State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread

[Steophan]

@you_with_the_face

I’m still having a hard time imagining him testifying. In the process of West trying to construe every single nit in Rachel J.'s testimony as grounds for impeachment, he basically made it okay for Zimmerman to be regarded as a wholesale liar the instance his prior statements are shown to contradict each other or contradict the state witnesses.

Well, only if he’s deemed less reliable that the state witnesses by the jury. Given the performance of most of them, that’s hardly a given. Most of them contradicted themselves, or admitted lying, or changed their story - with one notable exception, that happens to back up what Zimmerman said.

Take Manolo, for instance. In his statement, Zimmerman claimed he asked him to restrain Martin, and not to call the cops because they were on the way. But yesterday, Manolo’s version of events was that Zimmerman was on the phone when he came upon him.

And the contradiction there is what, exactly?

Zimmerman never admitted to being on the phone. Ever. How in the hell will Zimmerman explain this away? And why would he not admit to it, if this detail doesn’t hurt him in some way? The State knows who he called and they know how long the conversation lasted. Putting GZ on the stand guarantees this will come out, and I’m not sure GZ is willing to risk that.

Admit to being on the phone? What is there to admit to about that? Being on the phone is not a crime, or otherwise a dubious action.

Time will tell if he needs to testify, but if the state wrapped up now he’d have no need to. They may have something to bring next week that will require him to rebut it, but I’m not sure what that’ll be. The State have already introduced evidence that Zimmerman was acting in self defence, so he won’t need to testify to claim that.

[you_with_the_face]

@Steophan

That’s presumably why he carried a gun, so that losing a fight would mean death or disability. That he used the gun to save his life is the point of owning it, and the point of having self defence laws, not some sort of sign that Zimmerman is an evil criminal.

You’re the one bringing up gun ownership, as if that means anything.

I asked a simple question. By what measure are yall using to say Zimmerman lost the fight? He came out alive and was relatively unscathed. He needed no medical care at the scene. No loss of function. No lameness, no permanent damage. Trayvon, on the other, had a bullet in his heart. Pronounced dead at the scene.

But yall say Zimmerman lost. Why?

[Steophan]

@you_with_the_face

You’re the one bringing up gun ownership, as if that means anything.

I asked a simple question. By what measure are yall using to say Zimmerman lost the fight? He came out alive and was relatively unscathed. He needed no medical care at the scene. No loss of function. No lameness, no permanent damage. Trayvon, on the other, had a bullet in his heart. Pronounced dead at the scene.

But yall say Zimmerman lost. Why?

It would be more accurate to say he was losing at the point he shot Martin, and that he would have lost had he not had his gun. At least in my opinion, I can’t speak for anyone else, but that’s the meaning I took from what they said.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=you with the face]

John explicitly said he didn’t see any punches, only “downward movements”, but thanks for playing.
[/QUOTE]
Punches when you are on top are downward movements. So is bashing someone’s head against the ground, putting your hand on their face to choke or smother them, etc. IOW the witness confirmed what most of us knew all along - Martin was on top of Zimmerman, beating him, and that part of Zimmerman’s narrative is probably true.

Regards,
Shodan

[you_with_the_face]

@Steophan

It would be more accurate to say he was losing at the point he shot Martin,

What evidence that has been presented at trial supports that this was the case? That he was losing when he shot the kid?

[Steophan]

@you_with_the_face

What evidence that has been presented at trial supports that this was the case? That he was losing when he shot the kid?

The evidence that Martin was on top, moving his hands downward in an MMA fashion. Also, the evidence that Zimmerman had injuries consistent with having been punched and his head bashed against concrete. Also, the evidence that Martin had an injury to his hand consistent with punching Zimmerman.

[you_with_the_face]

@Steophan

The evidence that Martin was on top, moving his hands downward in an MMA fashion. Also, the evidence that Zimmerman had injuries consistent with having been punched and his head bashed against concrete.

What evidence is there that Zimmerman got those injuries during the fight? Has anyone testified as to the absence of Zimmerman’s wounds prior to his encounter with Martin?The nick on Martin’s finger hasn’t been presented yet either. No witness have testified as to whether his tiny abrasion was consistent with punching.

You don’t seem to realize that all the defense has presented is bluster. No evidence for self defense.

[camille]

Was there specific testimony regarding Martin’s hand injury? I seem to recall there was a single small abrasion on one finger of his non-dominant hand. Is this correct?

