State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

If I am wrong, I agree with you.

But why would I look like an ass if I’m right?

Because you say shit like this:

A Zimmerman conviction might validate you.

How small a person you must be in your world, that you would even think to type this. It’s like its unfathomable that I and others have an interest in seeing Zimmerman convicted because we’re certain he killed an innocent kid deliberately and unnecessarily, and nearly got off due to a corrupt police department.

You think a conviction might validate me? All you’re announcing with this bit of projection is that an acquittal will validate you. And this is exactly why you will look like an ass if GZ walks. Your ego depends on him walking.

[Terr]

@you_with_the_face

And this is exactly why you will look like an ass if GZ walks. Your ego depends on him walking.

… except Bricker only stated his certainty that Zimmerman will walk yesterday. For more than a year before that he said he couldn’t know because he couldn’t see all the evidence against him.

[BlakeTyner]

Ran, didn’t run, who gives a shit? Let’s make this as simple as possible:

Both men had the legal right to be where they were and to do what they did, up until the second encounter.

Except for Trayvon being high, neither of them has committed a crime up to that point. Zimmerman exhibited poor judgment. He got out of his truck. Stupid. Not illegal.

Ignore everything that led to this point, because it DOES NOT MATTER. We’re at the “T” in the sidewalk. Zimmerman tells the operator he doesn’t know where Martin is. Martin tells RJ that he’s “lost” the guy following him. I say this again: the initial contact has been broken, according to both Zimmerman and Martin.

1. Why does Martin not a) enter his house, b) call the police to report a ‘stalker’, c) hide, d) keep running, e) have his girlfriend call the police, f) begin screaming his head off, g) start banging on a neighbor’s door for assistance? Any of those actions would be a reasonable (and not high) person’s reaction to fear.

2. I’ll GIVE you this one: let’s postulate that the 2nd encounter WAS, in fact, initiated by Zimmerman. Let’s say that he was a) lying about not knowing where the kid was, or b) “chased after him” some more and found him. Let’s even say that he puts his hands on Martin–not enough to cause ANY injury to Martin, mind you–because he had none. (And, since it works for your scenario, I must point out that Zimmerman had none of Martin’s DNA under his nails, so he MUST NOT HAVE STRUCK HIM!!!)

Hell, let’s speculate further that Zimmerman already has his gun drawn on the poor kid.

You’re now Trayvon Martin. What do you do? Here are your options:

A) Fight with your hands (either you’re getting into a fistfight with a potentially armed person, or you’re getting into a fistfight with someone with a gun.)

B) Run.

C) Put your hands above your head, scream for help, and see what happens?

What do YOU do? Though I’ve never been in the position, I pick option B.

Whatever happens, we know that somehow Trayvon ends up on top of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shoots him. If Trayvon legitimately was in fear for his life or serious bodily injury, then he certainly can use force, up to and including deadly force (although he has no means, other than his body, to inflict it.)

However, in Zimmerman’s position, Martin’s use of force then puts HIM into fearing for HIS life or serious bodily injury, and he is ALSO allowed to use force, up to and including deadly force. The difference is, he’s a law-abiding citizen who actually does have the means to inflict deadly force.

What, precisely, is so difficult to understand about these points of law?

[BlakeTyner]

@Stoid

He was legally a minor.

Trayvon Martin was a kid. A high school kid. A minor. Legally a child.

Excellent point.

Who is responsible for “a minor. Legally a child”?

The parents, right?

Where the fuck were they? And, since you’ve so aptly described him as a “kid,” when can we expect the parents’ trial for their failure to supervise their child–a failure that resulted in his death?

If he’s “a kid,” then it’s his parents’ fault (or negligence) that he’s dead.

[you_with_the_face]

@BlakeTyner

Ignore everything that led to this point, because it DOES NOT MATTER. We’re at the “T” in the sidewalk. Zimmerman tells the operator he doesn’t know where Martin is. Martin tells RJ that he’s “lost” the guy following him. I say this again: the initial contact has been broken, according to both Zimmerman and Martin.

