If you are part of the neighborhood watch and in the past you have noticed that when you report suspicious people, called the cops, and by the time the cops show up the suspicious person is gone, why is it so unreasonable that you get fed up with it and decide to follow a suspicious person at a distance until the cops arrive so that they don’t get away?
I can see saying to hell with the dispatcher telling me to wait for the cops. I’ve waited for the cops 15 times before and they don’t show up in time. I want to make sure that I keep an eye on the suspect until the cops show up so they can catch him this time. To me, that’s not an indication that you wanted to gun down the guy in cold blood. You don’t call the cops first before you commit murder.
The prosecuting has fucked up this case beyond belief. Murder two??? Assuming he acted recklessly. What did he do that showed a “depraved” indifference to life? At worst it’s manslaughter.
You don’t fill your hands up with candy and beverages before trying to break into a house.
You don’t get your face punched “twenty-five to thirty times” without suffering more than a swollen nose.
You don’t get repeatedly slammed into a concrete sidewalk and have a shaving-sized cut with no bruising and no concussion.
You don’t deliver Hollywood B-movie zingers after getting shot through the lung.
Why does the “you don’t” game only apply to Zimmerman’s behavior and not to Martin’s or to physics and biology?
I’ll give you a hundred bucks if you can find anyone in this thread saying anything like that.
He aimed a gun at Trayvon Martin’s chest and pulled the trigger.
Best as I can tell, those of us who agree he deserves conviction also generally agree that it isn’t that he actually set out to shoot anyone. It’s that his stupid, wannabe, irresponsible, thoughtless, paranoid behavior led directly, and completely unnecessarily, to the death of Trayvon Martin. There’s a whole bunch of choices we know he definitely made and it’s reasonable to believe he made that created a deadly situation out of nothing. Moreover, his lies about meaningful things make no sense except in the context of his full awareness that his behavior was wrong, therefore requiring him to lie about things he did and knew were not going to support his claim of self-defense. He was responsible for what happened in every imaginable way.
As it stands now it clearly shows Zimmerman avoided Martin at every potential point of contact. It also shows Zimmerman never laid a finger on Martin. It’s now court record that Martin was at his house and witnesses put him where the fight took place on top of Zimmerman. It takes a massive amount of denial to believe Martin was not assaulting Zimmerman or that he didn’t go out of his way to do this.
All of the evidence is consistent with Zimmerman’s account. All of it.
You’ve got nothing to work with except your belief that because something else “could” have happened, it must have.
You left out the fact that Martin was holding a phone the entire time. Martin clearly knows Zimmerman is watching him. He was 3 phone keys away from telling the police there was a crazy ass cracker following him. He would have been told they were already enroute and would arrive shortly and that the guy in question thought he was acting suspicious and was the reason the police were enroute.
Again, you are a man of very passionate beliefs, and I am certain that they bring you great peace. That’s all that really matters for those of us who have no part in it, so it’s all good.
Yes it, is, it answers your question precisely. You asked if I could comprehend how people might see things differently, and I explained the circumstances in which I could do so. That is, when they can justify their position.
Apart from, you know, actually being so. One is only responsible for reasonably foreseeable consequences of one’s actions, and it’s not reasonable to foresee that someone will attack you without cause - not that there’s ever cause to attack someone.
What lies? There are minor inconsistencies in his two accounts, but that’s to be expected. They both fit with each other and the evidence in the case, most of which Zimmerman couldn’t have known before he gave his accounts. Those being the 5 hours of questioning on the day of the shooting, and the filmed reconstruction.
I really would like someone to detail what these lies are supposed to be, how we can know they are lies and not genuine mistakes or misrememberings, and for that matter what relevance it would have if he is lying, when the remainder of the evidence clearly shows he’s not guilty.
Let’s see -
[ul][li]At one point, Zimmerman said he got out of his truck to look for a street sign, and at another that he got out to look for a house number.[/li][li]He said that after he shot Martin, Martin rolled off him and landed with his arms out to the sides. One account has Martin with his hands under him. [/ul]The rest is a differing interpretation of the evidence, meaning (in most cases) “let’s pretend”. [/li]
Keeping in mind also that, if a prosecution witness insists there were three shots when there was only one, since she was sitting in her kitchen listening it is an understandable mistake. Whereas, if someone is sitting on your chest and pounding your head on the ground, and you get any detail wrong, that is conclusive proof that you are a murderous liar.