Also, I recall reading that he didn’t have any of Zimmerman’s DNA on him except for his pant waistband. All that blood on Zimmerman from a life threatening beat down and none of it got on Martin’s hands? Was there any testimony about that?

Edit: I see this was answered above while I was typing.

[Shodan]

@you_with_the_face

You don’t seem to realize that all the defense has presented is bluster. No evidence for self defense.

For the five millionth time - the prosecution has to prove that it was not self-defense, beyond a reasonable doubt. And the defense hasn’t presented much yet - they are basically watching the prosecution taking aim at their insteps with a shotgun and saying, “Ready. Aim…”

Regards,
Shodan

[Bruce_Wayne]

In the United Stated the burden of proof has been on the prosecution for criminal cases a few centuries now, if I’m not mistaken.

[emeraldia]

@you_with_the_face

By what measure? The kid was killed and Zimmerman walked away with paper cuts. If that’s losing, everyone should be so lucky.

His injuries were more consistent with fists and concrete than paper. Even so, they might have been much worse had he not used his gun to defend himself. The point is to AVOID life-threatening injuries not to wait until they’ve been sustained.

[DragonAsh]

@Steophan

Time will tell if he needs to testify, but if the state wrapped up now he’d have no need to.

He absolutely needs to testify. A witness said - and was not contradicted or otherwise refuted by defense - that in an ‘MMA position’ the guy on the bottom can still punch. That, coupled with evidence that Zimmerman took MMA classes three times a week, forces Zimmerman to take the stand to state why and how he was scared for his life.

[you_with_the_face]

@emeraldia

His injuries were more consistent with fists and concrete than paper. Even so, they might have been much worse had he not used his gun to defend himself. The point is to AVOID life-threatening injuries not to wait until they’ve been sustained.

And yet you still have no evidence that he was losing.

The fact remains that none of the witnesses (including the two Johns) have attributed the screaming to Zimmerman. But Martin was identified as the screamer by at least two witnesses. That voice tells who was losing the fight, and all the evidence presented thus far indicates that it wasn’t the MMA enthusiast. It was the unarmed kid who wound up dead.

The only thing the defense has offered up is the idea that it’s not impossible Martin aggressed an attack on Zimmerman and beat him up. I’m sorry that yall find the mere idea of this so compelling, but this line of bull is the bare minimum we should expect from defense counsel. They might as well be arguing that it’s not impossible Martin was a sleeper agent from Nigeria who was on a mission to rape and pillage the entire subdivision. At this point, there is as much evidence for this position as there is for the former.

[Hbns]

@you_with_the_face

It boggles the mind how hard some of you are making this guy out to be some kind of helpless wimp, to justify in your minds him killing a skinny unarmed teenager.

I suspect it is a natural reaction to those portraying Martin as an innocent child.

[camille]

@emeraldia

His injuries were more consistent with fists and concrete than paper. Even so, they might have been much worse had he not used his gun to defend himself. The point is to AVOID life-threatening injuries not to wait until they’ve been sustained.

Yes, concrete can be life threatening. I slipped and fell once and sustained injuries similar to what we saw on Zimmerman. I’ve also seen a skull with head banging injuries, and it was much worse than what we saw on Zimmerman. The victim certainly didn’t get up and calmly make a phone call afterward, either.

In any case, no one saw head banging that night, and we don’t have fists with DNA or any significant injuries on them.

There was obviously a scuffle, but there doesn’t appear to be evidence of much of a fight. Other than the bullet wound, that is.

[you_with_the_face]

@Hbns

I suspect it is a natural reaction to those portraying Martin as an innocent child.

Why wasn’t he an innocent child?

[hmarvin]

@camille

Yes, concrete can be life threatening. I slipped and fell once and sustained injuries similar to what we saw on Zimmerman. I’ve also seen a skull with head banging injuries, and it was much worse than what we saw on Zimmerman. The victim certainly didn’t get up and calmly make a phone call afterward, either.

In any case, no one saw head banging that night, and we don’t have fists with DNA or any significant injuries on them.

There was obviously a scuffle, but there doesn’t appear to be evidence of much of a fight. Other than the bullet wound, that is.

A lot of people are confused about Zimmerman’s self defense claim. According to his statement, it wasn’t until Martin reached for his gun, and stated that Zimmerman was going to die tonight that he shot Martin, the alleged verbal threat of eminent death was the catalyst for the shooting, not the beating, though beating someone’s head on the ground, or concrete, long enough will obviously lead to death. If that’s his self defense claim, Zimmerman didn’t need any in juries.

