A little detail I think gets lost sometimes:
Many people tend to go there, I notice. Also:
Fussy details, perhaps, but I am a fan of fussy details…
Actually, he didn’t, but txs for playing.
It just seems like it was Zimmerman calling for help.
Yes, he did. Stop lying about this, and explain why you think he’s mistaken.
He could, of course, be mistaken, and he stated that clearly in his testimony, but he also clearly stated his opinion that it was Zimmerman on the bottom, and Zimmerman calling for help.
Basically, unless the prosecution can show that Good was mistaken or lying, they have no case. You can’t believe Good is both honest and correct, and still believe there is no reasonable doubt that it wasn’t self defence.
Nothing wrong with being fussy about such matters.
“Presumption of innocence” is a useful term provided it is understood to have a specific legal meaning. It is often presented as “innocent until proven guilty” - but this is a bit sloppy. An accused person may well be guilty by many reasonable definitions of the word before the trial even starts. He certainly can be detained on probable cause, obliged to post bail, etc..
But at his trial, presumption of innocence means (among other things) that the burden falls on the prosecution to establish guilt “beyond reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty”, and he cannot be obliged to testify.
What does this have to do with the point at hand? I’m arguing against people who think there’s been evidence presented that Zimmerman was losing the fight and had reasonable fear of imminent harm from Martin.
Whether or not the defense needs to have evidence to argue self defense is seperate and apart from the issue of whether evidence for that has been presented.
That said, the existence of injuries does not alone a self-defense case make, and that is all we have right now. Justified use of lethal force requires one to be in reasonable fear of serious and imminent harm, and to assert self defense, there needs to be at least a scintilla of evidence that supports this. The wounds on his head are not evidence of his emotional state when he killed the kid because they were as minor as the cut on OJ’s finger after Nicole and Ron were knifed.
We can’t even infer from his vital signs post-shooting that he was in fear because they were normal. Manolo also reported Zimmerman was calm and collected. He did say Zimmerman claimed “I was defending myself and I shot him.” But nothing about being in mortal fear and shooting him because of that.
In a case like this, of course the state has the burden of proof and thus “presumption of innocence” still applies for defendants. But that doesn’t mean the defense can throw whatever they want into the air and expect to win. Johnny Cochran didn’t score an acquittal in the OJ trial merely by floating ideas to the jury. He supported his ideas by putting up evidence that Furhman committed perjury and had a history of fabricating probable cause, and that key forsenic evidence was handled in questionable ways.
That is why the recurring theme that the defense doesn’t have to put up any evidence is utterly impressive. If they don’t put up any evidence and they end up losing, they will only have themselves to blame.
When Zimmerman says “I don’t know what his deal is” or “I’ve never seen him before” who the fuck does this guy think he is? Should everyone who walks into Twin Lakes carry a placard detailing who they are? If so, why didn’t he start this project? There are hundreds of people who live in Twin lakes and only 25 people showed up to the Neighborhood Watch suggesting, at least to me, that there’s no way he could possibly know who belongs - guests,visitors, families, etc - at Twin Lakes. Clearly he didn’t, because if he took his job as Inspector Gadget seriously, he would have known that Trayvon was there as a visitor.
What struck me was that Good didn’t hear the flesh-on-flesh sound of someone being pummeled MMA-style, he just saw downward movements. For all we know, ZImmerman could’ve gotten elbowed in the nose and got his head scraped from tussling from the grass to the concrete. Still, no evidence that his head was banged against the concrete or he was punched.
The most fascinating part was, of course, from Malamo who accounted Zimmerman’s “flat” and “unemotional” demeanor which (freakishly) resembles Zimmerman in the Court room. He was “calm” according to the witness even with a fresh, bloodless corpse laying right next to him. Zimmerman told Malamo that he called the police, but how could he have called the police from the time he shot to Trayvon, dialed the number, communicated that to the dispatcher, and hung up before Malamo arrived? Zimmerman should’ve called the police immediately, told them what occurred and asked for an ambulance.
Heh. I liked how the witness dismissed active involvement in the Neighborhood Watch as antithetical to routine of a work and a family man. And, indeed it is. While Zimmerman was prowling around Twin Lakes like Inspector Gadget after a line of cocaine and a tablet of dextroamphetamine, the witness was spending quality time with his daughter doing a project. Who’s doing a better service to the community? Unless there is criminal activity in progress, it is sincerely my belief the world would be a much better place once people learn to stop mindlessly insinuating themselves in everyone else’s business and focus on themselves.
