Short an actual video I can’t think of anything more useful than evidence showing the trail Martin took to get home.
And the prosecution has nothing at this point. This trial is going nowhere fast.
What video evidence was used to convict this grandmother of 2nd degree murder when she shot her grandson? HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost
Or this fella in Texas, who was convicted of murder despite trying to use a SYG defense. No camera implicated him, but lawdamercy, the man is facing time. StockBot by Examiner.com - Stock Examiner bot by Examiner.com
There doesn’t need to be video evidence (or whatever else you consider “definitive”) showing Zimmerman assaulting Martin first. Regardless if Zimmerman legally committed assault or battery, we have multiple pieces of evidence that Martin had a valid reason for standing his ground. Which means that Zimmerman merely having injuries is insufficient to justify him using lethal force.
I think it would be useful too. But because the defense has a patent on crying wolf at this point, I can’t take at face value that they were not given this information. The truth will come out on Tues.
WTF? Regardless of Zimmerman assaulting him? Martin standing his ground? Based on the evidence Martin wasn’t threatened or harmed in any way prior to being shot in self defense. The only thing he was standing on was Zimmerman himself and he had to confront Zimmerman to do it. All the evidence shows Martin coming to Zimmerman.
Lol.
Speaking of motions, Magiver, the prosecutors want O’Mara to nail down exactly what they are planning to do with the immunity hearing. No more of this hand waving vagueness that O’Mara has hid behind, to obfuscate the truth from GZ’s supporters. Bernie et al. wants the defense to shit or get off the pot.
If they waive the immunity hearing (and I guarantee you they will), are you still going to maintain that the “trial is going nowhere fast”? Because of all the cardinal indicators that a trial is going nowhere, a defendant passing up the sweet gift of immunity that the SYG offers the “innocent” is not one them. I’ma need you to understand that sooner or later.
All the prosecution has to do is poke holes in Zimmerman’s story. They do not have to disprove every claim he has made. They don’t even have to do much work to construct an alternative narrative because the alternative is so apparent. All they have to do is convince a jury that his story smells fishy in a few key, self-serving areas.
You are sadly mistaken if you don’t think the defense is going to have a hard time with this case. And don’t blame the “biased” media coverage or the big meanos that are already prejudiced against poor ole Georgie. The truth of the matter is Zimmerman’s story scores low on the plausibility meter. At every point in his accounts, there is a giant WTF. That you can’t even admit this shows that it is you, not me, who can’t see this thing for what it is.
“It could happen!” is not a winning defense. Ask the millions of guys sitting in prison right now if this defense worked for them. It can be sufficient, but your case had better be strong and your lawyers competent. O’Mara has so far shown himself to be pretty lousy. And the defendant doesn’t strike me as someone winsome enough to make his case very well in front of a jury.
He was pursued relentlessly by an unidentified man, first by a truck, then on foot, in the dark. We have evidence (in the form of both Deedee and Zimmerman’s testimony) that Martin was aware of this pursuit and was frightened enough to run away from his pursuer.
So given this, even if Zimmerman and Martin had stumbled upon each other purely on accident, Martin would have been justified in defending himself.
you left out the part about him walking BACK to his pursuer. TWICE. That’s not a sign of fright, it’s a sign of aggression which is born out by his attack.
They have to disprove that he wasn’t in fear of his life. Beyond reasonable doubt. that’s the case in it’s entirety unless another scenario can be introduced with evidence to back it up. If you’ve been following this thread it has been explained repeatedly by lawyers.
The prosecution can’t “poke holes” in Zimmerman’s story and then imply he lied about fearing for his life and is thus guilty.
You are forgetting the evidence that this is baldface lie. If we go by the chain of events revealed in the NEN dispatch call, there would have not been enough time for Martin to have done any double backing.
Did you know that the FBI has enhanced the tape of the screaming 911 audio? Aren’t you curious as to whether there is extra voices on that tape that make it clearer who was screaming for their life and who was issuing threats?
I’m certainly curious.
It is not enough for Zimmerman to claim that he feared for his life. If it were that easy, any and every defendant would be using this defense.
And if it were that easy, Zimmerman’s case would have been thrown out a long time ago.
It’s “most likely” that Tm decided to kill GZ so that GZ couldn’t bear witness to TM attcking GZ?
Is that what you’re saying?
We went over this. We know from the Dispatch phone call alone that he approached the car, ran, was nowhere to be seen. we know from DD’s testimony that they lost sight of each other and he was at his house. He HAS to approach Zimmerman in order for this event to occur based on the evidence.
It was thrown out a long time ago. The “special prosecutor” assigned by the governor bypassed the Grand Jury system to indict him.
I’m interested in all the evidence. So is the defense. The prosecution seems intent on preventing useful evidence such as the phone logs that show where Martin was.
I’m stating the evidence shows Martin went out of his way to confront Zimmerman and then proceeded to beat him without stopping and nobody would come to Zimmerman’s aid. That’s what the evidence shows and the prosecutor has to prove that Zimmerman wasn’t in fear for his life.
I find this argument so strange it’s kind of funny.
We are supposed to think Trayvon tried to kill out of fear of getting in trouble, but that George Zimmerman wouldn’t have been motivated out of the same exact fear.
Seems to me that only one of the two would have had been worried about “trouble”. One was exactly where you would expect him to be given his story about returning from the 7-11. The other has a story that sounds like a five-year-old invented it. One had no obvious motive to resort to violence that he’d have to explain away. The other did and it was even caught on tape. One was unarmed and thus wouldn’t have had to account for much. He hadn’t done that much damage anyway, especially since he was a mean gangsta thug. But the other was armed with a deadly weapon. You can’t just pull out a gun on someone expect there to be no hard feelings afterwards. There’s no going back when you make this play. It’s either kill the lone witness or you’re going to jail for assault with a deadly weapon.
One was a kid still in high school who liked, as many young males do, to present himself as cool and tough. The other was an adult who had some training in law enforcement, who wanted to out-cop the cops and save the day with his heroic antics. Who is going to be more afraid of getting in trouble–the kid who thinks “trouble” is another week on suspension without video games? Or the guy with the giant ego resting on his self-appointed authority and his image as an upstanding citizen?
And which one of these two is more likely to be familiar with the consequences of assault charges? Only one wanted a job in law enforcement. Can you be an ex-felon and still be a police officer? I don’t think so.
If we want to compare motives, yet again George wins in spades.
So why is it looking like O’Mara won’t pursue immunity for his client, if the case is such a cinch? Is O’Mara in on the conspiracy too?