State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman Trial Thread

[Dante_1111]

I’ve been following this case and have been frustrated by the lackluster (to say the least) performance of the prosecution and I’ve been reading (most of) this thread, and here, FWIW, are my thoughts.

Imagine this: You are walking home from the store on a rainy night and notice that you are being followed by someone in a truck. You run and get close to home and think you’ve lost them. But maybe you’re not sure, so you backtrack a bit to see, because maybe you don’t want this follower to see where you live (or any other reason really - because walking around your own neighborhood is not against the law).

Suddenly you are confronted by this follower on foot. Maybe he already has his gun drawn, or maybe he just grabs you or grabs at you and draws the gun later. He doesn’t identify himself as law enforcement or neighborhood watch. What do you do?

You could run, and risk taking a bullet in the back. You could shout for help, and risk being shot as well. Or you could charge him and knock him down and try to shake loose the gun from his grasp. Once you have him pinned down, then you can shout for help without the risk of immediately being shot. You are struggling to hold his arms down (hence the up-and-down motion) and shouting for help when he gets free and shoots you in the heart.

Did he intend to kill you from the start? Doubtful. Did the punching or grappling make him angry enough to shoot to kill? Maybe. Or maybe he realized that he made a big mistake by following and confronting you and that he’s going to be in a lot of trouble if this isn’t made out to be a self-defense killing.

A few other thoughts: If you were on top of an assailant and wanted to kill them (or quiet them violently), would you use your hands to try to smother them, or would you just wrap your hands around their throat and squeeze as hard as you could? If you were the follower (now on your back) in either of these scenarios, your arms would be free to hit the person on top of you or try to push them off of you or do something with them.

If you were Zimmerman and found yourself in this position because you had stupidly followed and confronted an innocent teenager without ever revealing yourself to be neighborhood watch, and you were able to somehow draw your weapon, wouldn’t you aim it at the kid’s face and say something to the effect of "Get the f— off of me or I’ll kill you? Would you issue no warning of any kind before killing an unarmed teenager you may have scared and cornered into this situation to begin with?

[Hbns]

@Stoid

…so let’s go back and look at that again, only by “that” let’s actually look at the post you were responding to.

I think projammer was responding to the implication that there is a burden of proof placed on the those introducing the evidence.

@Stoid

Nothing except close up video with audio that can be proven to be unedited would do so…

@Stoid

The burden of proving that a thing what it is represented to be is on the party asking to introduce it, and I’m pretty certain that no lawyer can ever say what a thing is, a witness has to take the stand and testify to what it is by their own knowledge.

Bolding mine.

You may have only meant that the evidence has to be acknowledge/introduced as being authentic, but you did pretty explicitly state the burden of proof that the evidence is authentic was on the party introducing it, which is not correct.

[Hbns]

@Dante_1111

A few other thoughts: If you were on top of an assailant and wanted to kill them (or quiet them violently), would you use your hands to try to smother them, or would you just wrap your hands around their throat and squeeze as hard as you could? If you were the follower (now on your back) in either of these scenarios, your arms would be free to hit the person on top of you or try to push them off of you or do something with them.

I’m willing to give reasonable belief to the scenario you propose. Not too different from my own opinion of a plausible chain of events. Even so there are several potential holes with the bit quoted above. Anyone who suffered wrestling/fighting with an older sibling, knows all too well that being atop someone on their back gives you a lot of control. A reasonably fit and athletic person could control on arm by trapping it under a knee or against the body with their leg, while using one hand to cover the mouth and nose and have the other hand free to control the free arm. Some other alternatives come to mind, but the lack of any bruising on Martin leave me thinking they aren’t very credible.

Really, the damning element for me is the lack of defensive wounds on either participant. It is possible Zimmerman was dazed initially and and his response when clearing his head was to shoot. IDK, I’d just have expected some bruising on both combatants arms in a life or death struggle. :dubious:

[Stoid]

@Hbns

Probably because you seem to be so emotional involved in being “right” that you have been getting more and more smarmy and condescending in your rebuttals. This despite not too long ago putting on airs as the voice of reason and calling for congenial communication (in this or the other thread, I forget which).

Actually, I’ve been told that condescending is my default presentation. Never figured out how to eliminate that without exacerbating it. It’s a toughie. We all have our baggage, and since the people who matter don’t find me so at all, it’s not especially concerning.

As for congenial communication, I am always delighted by people who are able to engage in an interesting debate in a congenial manner, Hbns, and I feel confident that I have never failed to recognize it and respond likewise. But of course it’s certainly possible that I have missed someone being pleasant, civil and reasonable with me and I welcome having my error pointed out so that I can rectify it.