Finally, did anyone else find it weird that he cut the witness off in his conversation with Zimmerman to say: Just tell her I shot someone. Who does that? Also, why would be the first thing Zimmerman says that witness is that “I shot him in self-defense”? Again, who adds to the self-defense part in there right after a fight to very first person they see? This guy is a either autistic, a narcissist, or an android, or some unholy amalgamation of the three.
- Honesty
“Just tell her I shot someone” suggests Shellie was fully aware that he was playing cops and robbers with Trayvon, not shopping at Target. Manalo says she expressed no surprise when he told her that.
When did that happen?
CMC fnord!
No, this is not correct. The jury is entitled to simply disbelieve Good.
"What struck me was that Good didn’t hear the flesh-on-flesh sound of someone being pummeled MMA-style, he just saw downward movements. "
They hadn’t dubbed in the martial arts sound effects yet.
De La Rionda making those sound effects is one of the most ridiculous things he’s done. I don’t think O’Mara made it clear just how ridiculous it was.
I would not expect to hear flesh-on-flesh sounds whatsoever- nor would I expect to hear head-on-concrete sounds- except in a movie. Especially when the participants were screaming.
I just now started watching the trial on YouTube, Day 1 Part 1. I watched the tedious arguments before the jury came in. I heard the Prosecutor’s opening statement – I vote to convict! (I’d never be allowed on a jury! :rolleyes: )
Now I’m watching the Walter White look-alike give his opening statement.
What’s his hourly rate? If it’s more than minimum wage I don’t think Zimmerman is getting his money’s worth. 22 minutes in, and the knock-knock joke is the only highlight. Some of the townhouses have porches, and some don’t. 
It does seem neat that the trial is televised (I missed out on the OJ trial of the century) but doubt I’ll have the patience … Is there a highlights reel?
True, but that doesn’t mean they can assume the opposite of what he said is true.
I’d say that if the state doesn’t show that Martin wasn’t on top of Zimmerman, making some form of downward motion, or that Zimmerman wasn’t the one screaming, they don’t have a case. My reason for believing that is that, if it’s reasonable to believe that both of those things may have occurred, it’s reasonable to believe that it may have been self defence.
Any proof that Zimmerman murdered Martin would necessarily contain, quite possibly coincidently, proof that Good’s testimony was not true.
Don’t they have to have some cause to do so?
Legally? No. They are not supposed to take into account certain things the judge may tell them to disregard but other than that they make their own minds as to the truthiness of any particular witness.
Reminds me of that bit in PRESUMED INNOCENT where the judge asks a prospective juror whether the defendant is guilty or innocent; the guy says he doesn’t know; the judge says 'Thanks for your candor; we don’t need you on the jury, you can step down; this man is innocent. Everyone clear on that? Let’s start the trial."
youwiththeface, I’m curious if you carry a concealed weapon. Personally I do and have had family discussions about what would happen if I had to shoot someone - mostly pertaining to the fact I would have to be questioned at the police station and we would need to call the family lawyer.
I can see myself saying the exact thing Zimmerman told (through proxy) to his wife. “I shot someone” is all that needs to be said. I can’t be sure of my wife’s reaction, but I would assume she wouldn’t be shocked and would know that I needed to do what I needed to do.
Also for those unfamiliar with concealed carry, we were taught to always carry one round chambered and the safety off. It would be silly to carry without a round in the chamber.
Not weird. You’re taking it out of context. What did Manlo tell GZ’s wife?
Manlo - “Your husband has been involved in a shooting. He’s being handcuffed and he’s going to be held for questioning at the Sanford Police Department.”
Right around that time he (GZ) cut me off and said, “Just tell her I shot someone.”
GZ heard Manlo tell his wife that her husband was involved in a shooting. The first thing Mrs. GZ would want to know is if her husband had been shot. Manlo’s response was too vague. Was GZ shot? Manlo didn’t say. Manlo only said GZ was involved in a shooting. That could mean that GZ had been shot. GZ wanted Manlo to clarify the situation.