(I’ve hardly followed the story at all, but am now watching some of the testimony on YouTube. Sorry if my questions were answered long ago.)
I think I understand the essence of Zimmerman’s story: Martin approached him with hostility; they ended up on the ground, Martin on top.
What is the prosecution’s reconstruction? Witnesses Jayne Surdyka and Jeannee Manalo paint a very different picture from Zimmerman’s (Surdyka has Zimmerman aggressive(*); Manalo has Zimmerman on top). Are they confirming a prosecution hypothesis? Or just confused?
(* - Surdyko’s testimony is confusing. Anyway, is it clear whose voice was naturally higher-pitched?)
Confusing? Ya think? She has Zimmerman firing three shots into Martin’s back (she is very insistent on Martin down on the ground on his stomach at the time Zimmerman shot him), she insists that her window was open even after listening to the 911 call in which she said it was closed, and she insists that the shot happened during her 911 call even when she listened to the call and there was no shot in it. And add to that her fibbing about being an “Olympian” when all records indicate that her best times made her about 90th best in the country at any time.
The woman lives in a fantasy world. No credibility whatsoever.
septimus, the prosecution’s theory is that Zimmerman profiled and stalked Martin to nab him for the cops, and when his actions led to the fight, he showed a depraved indifference to life by deliberately killing the kid. In essence, they used this week to focus on showing that Zimmerman murdered the kid. It seems they spent little energy on disproving self-defense, except to produce circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman was capable of defending himself with non-lethal means because of his MMA training. They also succeeded in getting his prior NEN calls admitted. And because the defense counsel (stupidly) elicited character witness testimony, IIRC, the prosecution also succeeded in getting Judge Nelson to allow them to rebut.
Zimmerman’s story does not exist because it has not been entered as evidence. His lawyers have attempted to use the State’s witnesses to patch together a self defense narrative, but an astute observer will have noticed that they have yet to elicit anything about Zimmerman being in fear for his life when he pulled the trigger. I’m pretty sure that the closest thing they’ve gotten to that is Manalo’s hearsay statement “I was defending myself and I shot him”. But it’s doubtful to me whether that is sufficient.
None of the witnesses thus far corroborate Zimmerman’s not-entered-as-evidence-yet claims about being threatened by Martin, having his head slammed, or punched in the face over a dozen times.
Next week I do believe Serino is scheduled to take the stand. If I had to guess, the State will introduce his affidavit as an exhibit and have him explain his rationale for writing it. Some people think that the State will introduce the reenactment video and Zimmerman’s written statement through Serino, but I don’t think they will do this for the simple reason that this action will allow the defense to present Zimmerman’s version of events without taking the stand. The State wants Zimmerman to have to go up there so they can impeach him, so my theory is that the prosecution will incentivize that by limiting Serino’s testimony as much as possible.
The thing with the timing of the shot(s) is a great example of what I mean when I repeatedly say that something is or isn’t consistent with the physical evidence. We know what she’s saying isn’t true, because we have the recording. We know that both her statement and the recording can’t both be factual.
If she had claimed that there was one shot then, and two more after she hung up, that would be consistent with the evidence from the recording. Which doesn’t make it true, it means it hasn’t been proven false.
So, to the extent Zimmerman’s story is consistent with the other (reliable) evidence, it hasn’t been proven false. To convict him, they will, directly or indirectly, have to prove false his claim that he shot Martin in self defence, after Martin beat him and tried to grab his gun. Merely casting doubt on that story will not suffice. Neither, for that matter, will proving him a liar. They need to prove the truth of the opposing story, not simply prove his one false - although in practice, they may well amount to the same thing.
This is what Stoid and the others don’t get about my arguments. They still think it’s a level playing field, that the defence and the prosecution have equal burdens of proof. They do not. The burden of proof is solely on the prosecution, and the benefit of the doubt is solely to the defendant.