Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

In My Humble Opinion
11564

your argument is based solely on your gut feelings.

cite

cite

That’s one special step-brother-to-be to walk 2 miles for can of fruit juice and some candy. You’ll just have to pretend it wasn’t going to be used to mix with cough syrup and move on to why it took so long. Most crimes are those of opportunity so it’s just a matter of walking up to a house that’s dark and trying windows and doors. The behavior that would be associated with this is slowly walking around looking at houses while on the owner’s property. The appropriate action for this is to call non-emergency.

He wasn’t confused what street he was on. He gave directions on how to get there. He forgot the name of the street he was on. I don’t know the names of the streets around me and I’ve lived in the same house for over 20 years. I have no need to know them. If you said the name of the street I’d recognize it as being in my neighborhood but not specifically where.

That’s true. But people who are injured naturally draw their hands to the wound. You don’t know when Martin died and the coroner states that his heart kept beating after being shot.

cite they can’t and cite the conversation or lack of conversation.

Tell me about the fights you’ve been in. Tell me the number of times your head has been slammed into something hard or how well you do with a punch to the nose that made it swell and bleed. I’ve been knocked out before hitting my head on cement. No blood involved. Not a drop. I know people who were dropped to the ground by a single punch to the head. Watched it happen. You don’t have the tiniest clue about what goes on in a real fight or the effect on strikes to the head. It’s crazy scary to have someone on top of you punching away and that is the logical sound of screaming heard on the phone. Not the person without a mark on him.

You choose to believe what you want to believe without the tiniest evidence to back it up. Martin was killed because he was beating the crap out of Zimmerman without any indication of stopping or no signs of help from others.

11565

what evidence do you have that he was lying?

11566

It’s your continued assumption that he’s lying, when you have no reason to think so, that’s the problem. You’ve yet to explain what makes you so sure he’s lying and not misremembering, and I strongly suspect you don’t have good reason to think that.

Here I think we have the issue. Just because something happened a certain way to you does not mean it happened the same way to everyone. We’ve already heard testimony at the trial that Zimmerman’s head injuries could have come from being slammed against concrete, so you’re simply wrong that the evidence shows that he’s lying there.

Now, you’ve decided you don’t believe that Martin sucker punched Zimmerman, I assume - otherwise you’d presumably accept that he would have the right to defend himself with whatever force necessary. What evidence do you have that that didn’t happen?

I’ll give you an honest answer. I think you genuinely believe you know what happens in fights, I think you are extrapolating from a tiny sample, and that you are simply wrong about this. People have been killed with single punches, and people have been punched repeatedly with little or no injury. People have bashed their heads hard with no long term damage, and people have been brain damaged or killed from blows that leave no external marks. I think you are mistakenly, and somewhat arrogantly, claiming that your anecdotes equals data.

The last time I was punched wasn’t a fight, it was some drunk/drugged idiot running past me as I went outside for a smoke. Fortunately, the police were already following him, and it was a crowded area, so I had no need to defend myself. One of the questions the police asked was how hard did he hit me. That’s an extremely difficult question to answer. Judging by my (lack of) bruising, it probably wasn’t that hard, but because of the shock, I imagine, it felt pretty damn hard. So my anecdote suggests that someone who’s been punched more than once would find it even harder to be objective about it.

As for race, I’ve maintained from the start that I don’t think this was a racially motivated incident - and the only thing that has even suggested otherwise was hearing the testimony that Martin was using racist language. We’ll never actually know why he acted the way he did, though, so it’s irrelevant.

I think one objection that people have to Zimmerman defenders is that they wouldn’t defend a black person the same way. The sad truth is, I doubt I would’ve heard about this case if it was black-on-black violence, and it’s possible I wouldn’t in any other situation. I would also say that it’s less likely that a black defendant in a case like this would get a fair trial, which is certainly a tragedy, but isn’t in my opinion a good argument for Zimmerman not getting one.

