Maybe the prosecution will say in it’s closing statement: “Ladies of the jury: despite the weakness of the state’s case, you must vote to convict or the city will be burned down.” 
Zing!
Todays witness said it was possible for Zimmerman to punch or even get out from under Martin. He later added if Zimmerman had training. In other words, yes two MMA fighters could roll around mounting each other, exchange punches, and escaping.
It seems obvious Zimmerman has absolutely no fighting experience. He let a 17 year old kid beat his butt. His chances of getting out from under Martin were zero. If George had left his gun at home, it would be Martin on trial for murder right now.
Point of (legal) order (So I’d like an answer from one of our lawyers!).
Has the defense, presented evidence for the claim of self-defense (or for anything else for that matter)?
Am I wrong in thinking/remembering that the defense only presents evidence to the jury after the prosecution rests during the defense’s case?
(They get to challenge/impeach prosecution witnesses, raise questions about the reliability of prosecution exhibits, etc. Isn’t there a distinction between presenting evidence vs presenting evidence (i.e. an official presenting of evidence as opposed to a layman’s use of the phrase?)
ISTR “Remember, the defense hasn’t presented it’s evidence” being said by the talking heads on CourtTV when the 13th juror polls were lopsidedly supporting a conviction.
CMC fnord!
The prosecution has presented it, in the testimony of its witness (Jonathan Manalo). He said Zimmerman told him that he was defending himself, and he shot the guy.
Zimmerman was taking MMA classes 3 times a week, yall.
Let me repeat that.
Zimmerman was taking MMA classes 3 times a week.
A former bouncer proficient in mixed martial arts and armed with a loaded gun pursues a kid that he has profiled as “up to no good”. The kid, who has nothing on him except snacks and his phone, recognizes that this guy is following him and tries to run away. But they somehow encounter each other anyway. There’s words exchanged, there’s a scuffle, there’s a chase, there’s desperate yells for help, there’s gunfire, and then there’s silence. The kid is dead. The former bouncer proficient in mixed martial arts and armed with a loaded gun who pursued the kid claims he did it in self defense despite wounds so minor he isn’t even treated with a bandaid.
That’s what the prosecution has established today.
I suspect that Martin tagged him in the nose with the edge of the juice can. That would account for the cut. It would be the logical thing to do if his intent was to bring him down fast. It also corresponds with Zimmerman’s testimony that he thought Martin had something in his hand when he was hitting him.
There is no evidence Zimmerman is proficient in MMA or that he landed a single punch. There is no evidence that he pursued Martin. The word “pursue” means to follow with the intent to capture. The evidence shows just the opposite. Zimmerman stayed in his car when Martin stared him down and when it was suggested he not follow Martin he did. They had lost sight of each other and Zimmerman stayed on the sidewalk. The testimony at trial puts Martin at his house and then confronting Zimmerman on the sidewalk leading to his truck. There is no evidence that Martin TRIED to run away. The evidence shows he DID run away and then return.
You really need to get your facts straight and stop making up a narrative you can’t support.
And finally, Zimmerman’s wounds back up his story. It’s fucking retarded to suggest getting one’s head slammed into concrete is not a serious threat. People die all the time from blows to the head. You are willfully clueless regarding this point. Head injuries do not require a bucket of blood to be dangerous.
Is it a crime to characterize someone in racial or other terms in a private conversation? The distinction is that George Zimmerman acted based on his characterizations. But you already knew that, Mr. Pot calling the Kettle shameless.
From my discussion with Bricker in the other thread, the evidence for self defence does not have to be presented by the defence (although they certainly will present plenty), and only a scintilla of such evidence has to be presented to mean the prosecution have to disprove self defence beyond reasonable doubt. Today’s evidence has clearly provided that scintilla, and then some.
So, then, they’ve not shown it wasn’t self defence, so Zimmerman must be found not guilty (based on the evidence provided to the court so far).