1. Why does Martin not a) enter his house, b) call the police to report a ‘stalker’, c) hide, d) keep running, e) have his girlfriend call the police, f) begin screaming his head off, g) start banging on a neighbor’s door for assistance? Any of those actions would be a reasonable (and not high) person’s reaction to fear.

Since the kid is dead, we don’t know. But we can speculate that he didn’t immediately go home because he thought he’d lost his pursuer and wanted to continue his conversation with Rachel.

Since he thought he’d lost his pursuer, he didn’t feel it was necessary to call the cops.

Since he though he’d lost his pursuer, he didn’t feel necessary to scream his head off either (and that is crazy idea anyway).

Do we have any reason to believe that Trayvon knew GZ was nuts enough to abandon his truck and run after him? From the reenactment, GZ admits to following behind TM in his truck before he started running. But it is quite possible the kid didn’t realize GZ was nuts enough to pursue him on foot. So it is reasonable to assume the kid stopped running because he thought he was safe.

2. I’ll GIVE you this one: let’s postulate that the 2nd encounter WAS, in fact, initiated by Zimmerman. Let’s say that he was a) lying about not knowing where the kid was, or b) “chased after him” some more and found him. Let’s even say that he puts his hands on Martin–not enough to cause ANY injury to Martin, mind you–because he had none. ** (And, since it works for your scenario, I must point out that Zimmerman had none of Martin’s DNA under his nails, so he MUST NOT HAVE STRUCK HIM!!!)**

Zimmerman’s hands were not tested for TM DNA.

Hell, let’s speculate further that Zimmerman already has his gun drawn on the poor kid.

You’re now Trayvon Martin. What do you do? Here are your options:

A) Fight with your hands (either you’re getting into a fistfight with a potentially armed person, or you’re getting into a fistfight with someone with a gun.)

B) Run.

C) Put your hands above your head, scream for help, and see what happens?

What do YOU do? Though I’ve never been in the position, I pick option B.

I would probably pick B and C (minus the hands above head part). But if it’s dark and someone grabs me, I could also seem myself doing A then B and C.

Whatever happens, we know that somehow Trayvon ends up on top of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shoots him.

No, we don’t know this. The forsensics and most of the witnesses do not bear this out. It’s possible that at least during some part of the struggle Martin was on top, but there is more evidence that he wasn’t on top at the end than there is evidence that he was.

If Trayvon legitimately was in fear for his life or serious bodily injury, then he certainly can use force, up to and including deadly force (although he has no means, other than his body, to inflict it.)

However, in Zimmerman’s position, Martin’s use of force then puts HIM into fearing for HIS life or serious bodily injury, and he is ALSO allowed to use force, up to and including deadly force. The difference is, he’s a law-abiding citizen who actually does have the means to inflict deadly force.

What, precisely, is so difficult to understand about these points of law?

Please answer us your own question. In your scenario, you have Zimmerman grabbing TM and sticking a gun in his face. Do you not know that this counts as battery and assault with a deadly weapon? Do you not know that this is illegal behavior, and not just a little bit? It’s a felony. You can not successfully argue self-defense when you’re committing a forcible felony against the person you end up killing.

The fact that we have seemingly intelligent people on this board who think that Zimmerman would have been entitled to kill Martin even if Zimmerman had stalked, kidnapped, and held the kid at gunpoint is nothing short of bizarre, sad, and sick.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

Because you say shit like this:

How small a person you must be in your world, that you would even think to type this. It’s like its unfathomable that I and others have an interest in seeing Zimmerman convicted because we’re certain he killed an innocent kid deliberately and unnecessarily, and nearly got off due to a corrupt police department.

Yes, but that “certainty” arises from an ability to understand the law.

You think a conviction might validate me? All you’re announcing with this bit of projection is that an acquittal will validate you. And this is exactly why you will look like an ass if GZ walks. Your ego depends on him walking.

