You bet that is what I am proposing. What is the point of even having a jury if not to bring some “moral rightness” to the proceedings? After all the “experts” are arguably better equipped to reach conclusions about “facts” and what is “legal.”
You act as though the “published rules” have never in been unfair or even egregiously immoral. History thoroughly contradicts this notion, wouldn’t you say?
I thought the very purpose of juries was to protect citizens from the state, be they victims or the accused. If that is not the case, then why have them at all? Let the judges and lawyers make all the decisions.
Wasn’t what I heard. Did a medical expert say that GZ’s head injury looked like the sort of injury you’d see if Martin was grabbing it and smashing it into concrete? That’s pretty big. Can you link me?
Excuse me? I don’t understand how this statement responds to this:
Zimmerman said he didn’t know when he was punched? He said Martin punched him right after they spoke, then kept punching him when they were down. Please clarify.
Careful reading would save you and me both so much time. My reference to gut feelings wasn’t about the evidence.
As for Martin being alive… because Martin’s heart might have continued to beat it also means he was conscious, remained so while Zimmerman sat on his back, remaine dalive and conscious after that and had the strength and will to pull both arms under himself and did so right before dying…and no one noticed?
You know if you keep bending so far backwards you’re bound to permanently hurt something.
I don’t ignore that. It’s just extremely limited in what it says.
No we don’t.:smack: The evidence in that call is that he was told he didn’t need to. NOTHING in that call is evidence that he stopped. and stayed stopped, and his comment about having the cops call him is a clear indication that he did not know where he would be, meaning he’d still be looking for Martin. Serino and Singleton both saw it instantly. The prosecution sees it. There’s no other reasonable interpretation of that remark which makes sense in the context. No evidence he stopped.
(not really - it’s a possibility)
Pardon? where was Martin?
Never mind… doesn’t matter. What do you think is the big meaning if the fight started at the T? How many facts there is no evidence for are you hanging on a location? A fight occurred and someone saw that for at least a few seconds of it Martin was on top. What pile of other facts do you think follow from these few seconds?
General outlines, especially ones with as many missing parts as this one has, don’t prove anything that really matters.
Here’s a general outline of how to make croissants:
Mix flour,slat, water, yeast, sugar and butter. Fold and chill and cut and bake.
You think you could make tasty croissants from that general outline?
Yeah, we know they had a physical altercation. Martin was on top for at least part of the time. Zimmerman has some injuries that probably happened during that altercation. And…?
Evidently that’s all you need, and the details within that outline don’t matter to you. Well, people who like tasty light and flaky facts need more than an outline.
No, that’s not necessary – you can start with an answer to the question I asked before which you ignored:
What is the prosecution’s position as to what positions Zimmerman and Martin’s bodies were in at that time, i.e. while Martin was allegedly screaming for help?
I agree, but so what? It doesn’t change the fact that the prosecution does not have a coherent theory of the case on this critical issue.
No, the problem is that the prosecution has no story at all on this critical issue and if they did, that story would not make any sense. That and the fact that Zimmerman’s position on this critical issue does make sense.
No there is more than that. It also means that the prosecution is putting on false evidence by having witnesses testify that it was Martin who was screaming for help. And it also means that the prosecution (and Team Trayvon) are being intellectually dishonest by refusing to admit that, in all probability, Zimmerman was in fact being beaten on by Martin in the moments leading up to the shooting. And it also means that Zimmerman is almost certainly innocent.
I addressed this issue above – the prosecution does not have a coherent theory of the case. So they have to gloss over the facts by stating that “a struggle ensued” or stating that Zimmerman “stalked” and “profiled” Martin.
I ignored it because I cannot speak to the prosecution’s actual case since I’m not avidly following. But it appears that you are driving towards making the statement that it is “incoherent” to say that Martin was screaming because he was observed on top of Zimmerman, which is of course untrue.