[Shodan]

@you_with_the_face

What evidence is there that Zimmerman got those injuries during the fight? Has anyone testified as to the absence of Zimmerman’s wounds prior to his encounter with Martin?

A few points about this.
[ol][li]As has been mentioned a few thousand times, Zimmerman is the one on trial, and is entitled to the presumption of innocence. It is not enough for the prosecution to suggest that Zimmerman got his injuries elsewhere than during the fight - they have to produce some kind of evidence that this suggestion is true.[/li][li]If worse came to worse, I suppose the defense could dig up the clerk who waited on Zimmerman at the grocery store, and ask her under oath if she happened to notice if Zimmerman was bleeding out the nose and head. If she say he was, that would be one of those bombshells we are expecting from the prosecution. If she says he wasn’t, then, not so much.[/li][li]The wounds on Zimmerman were fresh and still bleeding. As you probably know, blood clots after a bit, and noses stop bleeding. The longer beforehand the prosecution suggests the injuries were incurred, the harder it is to believe them, since they would not have been bleeding for very long. Which puts them into the timeframe during which Martin attacked and beat him, and suggests that this is where Zimmerman got the wounds. Just like he said.[/li][li]This alternative scenario, where Zimmerman gets injured before he ever meets Martin, is hard to believe. Zimmerman’s abrasions, for instance, are on the right side of his face. This is what one would expect if someone had punched him with their left fist. [/li]
Zimmerman had gashes on the back of his head. This is what one might expect if someone had been slamming his head on concrete. Witnesses saw Martin sitting on top of Zimmerman, making downward movements consistent with slamming his head on concrete. A witness reports seeing the fight move onto the sidewalk, which is made of concrete. The wound on Martin’s had was to his left fist, which is consistent with him having punched someone.

Yet Zimmerman, without knowing all this, was able on the spur of the moment to come up with a description of the events which is completely consistent with evidence he didn’t know existed. He did not know that Martin had grass stains on his knees, yet was able to devise an explanation for it even before it came to his attention.

Zimmerman had no idea how many might have been watching the fight, in part or in whole, yet was able to come up with a story that, by purest coincidence, not only explained the injuries he suffered, but the injury that Martin had, and the witness accounts that he didn’t know existed.

And he could do all this on a moment’s notice, and stick to it consistently ever since. [/ol]It isn’t a question if there is any reasonable doubt about this alternative scenario. The question is, how can any reasonable person believe it in the first place? Especially since there is not even one single piece of positive evidence in its favor.

The only thing you got is “prove it didn’t happen”. [list=a][li]The defense doesn’t have to prove it didn’t happen. The prosecution has to prove it did, and[*]come on - the whole thing is ridiculous.[/list][/li]Regards,
Shodan

[Steophan]

@you_with_the_face

And yet you still have no evidence that he was losing.

I’ve provided that evidence, several times.

The fact remains that none of the witnesses (including the two Johns) have attributed the screaming to Zimmerman. But Martin was identified as the screamer by at least two witnesses. That voice tells who was losing the fight, and all the evidence presented thus far indicates that it wasn’t the MMA enthusiast. It was the unarmed kid who wound up dead.

That’s an outright lie. The voice was identified as probably being Zimmerman by Good.

The only thing the defense has offered up is the idea that it’s not impossible Martin aggressed an attack on Zimmerman and beat him up.

Yep, and unless the prosecution can disprove that - that is, prove that no reasonable person could think that Martin was the aggressor - then he’s not guilty. The defence need prove absolutely nothing.

[Xema]

@you_with_the_face

What evidence is there that Zimmerman got those injuries during the fight?

The testimony of the witness who saw the fight is exactly such evidence. It certainly isn’t proof, but it’s enough - absent further evidence that the injuries were received elsewhere - to allow a jury to conclude that Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of what might happen if the fight continued.

Has anyone testified as to the absence of Zimmerman’s wounds prior to his encounter with Martin?The nick on Martin’s finger hasn’t been presented yet either. No witness have testified as to whether his tiny abrasion was consistent with punching.

You stick quite consistently to the general theme that no current evidence eliminates the possibility that Zimmerman is guilty. If this were the standard that applies during the trial, a conviction would be an expected outcome.

But here’s an idea: Adapt your posts to a legal process that includes a presumption of innocence for the accused. That will produce a discussion better suited to the reality of this case.