11567

There are murders of black people all the time in my local news. Its almost always black-on-black crime. They have prayer vigils over the violence and life goes on. We just had a pregnant women die in crossfire over who knows what. Her child was rescued in a C-section thank God. There aren’t any civil rights leaders demanding justice.

Switch to a case with a kid under arrest in the back of a cruiser. He punched out the back window while the car was moving and when they pulled over on a bridge he got out and jumped. He neglected to look for water first. There was quite a ruckus over it because the kid was black.

11568

The prosecution just played the tape of Zimmerman’s police interview. In it, Zimmerman says of Martin, “He told me he was going to kill me.”

For all those people oping above that Zimmerman would have to testify, himself, in order to get that statement in front of the jury, would any of you like to revise your analysis now?

11569

The prosecution are demolishing their own case. De La Rionda (prosecution) is constantly hostile in his questioning of his own witnesses. It’s amazing how non-existent the state’s case is.

11570

Will that count as the “scintilla of evidence” needed to trigger the requirement for the prosecution to prove it was not self defence (assuming it hadn’t already been triggered)?

11571

(Edited for length)

Every mother who has bought a bicycle helmet for their child knows that banging your head on the ground is NOT a good thing.

There are many obvious symptoms of brain injury that could be observed AFTER the fact. Falling off a bicycle could cause injury to the brain even if there are no visible cuts or obvious bleeding. GZ had visible injuries to the front and back of his head.

Will some on the jury believe that GZ could reasonably have believed that having his face punched and head beaten on the ground could lead to serious physical harm or possibly death? If they do believe it would be reasonable for GZ to believe his life was in “imminent danger”, that’s grounds for self-defense.

If some on the jury believe that a struggle for GZ’s firearm took place, that’s also grounds for self-defense.

11572

Yes.

11573

How exactly does that work? Because it was presented as a pre-recorded video, the defense isn’t allowed to cross-examine the claim? And if they are allowed, how else to do it, but to ask Zimmerman directly?

11574

The prosecution put the video into evidence. The defense can’t cross-examine a video. But why would they want to?

11575

Yes. And to the point that I believe the prosecution also wants Zimmerman to be acquitted. That’s the reason (IMO) for the second degree murder charge; they knew he couldn’t be convicted of it based on the evidence.

11576

I wasn’t thinking. I didn’t realize the prosecution presented it.

And I meant, “the prosecution doesn’t get to cross-examine,” so that whole post was a bit of a soup-sandwich.

11577

Yes, that’s the reason the defense couldn’t introduce the video. If they did, they’d basically have Zimmerman testifying without the risk of cross-examination. That’s why hearsay is inadmissible.

But the prosecution can introduce it. And in general, they have to take the good along with the bad: they can’t only introduce helpful parts of the video and cut out parts that help the defense.

11578

Bill Sheaffer (sp?) - the “legal analyst” on Sanford TV station - today claimed that the prosecution’s humungous blunder was airing the whole interviews and the whole walkthrough instead of just the portions that were good for them. I guess he was wrong.

11579

Well, yes. And no.

I am torn between the need to take shortcuts when I make statements – if I didn’t, every post would become an essay – and the need to make explanations about procedure clear.

When I said, “They can’t introduce helpful parts of the video and cut out parts that help the defense…” that was not true. They can. But if they do, the defense is permitted to introduce the rest of the video, under an exception to the hearsay rule known as res gestae. So my saying “they can’t…” was kind of short-hand for, “They could, but then the defense can play the rest, so the jury sees it anyway, and then the prosecution looks like it was hiding something.”

11580

Damn, what do y"all suppose was the reasoning? And which video was it? His re-enactment? Even so, why let him tell his story without the opportunity for cross? Hmmm…

11581

Not swearing to whether it’s true, because I didn’t follow up, but I did run across something very recently which said that in Florida the jury has manslaughter available as a lesser-included that they can fall back on.

But I wasn’t looking for that, so I didn’t dig deep, I just saw some reference. (shrug)

11582

Buzz!!! Wrong answer! Deduct 1,000 points!

:rolleyes:

11583

That big dummy!