That’s been addressed multiple times; first, we do not know if Martin was continuously on top of Zimmerman, since no one observed them for more than a few seconds and my understanding is that at least two witnesses put Zimmerman on top; it seems perfectly plausible, even likely, that they switched back and forth in the “incoherent” altercation/struggle/fight. Even if they did not, I don’t know if the prosecution has or can go as far as I can, but I believe absolutely that Zimmerman had the gun out well before the point he claims, and if that is true, then Martin being on top doesn’t mean a damn thing and if I were him trying to keep Zimmerman from pointing it at me I’d be screaming my head off just like him.
To you. I am astonished that so many people find Zimmerman’s story believable, but I at least acknowledge that they do find it so. But many others think precisely the reverse of what you think, so why do you and others speak as though that’s not even possible? That’s so strange.
Again, with all due respect, the respect you do not give to others, the reach of your certainty is startling; it’s more than legitimate for you, for each of us to consider the evidence for ourselves and conclude what we conclude. But you go remarkably far in your belief that everyone actually does agree with you, they are just lying about it for other reasons. THAT is a brand new degree of, well, let’s just leave it at certainty. With a “wow” to top it off.
I’m making the statements I am actually making – nothing more, and nothing less.
The prosecution (and Team Trayvon) have not, as far as I can tell, offered a coherent story on this point which is consistent with the evidence and consistent with Zimmerman’s guilt.
No, it’s not plausible since only one of them was screaming for help, and only one of them had injuries on the front and back of his head.
Well what’s your best guess as to what happened in the moments leading up to the shooting? Are you guessing that Martin beat on Zimmerman for a while; Zimmerman took it silently; Zimmerman pulled his gun out; Martin started screaming for help; and Zimmerman shot Martin?
I’m not sure what you mean by “precisely the reverse of what you think” I believe that Zimmerman was carrying a gun that night and Martin was not. Are there people who believe that it was Martin who was carrying the gun? Of course not.
Please describe the scenario which you are referring to by “Precisely the reverse of what you think.”
I’m not sure I understand your point here. Can you quote me where I did this so I know what you are talking about? TIA.
You claim not to believe Zimmerman. You also claim there is no other evidence for when the punching started. That lack of other evidence means that the totality of the evidence is consistent with Zimmerman’s story, and so despite your unfounded belief that he’s a liar, he is not shown to be wrong.
Anyway, I’m done with this “please repeat yourself” nonsense you’ve been doing, as it’s clear you’re only doing so to try to find minor inconsistencies in an argument I rephrase ten times.
Yes, yes I know. That’s the problem. Your feelings should be based on the evidence.
Who was to notice? You’d not believe Zimmerman if he said so, and I’m not aware of any other witnesses who were staring at Martin during that period.
Just because something isn’t witnessed isn’t proof it didn’t happen.
Listen to the call. You can hear him running - with the wind noise and heavy breathing - then, when he says he stops, both the wind and heavy breatihng cease. Pretty good evidence he stopped. Add to that the evidence that Martin went away then returned and it’s clear Zimmerman was no longer following him.
At his father’s fiancee’s house.
No facts without evidence. Not a single one. I provided you with a whole pile of evidence, and as usual you ignored it.
What’s proof got to do with it? Zimmerman, in case you’ve forgotten again, is the defendant. He is not required to prove his innocence. Simply having a single plausible scenario where he’s innocent means he is not guilty of the crime - and said general outline achieves that.
Prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that I couldn’t. That’s the issue here.
And all that is consistent with Zimmerman’s story. So, with your failure to prove he’s a murderer, he is not guilty.
And how would Zimmerman have been able to separate himself from the taller, faster Martin without inflicting any injuries?
Why would you expect anything else? Given that his actual memory of the incident is most likely highly fragmented, he’s inventing memories after the fact, consciously or unconsciously. That’s what people do. Given that it’s invented, of course it’d be favorable to Zimmerman, because everyone is in the right in their own mind.
