picture is admissible, when it most likely is, and you assume Zimmerman’s previous arrest is admissible when it certainly is not.

Why?

[Terr]

@Stoid

[ul]
[li]Guy in red was on the bottom, guy in gray on top[/li][li]Someone saw martin screaming[/li][li]Someone saw two shadows, one chasing the other[/li][li]Two people (I believe) report seeing the guy in red on top of the dead guy, pushing on his back, it appeared.[/li][/ul]

Just to be thorough:

1. Guy in red on bottom, beaten up by guy on top of him, and screaming for help, yes.
2. No one “saw martin screaming”.
3. Rumor from prosecutor.
4. They claimed they saw Zimmerman standing (emphasize: standing) over the dead guy, leaning over and touching his back. Bear in mind that it’s the same witness (and her partner) that called the police after the shots and reported black guy standing over the dead guy.

[JoelUpchurch]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mari-fagel/george-zimmerman-bond-hearing_b_1441261.html

I tend agree with her, but she overlooked the most important member of O’Mara’s audience, Judge Kenneth Lester. I think Lester’s comments when he granted bail sound like O’Mara made his point. If Judge Lester rules in Zimmerman’s favor during the self-defense hearing, then a jury is never going to see the evidence.

If you think that is unlikely, then you need to read up on the Garcia case.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706789/miami-judge-stabbing-in-the-back.html

[Steophan]

@you_with_the_face

If we take Zimmerman’s statement off the table and simply look at the picture communicated by both the circumstantial and physical evidence, I don’t see how one can assume Zimmerman shot Martin for self defense.

We can’t take Zimmerman’s statement off the table, as it’s the single most important piece of evidence in this case - that is, the statement of the only person who actually knows what happened. However, that doesn’t mean that, even if we did, the evidence proves his guilt.

@you_with_the_face

The 911 call tells us 3 things: Zimmerman had prejudged the kid as a bad person (state of mind), he actively pursued this supposedly bad person against 911 advice (poor judgement, impulsiveness, and lack of respect for authority), and he really really didn’t want Martin to get away (intent to restrain or stalk him).

The only one of those that’s true is that he showed poor judgement. You can’t say he prejudged Martin as a bad person, merely because he considered he was acting suspiciously. It’s a good thing to call the police if one sees someone acting suspiciously! There’s no reason to assume he intended to restrain Martin, and as far as I’m aware he’d had no prior contact with him, so stalking him is impossible.

@you_with_the_face

Martin was unarmed and smaller than Zimmerman. We have no evidence of any agenda on Martin’s part to start shit with Zimmerman. His apparent mission had been to get snacks and talk to his girlfriend.

Martin was 6 inches taller than Zimmerman, and an athlete compared to a couch potato. We also do have evidence that Martin was the one to initiate contact - the statements from both Martin’s girlfriend and Zimmerman.

@you_with_the_face

Zimmerman had a gun and an agenda. His apparent mission was to keep Martin the Asshole from getting away.

He had a gun he was legally entitled to carry, and an agenda to ensure the police could find Martin the Suspicious Person.

@you_with_the_face

Martin ends up being killed by Zimmermans gun. The location suggests he was on his way home. There is no decent explanation for why Zimmerman was back there though. His truck was parked some distance away on the street. This suggests he got out of his car to go after Martin.

Zimmerman was there because he wanted to make sure he knew where Martin was when the police arrived. If Martin had gone straight to the place he was staying (not his home) he would not have encountered Zimmerman, based on the times of Zimmerman’s 911 call and Martin’s call to his girlfriend. Zimmerman told the 911 operator he was following Martin, that fact isn’t in doubt, and whilst he was advised not to, he had every right to do so.

@you_with_the_face

Zimmerman possibly has injuries but none that leave him so incapacitated by pain or discomfort that he needed emergency care before enduring a 5 hour stay at the PD. He is seen breathing out of his nose on a surveillance video and his head is in without bandageds.

Zimmerman certainly has injuries of that nature, which were treated to some extent before he was interviewed by the police, and fully treated the next day.

@you_with_the_face

Witnesses report some conflicting things. But there’s some audio of someone yelling desperately for help, that abruptly ends when the gunshot goes off. Multiple witnesses say it was a boy who was yelling. Martins mother says it was her son. Two forensic voice experts rule out Zimmerman.

As you say, the witness reports conflict. One of Zimmerman’s relatives, I think his father, says it was Zimmerman screaming. Other voice experts have claimed that the tests used aren’t conclusive. In short, doubt all round.

@you_with_the_face

Question: how does any of this paint a picture of self-defense? It seems to me we have more compelling evidence against Zimmerman than we do for most murder cases. The only difference is that it’s undisputable that Zimmerman killed Martin. If we ignore his claim of self-defense and just connect the dots, it takes little imagination to paint of picture of an impulsive, stupid man with a need to feel important and heroic, who jumps to conclusions about Martin, assumes an authority that he doesn’t have by going after him, corners the boy and incites a struggle that causes him to panic and pull out of his gun, the boy screams for help at that point, and Zimmerman shoots him to restore control to his world. The end.

We cant ignore his claim of self defence. But even if we do, I’ve been able to cast significant doubt on every single claim you’ve made against Zimmerman. Reasonable doubt equals no conviction.

There may of course be more evidence that shows he is guilty, but having seen the testimony at the bail hearing I’m inclined to doubt it. I’m actually starting to change my position from Zimmerman being quite possibly factually guilty, but unconvictable, to actually being entirely innocent. Which would be the best outcome all round at this stage.