Prosecution on redirect seems to be spending more time trying to defend Trayvon Martin’s potential actions as opposed to prosecute Zimmerman…seems like a cluster F for the prosecution.
The Trayvonistas are getting shameless. So - “these punks always get away” is profiling. But “creepy ass cracker” and “rapist” isn’t.
What physical evidence does his testimony match?
CMC fnord!
The grass on Zimmerman’s back, and Martin’s knees, the injuries to Zimmerman and Martin, and the position of the fight.
So far it appears that the prosecution has established
[ul][li]Martin was the one using racist slurs, not Zimmerman[/li][li]Martin was, indeed, right next to his father’s house, and could have easily avoided Zimmerman but instead went looking for him[/li][li]Zimmerman was the one screaming for help[/li][li]Zimmerman was the one on the bottom getting beat up, therefore[/li][li]Zimmerman could not have retreated if he wanted to[/li][li]That the fight started on the grass and moved to the sidewalk[/ul]And this is the prosecution! [/li]
Is there any part of the prosecution’s case that has been established?
Regards,
Shodan
The injuries to Zimmerman and Martin?
CMC fnord!
The last witness noted that even if he was on the bottom, GZ could still punch. GZ will absolutely need to take the stand and defend the numerous inconsistencies in his statements, since he’ll have to say how he was, in fact, helpless from getting beat up (yet still able to draw and fire his gun).
I suspect he’s very much going to regret making that video walkthrough. It’s a veritable goldmine for the State, since it includes such hits as ‘I thought to get out of my car to look for a stop sign when the NEN dispatcher asked me for an address’, and - one of my personal favorites - the classic ‘Martin went up the cut-through, then came back down, circled my car, then gangsta-skipped away’.
And yet there is no mark of any punches on Martin. And Zimmerman has not, AFAIK, claimed to have punched Martin.
Where does Zimmerman claim to have been disabled by Martin’s beating? Zimmerman has said that he was in fear of his life, or of serious injury, from the beating, but not (again, AFAIK) that he was unable to move or draw his gun as a result of it.
I certainly agree that it would have been better for Zimmerman to keep his mouth shut, but as mentioned, it appears Dee Dee has confirmed that Martin ran back to his father’s house (more properly, his father’s girlfriend’s condo).
And “stop sign”? Do you mean “street sign”? Or are you saying Zimmerman misspoke?
Regards,
Shodan
Yes. He thinks Zimmerman was screaming, he saw Martin making “downward movement”, which could have been punches, or could have been slamming his head against the concrete. Or something else entirely.
Do you not understand what “consistent” means? If there is a scenario where Zimmerman is not guilty, and there is evidence consistent with that scenario, he is not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That there may be more than one interpretation of the evidence isn’t the point. If an interpretation (of the totality of the evidence that the jury believes) exonerates him, he’s not guilty.
Good seems to have quite clearly expressed what he saw, what he did notsee, and the specific doubts that he has about what happened. He did not say he saw the fight clearly and Zimmerman’s head was not smashed against the ground, for example. He merely said he did not see that occur. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, and so forth.
So, we have a narrative here that suggests that Zimmerman could reasonably have been in enough fear to legitimately shoot Martin, and which is *consistent *with the physical evidence and with Zimmerman’s statement. What reason do you have for believing that this narrative cannot possibly be true?
That’s true whether he’s guilty or innocent. It’s just a profoundly bad idea, no matter how pure your intentions, you will always make mistakes in recalling such a stressful event after the fact.
That’s not a good thing for Zimmerman.
And neither is that.
Yes, sorry - ‘street sign’.
Why is “no mark of any punches on Martin” not a good thing for Zimmerman?
DragonAsh, are you under the impression that if Zimmerman was attacked by Martin, in a way that put him in fear of death or great bodily harm, he was legally obligated to duke it out with Martin for a while, and see how he was doing, before he used deadly force to defend himself?
Hard to say you were scared for your life if you were able to punch back but did not. At the very least, Zimmerman will need to take the stand to say he was scared for his life.
I’ll answer a question with a question: Human Action, are you saying that if Martin had chest-bumped Zimmerman, George would have been completely justified with blowing Martin away?
And are there other ways in which the lack of evidence for things nobody has claimed hurts the defense?
Nobody claims that Martin bit Zimmerman either, although he had the opportunity, and there are no teeth marks on Zimmerman. Does this prove anything?
Regards,
Shodan
No. What relevance is that? I wasn’t asking you about the alleged threat from Martin, but instead Zimmerman’s response to it.
You seem to be saying that in order to use deadly force in self-defense in Florida, in a situation where a reasonable person would fear death or great bodily harm, the person must first attempt to use non-deadly force before escalating up to deadly force. Is that accurate?
Why do you think that?
No, he actually doesn’t. Zimmerman has claimed self-defense, and presented evidence in favor of that. Now it is up to the state to prove that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense, beyond a reasonable doubt. I think we have explained this a few times.
Then a question in return: do you believe a chest-bump puts a reasonable person in fear of death or serious bodily injury?
Regards,
Shodan
Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove that he was scared for his life. All the defense has to show that there is reasonable doubt that he wasn’t scared for his life. The prosecution witnesses have already supported that reasonable doubt.
Well, altho I think you may be exaggerating a bit, I just saw a expert on CNN tell us that the Defense has been making some serious defense points off the *Prosecutions’ *witnesses. :eek:
So far, it doesn’t look good for the State, but there’s a lot of testimony to go.