No. Or more precisely, not until the trial got underway. I believed, until the trial began to wind down (at least the prosecution’s case-in-chief began to wind down) that the prosecution had some evidence which was not public. I thought that because the alternative – that a prosecution was commenced for reasons of public image and not a dispassionate weighing of the law – was unlikely. Not impossible, certainly – but of the two options, in my view the far more likely one was that there was some killer evidence (no pun intended) that was not part of the public discovery.

But now it’s clear that’s not so. And now I’ve seen the prosecution’s witnesses on the stand – almost to a man, they were at least of equal help to the defense theory of the case. So NOW, yes, I am confident that he’ll be acquitted, because NOW the public stink to convict him in the face of that enervated prosecution effort would be far greater than the stink of acquitting him and dealing with the outcry from people like you, who have unlinked their logic in favor of base emotion.

So, now, yes – if he is convicted, my ego will suffer a blow for that misjudgement. But I waited until the prosecution’s evidence was in before reaching that conclusion.

Perhaps someone on the prosecution team will explain someday why they failed to charge manslaughter.

[BlakeTyner]

In that hypothetical (Zimmerman putting the gun in Martin’s face) I completely agree that it’s a felony, illegal, etc.

I simply wanted to know what a reasonable person would do in that situation.

Even if that was, in fact, what happened (which, as you know, we’ll never know) then it stands to reason, does it not, that Trayvon made choice A. Fight with his hands.

Actually, let me stop right there to clarify something:

Do you believe that Trayvon Martin caused the injuries to George Zimmerman’s face and head? However “insignificant” they appear to be, do we agree that TM caused them or is it your assertion that they happened sometime before the encounter or the GZ inflicted them on himself after the encounter?

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

Do you not know that this is illegal behavior, and not just a little bit? It’s a felony. You can not successfully argue self-defense when you’re committing a forcible felony against the person you end up killing.

That is a correct statement.

§ 776.041 provides that the self-defense justification is not available to a person who is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony. And §776.08 provides that a forcible felony includes “…any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual,” which an unprovoked gun in the face certainly would.

[DragonAsh]

@Steophan

I’ll take the explanation that both Zimmerman and Rachel gave, that he did not run but walked faster.

Cite for Rachel saying that he ‘walked faster’? Cite for ‘running’ = ‘walk fast’? Because Zimmerman in his initial NEN call *TWICE *said Martin ‘ran’. Later - likely when he realized that didn’t help his story all that much - he said Martin ‘skipped’ away. Strange, other people in this thread have had less-than-kind words to say about people ‘revising’ or ‘clarifying’ their testimony; I guess George is exempt from all that hulubaloo about accuracy and all in the NEN call since he was bruised and battered five minutes later. :rolleyes:

We know George ran up the T - surely you’re not disputing that. If Martin was ‘walking’, why didn’t George see him?

@Steophan

Martin did not run from Zimmerman in fear of his life.

So not only do you speak some completely different variant of English no one else on the planet has never heard of, now you’re a fucking clairvoyant psychic that can talk to the dead?

@BlakeTyner

Except for Trayvon being high, neither of them has committed a crime up to that point.

Cite for Martin actually being ‘high’? Cite for being high on weed makes one aggressive and more prone to sucker-punch people not holding a bag of Doritos?
[/quote]

@BlakeTyner

1. Why does Martin not a) enter his house, b) call the police to report a ‘stalker’, c) hide, d) keep running, e) have his girlfriend call the police, f) begin screaming his head off, g) start banging on a neighbor’s door for assistance? Any of those actions would be a reasonable (and not high) person’s reaction to fear.

Maybe, just maybe, he’s not crazy about leading the creepy-ass guy that’s been following him the last quarter of a mile right to his front door

[BlakeTyner]

(FTR: In my post, once I say “I choose option B,” that was the end of my hypothetical with Zimmerman pulling the gun on Martin. If that were what had actually transpired, and could be proven, then Zimmerman’s guilty as sin in that scenario.)

I didn’t put a strong transition between that and “Whatever happens…” which was my segue back into the actual facts of the case. That’s my bad.