But, some more important points. One, you have absolutely no evidence Zimmerman was proficient in MMA, so it’s not a fact that can be used to infer guilt. Two, his gun was licensed and legal, so you can’t infer ill will or depraved mind from the simple fact of him carrying it. Three, we have testimony that Martin refused to run away, even when his girlfriend asked him to. Four, a broken nose is not generally treated with a bandaid, so that’s a non-sequitor. So, what we actually know is that Zimmerman considered Martin suspicious, they encountered each other, Zimmerman was injured, and shot Martin.
That doesn’t amount to murder.
Martin acted on it by beating Zimmerman, the “crazy-ass cracker nigga”.
Quite a good day for the defense. I’m concerned about Zimmerman’s lack of emotion after the shooting. But OMara will explain that somehow. Probably a reaction to shock
Eyewitness Testimony describing the details of the fight.
More Eyewitness Testimony describing grass and wet marks on Zimmerman’s back.
Medical testimony regarding his injuries.
[QUOTE=camille]
Is it a crime to characterize someone in racial or other terms in a private conversation?
[/QUOTE]
No, but it is an indication of one’s thinking. If Zimmerman had been shown to have referred to “fucking coons”, that would be an indication of racial animus on his part. If Martin refers to “crazy-ass cracker”, then that is equally an indication.
If one is trying to figure out who attacked who, then whoever used the racial slur is more likely to be the one attacking. If the evidence indicates that both did, then you can’t really tell based on slurs, can you?
Keeping in mind that Zimmerman is the one on trial, and therefore whether or not he used a racial slur has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=you with the face]
Zimmerman was taking MMA classes 3 times a week, yall.
[/QUOTE]
I thought it was kickboxing or boxing, which is quite a bit different from MMA or groundfighting.
I started judo and jujitsu when I was eleven. I don’t think I would have defined myself as “proficient” when I was twelve and a half.
I grant you that I would have handled the attack much differently than Zimmerman, not least because I don’t carry a gun, but one of the attitudes that must be struggled against, for most trainees, is the idea that you are gonna become Bruce Lee in a few weeks.
Fighting is hard. It is especially hard when you are training in kickboxing and you find out what the strikers found out in the early UFC - a lot of the time the fight is going to go to the ground, and kicks are not that useful, and it is really hard to punch effectively lying on your back.
Sen-no-sen is what my sensei called it - the level of proficiency where you can deal with a surprise attack, and still win. It is very advanced. And you don’t typically achieve it in a few months.
Especially not when you have inflamed sacroiliac joints and are carrying thirty extra pounds.
YMMV, but it probably won’t.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m starting to wonder if Zimmerman will need to take the stand at all. From what I have seen of the prosecution’s witnesses so far there is reasonable doubt and then some.
First of all, be accurate: It was creepy-ass, not crazy-ass; two different meanings. Creepy as in predator, a reasonable characterization for an unknown adult following a teenager around.
Second, both Rachel’s and Zimmerman’s statements refute what you’re alleging. It was obvious from both that Trayvon didn’t know why he was being followed, and was creeped out by it. There is absolutely no evidence that Trayvon was out looking for “crackas” or anyone else to beat on, or bother with in any way.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Keeping in mind that Zimmerman is the one on trial…(snip)
[/QUOTE]
Sounds good; when are you going to start?
Does the defense even need to call any witnesses? If there is ever a case where the State has not adequately proven the evidence, this is that case.
Correct, my apologies.
Yes, exactly. Just as there’s no evidence Zimmerman was out looking for “fucking punks” or “assholes”.
He is doing, that’s why he’s giving Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, not Martin.
If the state has not provided enough evidence to make it possible to find him guilty, the defence will move to have the case thrown out, and the judge will do so. The defence will almost certainly make that motion whatever happens, but the judge will only accept it if it’s clear the prosecution have no case.
It’s entirely possible, although unlikely, it won’t even get to the jury.
No need to actually watch an entire movie is there?
BTW Curious, how much of the trial have you actually watched?
CMC fnord!
I don’t have the authority to put Zimmerman on trial, but that has happened already.
If you mean “when are you going to start looking at the evidence and seeing where it leads”, well, I realize it is a long thread, but maybe you could read just a bit of it.
Regards,
Shodan