What’s “right before” mean in hand-to-hand combat?
It certainly does seem that way to me, overwhelming so.
And that’s what you should expect whether he’s guilty or innocent.
From the jury instructions you posted in #1174:
It seems that concluding on the basis of [Zimmerman’s alleged lies] alone that he’s guilty is exactly what you’re doing. What other basis do you have?
But you really shouldn’t, because nothing objectively identifies the screamer.
The point of the jury is to serve as the finder of fact, not a moral arbiter. I’ve got news for you: everyone’s morals are wildly different. You can puff your chest out and proclaim that you’d convict George Zimmerman under your moral code, but I bet you’d be less thrilled when people are convicted of crimes they didn’t commit because the jury decides they are whores and whores should be punished, or that young black men belong behind bars, or that atheists are incapable of morality, or any other delightfully unjust outcome. Those moral convictions are just as deeply held as yours.
So, your answer is reverse civil disobedience, where other people go to jail because the jury disagrees with the law? How courageous a moral stand that is.
The purpose of a jury is to serve as a finder of fact. Also, how exactly would you be protecting Martin from the state by falsely convicting Zimmerman?
It would be interesting if some member of Team Trayvon would lay out what they think happened in the moments leading up to the shooting, and the evidence that demonstrates it. I’m speaking of those for whom evidence matters.
I think it would help with the continual efforts to shift the burden of proof back onto the accused.
It appears to me to be a lot like the assertions that Zimmerman has told lots of proven lies - one side keeps repeating that they have proved it, but they never have. Likewise with a scenario where Zimmerman is guilty of second-degree murder - no one has ever come up with a step by step description of the events of that evening, and the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt where Zimmerman is guilty.
The prosecution didn’t seem to be able to do it in court. Maybe it can happen here.
If i can suggest a refinement: lay out the elements of second-degree murder, including those elements triggered by a claim of self-defense, and specify for each element what evidence allows the jury to find that element beyond a reasonable doubt.
I asked you with the face to try this exercise several times, and the response was crickets chirping.
Since this thread is specifically about the trial, the evidence presented in the trial, witness testimony and attorney strategy maybe you should bow out of this thread. The conjecture based on media pre-trial speculation thread is down the hall to the left.
I will go through the screaming issue with you since you are not following closely.
Martin’s mother, brother and girlfriend said it was him screaming.
The prosecution expert witness could not identify who was screaming. But he did say those closest to the person would be better able to identify who it is.
The expert also said you should let the witnesses listen to the recording in a group because that has a good chance of reinforcing a bad identification. Martin’s family listened to the tape together in the mayor’s office.
Martin’s father said to police that it wasn’t his son’s voice. The police officers that are on the side trying to convict. Now he says he didn’t say that and it is his son.
The defense put up multiple witnesses stating it was Zimmerman screaming including family and friends who did not have the ID tainted by a mass listening party.
So the defense, on this one issue, has seemed to do a very good job of showing reasonable doubt towards the prosecution theory. The hopefully neutral jury is left with two sides that are about equal. Maybe even pushed over to the defense due to the method of Identification. The jury can only take into account what is presented to them in trial. They can not be convinced by pre-trial media speculation like you were. And all the defense has to show is reasonable doubt.
But you know ahead of time that anyone the defense puts up is lying. Because everyone who has ever known George Zimmerman is a lying liar who lies.
You have way too much emotional investment in this outcome. Those of us that are more neutral are pointing out the gaping holes in the prosecution. Again, this particular thread is about the actual trial not your RO.
I was probably wrong to ask for a scenario where Zimmerman is guilty of second-degree murder. All sane people* can see by now that the evidence to convict Zimmerman of second-degree simply doesn’t exist.
What I would actually like is something that the trial cannot and does not attempt to achieve. I would like to know what actually happened, from the point of view of Team Trayvon (if it is fair to speak of that side that way).
Maybe I will try it and see if any member of TT will correct me.