As for smarmy… Well, when presented with people who eschew cites, reasoning and argument in favor of insults (plain, veiled and with sprinkles!), mockery, attempts at belittling, and who evince a wildly inappropriate preoccupation with other posters’ personality, life experiences, psychological makeup and deeper motivations, I have to make a choice. While I could respond in kind (if I were a completely different human being with a completely different value system) my genuine response for genuine reasons is to simply keep being my genuine self, perhaps even more so - Stoid Deluxe, if you will. That this reads to someone like yourself as smarmy is just more baggage for me to bear.

I’m relieved to report that it’s not a particularly cumbersome burden.

[Iggy]

@brazil84

Has the prosecution put on its own expert to rebut this testimony? Will they?

What is the prosecution’s position on this issue?

The prosecution’s witness Dr. Bao already testified that the gun was in loose contact with the clothing when fired. The corner’s report states that the wound was consistent with a shot from “intermediate range” (between 2 and 12 inches).

Seems the prosecution and defense witnesses substantially agree that the shot was in contact with clothing but not with Martin’s flesh. It would be difficult for the prosecutor to then argue a theory of the shooting that is inconsistent with those points.

[Locrian]

Love this this thread. Don’t know why, just do.

Here’s how it goes for me:
Do I think George Zimmerman is lying about the course of events leading to the shooting? - Yes.

Do I think GZ profiled, assumed a Batman complex, and in the course of bad decisions shot a teenager? - Yes.

Do I think Trayvon attacked GZ? - Oh, absolutely, yes.

Do I know WHY GZ really confronted TM, or why TM attacked GZ? - No idea. And none of use here on the forum or in the courtroom will ever know why. Whatever has been said in trial leads to nothing but an acquittal in 2nd Degree Murder, that’s that.

Now, what about manslaughter?

I can only imagine different and over-the-top scenarios in which GZ actually stays in the fucking car, gives finger and fake gang signs to Trayvon who then attacks his (GZ’s) car. Then GZ takes a picture, texts that to the cops. Reason I imagine this is because I’m seeing two regular people making the most retarded retaliations to what is initially nothing. Ooooh, a black kid! They always get away with “it”. Oooooh, a “crazy-ass cracker”! They always hassle me! NO crap like that is in evidence anywhere other than conjecture from non-witnesses.

But that scenario is only my imagination, hardly based off evidence or news reports. So as to manslaughter, I think we may see something interesting = a guilty verdict for Man 1. (Frankly, I’m surprised involuntary manslaughter was not a charge, or even Man 2.)

I do believe GZ wanted to prove himself somehow-- maybe making a successful bid for a police academy someplace if he assisted in a real arrest. Maybe he really thought TM was up to something. Maybe, maybe, if, if, if, yadda, yadda. Who cares?

The prosecution has failed to sway me towards any conviction, and I was all Team Trayvon when this started. But that was before the arrest.

This thread could be another 850 pages. We’re NEVER ever going to know what the fuck happened-- who started with who, who attacked who first, etc.

I am secretly hoping for a manslaughter conviction, mainly because I see too many opportunities where GZ could not have confronted him and still “done his job”. He’s Neighborhood Watch for fuck’s sake. That means he’s got as much authority as me in a foreign airport to stop a crime. But mainly, his injuries don’t sell me that he was fighting for his life, in lethal danger, etc.

HOWEVER… if I were on the jury as of now, I’d be waiting for the zinger from the prosecution. All the “ifs” that everyone has been clinging onto in this and other threads are entirely moot. No witness/expert/ME has told me anything conflicting from the GZ statements (even though contradictory and fragmented). If Trayvon were shot-- AHHHHH… forget any more “ifs”.

No ifs about Trayvon being killed, GZ being responsible, and a teensy jury listening and ready to rule. No matter what else is introduced, I doubt this all ends with just this one verdict.

[Steophan]

@Stoid

Oh, I think not. But I’ll just assume you were so in a tizzy you rushed your reply.

Like most of your assumptions, it’s false, and not based on facts in evidence. You should probably read the relevant laws and cases again, and realise that my statement was accurate.

Umm, facts, evidence, speculation, inference… this, here…not a fact. Inference. Gosh, do we have any evidence that Zimmerman even tried to escape, as you put it? Seems like his ability to wristlock Martin and pin his arms would have given him a pretty decent opportunity to escape, assuming that happened at all, of course, which we can do if we decide to believe GZ, but there’s no other evidence for it. So true, not true, whatever we believe, it’s not really a fact that can’t be “gotten around”.

We know for a fact that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. We know that, at some point, Martin had beaten Zimmerman to a point where it would be reasonable to fear death or serious injury.

Martin was on top. That prevents Zimmerman getting up and running away. Fact. So, shooting is acceptable.

Do you suppose he could have done it when Martin punched him the first time? (Well, except we don’t know that Martin DID throw the first punch, do we?