[Crafter_Man]

@Bricker

Perhaps someone on the prosecution team will explain someday why they failed to charge manslaughter.

See my post above.

[BlakeTyner]

Gives them an out? “See, we buckled to the pressure of the “Justice” crowd, but darn it, there just wasn’t enough evidence to convict.”

Unfortunately, that’s probably true.

[Terr]

@Bricker

That is a correct statement.

§ 776.041 provides that the self-defense justification is not available to a person who is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony. And §776.08 provides that a forcible felony includes “…any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual,” which an unprovoked gun in the face certainly would.

Except the defendant has to be charged with that forcible felony, separately from the main offense (in Zimmerman’s case Murder 2) in order for the self-defense not to apply.

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

Yes, but that “certainty” arises from an ability to understand the law.

Your ability to understand the law is highly questionably, Bricker. To such an extent that I would highly recommend you reassess your certainty in all things pertaining this case. Case in point:

Perhaps some on the prosecution team will explain someday why they failed to charge manslaughter.

From here:

It should be noted that under Florida law Manslaughter is a “lesser included offense” within the charge of 2nd Degree Murder. **In other words, when the state charges somebody with 2nd Degree Murder, they are also simultaneously charging them with Manslaughter. ** Thus, it is possible for somebody charged with 2nd Degree Murder to be acquitted on the 2nd Degree Murder charge but still be found guilty of Manslaughter.

Perhaps you should stop bragging about your legal expertise until the trial is over.

[DragonAsh]

@you_with_the_face

No, we don’t know this. The forsensics and most of the witnesses do not bear this out. It’s possible that at least during some part of the struggle Martin was on top, but there is more evidence that he wasn’t on top at the end than there is evidence that he was.

YWTF - please. We’re on the same side (in general) on this - I think Zimmerman should go to jail - but I don’t think anyone can reasonably conclude that there’s more evidence that Martin was on the bottom vs the top at the end of the fight.

I think there’s some reasonable debate as to whether or not Martin was on top the entire fight, and I think there’s reasonable debate as to how they ended up in a fight to begin with, and (personally) I think there’s plenty of reason to doubt that Zimmerman had or should have had a reasonable fear of death / grave bodily harm.

Not saying it’s impossible, but it’s tough to envision a scenario where Martin is on the bottom facing up, gets shot in the chest, and ends up face down and his arms underneath him.

[Bricker]

@Crafter_Man

As I stated in another thread, it is my sincere belief that the prosecution wants Mr. Zimmerman to be acquitted, and they were simply “going through the motion.”

Before the trial started, I would have dismissed this as highly unlikely.

Now I regard it as being unlikely but not all that unlikely.

[crowmanyclouds]

@BlakeTyner

… 1) Why does Martin not a) enter his house, b) call the police to report a ‘stalker’, c) hide, d) keep running, e) have his girlfriend call the police, f) begin screaming his head off, g) start banging on a neighbor’s door for assistance? Any of those actions would be a reasonable (and not high) person’s reaction to fear. …

C is what Zimmerman says Martin did. Ya know that whole jumping out of the bushes thing.

Having detectable levels of THC and being “high” ain’t the same.

CMC fnord!

[Terr]

@crowmanyclouds

C is what Zimmerman says Martin did. Ya know that whole jumping out of the bushes thing.

Except Martin apparently had to run back from the house he was staying at (and he was right in the back of it according to DeeDee) back to the T in order to “hide”.

[Bricker]

@Terr

Except the defendant has to be charged with that forcible felony, separately from the main offense (in Zimmerman’s case Murder 2) in order for the self-defense not to apply.

Sure, but we’re just discussing the hypothetical now, in which Zimmerman grabs martin and sticks a gun in his face. Presumably, if that happens, the state charges the aggravated battery.

As you discern, though, that doesn’t apply to the actual set of facts surrounding this case.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

Perhaps you should stop bragging about your legal expertise until the trial is over.

That’s a great idea. When the trial is over and the verdict recorded, let’s you and I have a discussion about whose understanding of the law was the correct one.