[ul][li]Zimmerman is out grocery shopping. [/li][li]Martin is out getting goodies for his little brother, and decides to go for a walk thru the neighborhood.[/li][li]Zimmerman spots Martin, thinks “oh look, a n*gger - he must be up to no good”.[/li][li]So Zimmerman calls the NEN. He never actually stops following Martin, no matter what he says.[/li][li]Zimmerman arranges to meet the police. He actually knows perfectly well where he is - the part about looking for a street sign/house number is just a lie to cover up that he wants to attack Martin.[/li][li]Martin never actually makes it back to his father’s house. He tries to hide from Zimmerman, but lies about having lost Zimmerman to his girlfriend on the phone. We don’t know why - he is in terror of his life at this point, and is not thinking rationally.[/li][li]Zimmerman parks his truck and gets out to confront Martin.[/li][li]Zimmerman then grabs Martin, or tackles him, or punches him, or something.[/li][li]At this point, I need to be fair - does Team Trayvon believe Martin inflicted the injuries on Zimmerman? [/li][li]Zimmerman and Martin wrestle around for a while. Martin is screaming for help the whole time, and simultaneously smothering Zimmerman so he can’t scream for help. [/li][li]Sometimes Zimmerman is on top; sometimes Martin. [/li][li]Zimmerman then pulls out his gun and shoots Martin. Or maybe Zimmerman had the gun in his hand all along, but didn’t fire for some reason.[/li][li]Zimmerman knows perfectly well that Martin is as dead as yesterday’s pork roast, but he jumps on Martin’s back and re-arranges his hands to tuck them underneath Martin. [/li][li]Then, if Martin didn’t inflict the injuries on Zimmerman, Zimmerman tosses his flashlight away, punches himself in the face, breaking his nose, quickly bashes his own head on the ground a couple of times, and then punches himself in the face with Martin’s fist to make the story look better. [/li][li]Or Martin did inflict the injuries, in which case Zimmerman quickly makes up a story that accounts for all the evidence that he doesn’t know about yet.[/ul][/li]
Is this even close? Never mind if it proves Zimmerman guilty of anything - is it an accurate account of what happened?
[ul]
[li]Everything Zimmerman says is true up to the point when he returns to the T.[/li]
[li]Zimmerman spots Martin and approaches him. One of them asks the other one what’s he’s doing there (doesn’t really matter who).[/li]
[li]The two get up close to each other and it’s a tense moment–some movement or gesture escalates into Zimmerman putting his hands on Martin, and Martin starts saying “get off.”[/li]
[li]This turns into a shoving match or some kind of standing grappling, and the two tumble to the ground. Martin gets in a punch or two while yelling for help–or maybe he lands a punch while the two are still fighting on their feet. [/li]
[li]Martin gets on top. He spots the gun and goes for it. Zimmerman pulls the gun and shoots Martin.[/li][/ul]
I think that’s arguably second degree murder, and I don’t really see how you rule out that account. I happen to think it’s perfectly plausible that it happened more or less how Zimmerman tells it. But I think this account is plausible too.
How can anyone who isn’t following the trial post so voluminously in this thread entitled State of Florida vs Martin Zimmerman Trial?
All I’ve read from you, Stoid, is the same conjecture you’ve been posting for months. I’ve been reading and considering it but at this point it’s well past thread derailment.
Agreed. But you could plausibly get to Murder 2, as I understand Florida law, depending on which of the reasonable inferences you draw about why Zimmerman pulled the trigger.
Again–I don’t think you can get there beyond a reasonable doubt. But just in terms of what might have happened, I think it could have constituted murder 2.
altercation/struggle/fight. Even if they did not, I don’t know if the prosecution has or can go as far as I can, but I believe absolutely that Zimmerman had the gun out well before the point he claims, and if that is true, then Martin being on top doesn’t mean a damn thing and if I were him trying to keep Zimmerman from pointing it at me I’d be screaming my head off just like him.