Irrelevant. He didn’t shoot him when Martin threw the first punch. It’s the situation at the time he shot that matters.

We are momentarily accepting that he intended to continue to look for Martin, and if he found him he intended to prevent him from getting away. So ok, let’s stick with my scenario.) Well, he didn’t know how terrifyingly deadly martin was, so I guess not. What other means did he exhaust? And since we have to examine this so closely, can I get a refresher on what you believe happened between Martin’s first punch at the T and the two men on the ground by Good’s townhouse seconds before the shot? Do you have any thoughts on that?

Why are you talking about what happened before the attack? That’s got nothing to do with whether Zimmerman had another option to escape at the moment he shot Martin.

Hey now, there IS that, isn’t there? So what makes you think that the imminent arrival of police would have prevented Zimmerman from being the aggressor by following and detaining martin? Wouldn’t that have been exactly the point? Remember “aggressor” doesn’t mean exclusively the first person to get physical, and hardly anyone is saying that (are they?). In this situation, GZ is the aggressor by virtue of provoking the use of force against himself by seeking to find and detain Martin. He could have simply placed a hand on Martin’s shoulder and scared the bejesus out of him under those circumstances. But he would be doing it to try and detain Martin for the police, so the imminent arrival of the police doesn’t undermine the notion of GZ as aggressor, it supports it.

Apart from the witness evidence that it didn’t happen like that, you mean? And the fact that you have no evidence whatsoever that that was his intention, and plenty from his NEN call that it was not?

Now, if you had proof of that sufficient to convict Zimmerman of a forcible felony separate from the killing, he would not be able to claim self defence. But, as he has not even been charged with such, it does not apply. So, he was still entitled to use self defence.

And his knowing that the police were arriving any minute also gives us pause to wonder at his decision to shoot Martin instead of trying to simply use the wristlock and arm pin to hold Martin off just a tad longer than he held him off to take good aim, if nothing else. Which he would be obligated to at least TRY to do if he did in fact follow up on his intentions, went looking for Martin, found him, tried to detain him and provoked Martin into hitting him.

Nope, he would not be obliged to try that. Restraining him is not escaping from him, it’s rather the opposite.

All of this this highlights exactly why Zimmerman’s intentions and the proofs for and against are absolutely critical to this case and cannot be waved away or speculated about or treated as meaningless.

Sadly not, as due to the fact (based on witness statements and coroners reports) that Martin was atop Zimmerman, and had put him in reasonable fear, he could shoot him under any circumstances.

I’m sorry you don’t like that law, but that doesn’t give you the right to say Zimmerman shouldn’t be judged solely by it.

The details matter. The truth matters. The fact that Zimmerman has said so many things that do not make sense matters.

Then stop ignoring the details that you dislike, such as the actual law in question.

[Human_Action]

@Stoid

That he intends to prevent this particular asshole from getting away goes beyond being merely a well-founded inference and borders on being a mandatory one.

Not at all. That leap, from keeping an eye on Martin for when the police arrive, to personally apprehending him, is a leap into thin air. He’s on the phone with police dispatch, asking them to send an officer. In that context, “these assholes always get away”, spoken to the dispatcher tasked with sending a policeman, is an incitement to send someone promptly, not a sworn vow to make an arrest himself.

And as has been noted, the dispatcher repeatedly asks Zimmerman what Martin is doing, and then where’s he’s gone. Zimmerman supplies the information. And that’s all he does, on the recording: keep tabs on Martin while trying to arrange for the police to come and handle it.

[brazil84]

@Iggy

The prosecution’s witness Dr. Bao already testified that the gun was in loose contact with the clothing when fired. The corner’s report states that the wound was consistent with a shot from “intermediate range” (between 2 and 12 inches).

Seems the prosecution and defense witnesses substantially agree that the shot was in contact with clothing but not with Martin’s flesh. It would be difficult for the prosecutor to then argue a theory of the shooting that is inconsistent with those points.

Thanks for this. So it seems pretty clear that not only was Martin on top of Zimmerman beating on him, but that these were their positions in the moments before Zimmerman opened fire.

Probably this is part of the reason why the prosecution (as well as Team Trayvon) refuse to offer a coherent theory of the case on this issue. There is no way to come up with a scenario which is (1) remotely plausible; (2) consistent with the evidence; and (3) consistent with Zimmerman being a murderer.

[Loach]

@Stoid

Yer kinda all over the place with this, and none of it equals my inferences being speculation- you continue to argue as though there must be direct evidence proving every aspect, which just ignores what inference means. (tending to make me think, along with your remark about the wall of text and google, that you didn’t bother to read any of it. Hmmm… I just inferred something about your actions based on the evidence contained in your post!) You also seem to be throwing around reasonable doubt as though it works in the manner I just went over, and it doesn’t. And I say “seem” because your sentence is a little shaky:

The defense has put forth lots of good, juicy stuff that could absolutely cause some or all of the jurors to feel very uncertain about convicting Zimmerman. No question.

But it doesn’t mean that the jury has to doubt. They have no obligation to vote for acquittal in spite of feeling certain of guilt, no matter how impressively the defense has presented facts and evidence which seem as though they should cause the jury to doubt themselves if in the end the jury actually does not doubt. Do you disagree with this? Because if you don’t then we don’t have to continue to argue about it, since I do not disagree that there is plenty on the plate that could cause such doubt.

You made up your mind before the trial. You admit to not following the trial closely. You wave off any evidence that is presented by the defense or holes that the defense has pointed out. You have based your opinion on pre-trial speculation. This thread is about the actual trial and what the jury is hearing. You chose to ignore that.

[Debaser]

@Loach

You made up your mind before the trial. You admit to not following the trial closely. You wave off any evidence that is presented by the defense or holes that the defense has pointed out. You have based your opinion on pre-trial speculation. This thread is about the actual trial and what the jury is hearing. You chose to ignore that.

This.

Stoid, you are adding zero value to this thread. You freely admit that you would convict Zimmerman even if he was innocent. This board is supposed to be devoted to fighting ignorance. You are deliberately generating it. Because of you, the signal to noise level in this thread is so bad that it’s been completely derailed.

If you ever get picked for a jury, please be honest and tell them that you have such radical views about the roles of juries and get yourself kicked out on the first day. Your presence would surely disrupt the whole trial.

[aceplace57]

The ex police self defense instructor has really helped to put the incident in perspective for the jury. His description of the rainy dark night and isolation behind those buildings was quite helpful in placing George’s state of mind. That was a scary scene imho.

Root also said he taught police trainees to wait 72 hours before giving a detailed statement after a police related shooting. Thats because high stress causes gaps in memory after an incident.

Naturally, that doesn’t apply to civilian shootings. Cops want us to give a statement immediately.

Kathi Belich, WFTV ‏@KBelichWFTV 9m

He says law enforcement usually waits 72 hours to talk to officers who have used deadly force to get more accurate story. #Zimmermanon9
Expand

Kathi Belich, WFTV Kathi Belich, WFTV ‏@KBelichWFTV 11m

He says after a high stress event there are memory holes and it could take 72 hours to remember or forever. #Zimmermanon9
Expand
Kathi Belich, WFTV Kathi Belich, WFTV ‏@KBelichWFTV 13m

Root says based on #Zimmermanon9 firing only once and the other evidence everything he sees no ill will or hatred in his actions.

@KBelichWFTV 22m

Root says the 911 call indicates the fight lasted at least 40 seconds and that is an eternity. #Zimmermanon9
Expand

He says if you’re not winning after 30 seconds you run out of steam and have to change tactics. #Zimmermanon9
Expand
Kathi Belich, WFTV Kathi Belich, WFTV ‏@KBelichWFTV 24m

He said #Zimmermanon9 would have been lacking in a physical confrontation compared to Martin.

@KBelichWFTV 38m

Root says the darkness, rain, and isolation of the fight would figure into #Zimmermanon9 's state of mind.

[Projammer]

@Hbns

I think projammer was responding to the implication that there is a burden of proof placed on the those introducing the evidence…
but you did pretty explicitly state the burden of proof that the evidence is authentic was on the party introducing it, which is not correct.

Hbns has the heart of it. You stated unequivocally in post 1999 that recorded evidence must be proven to be authentic and unedited when introduced. That is quite simply incorrect.

@Stoid

Cool…so let’s go back and look at that again, only by “that” let’s actually look at the post you were responding to.

What??? You can’t just dump a video into the evidence and expect everyone to automatically accept that it is authentic, etc. Shit, you can’t do that with anything… documentary evidence (writings, audio, video, etc.) has to have some kind of backup proof that it’s worthy of belief as a real and true and unaltered original, someone with some type of authority to say so has to “vouch” for it in some respect. A lawyer can’t just produce a thing and inform the court that “it is what I say it is” - no no no no.

I never said that a lawyer will produce evidence out of the ether and introduce it. I stated that there is no requirement that the side submitting it has to prove that it’s not the product of CGI, creative editing, or someone wearing a Mission Impossible latex face mask. Try reading for comprehension next time.

The burden of proving that a thing what it is represented to be is on the party asking to introduce it, and I’m pretty certain that no lawyer can ever say what a thing is, a witness has to take the stand and testify to what it is by their own knowledge.

Again, that affidavit/testimony is not proof that the recording is authentic.

@Stoid

I don’t recall interacting with you prior to this. It’s remarkable to see how quickly a person can let you know exactly who they are and where they are coming from. Thank you for that, simplifies things enormously.

Nothing remarkable about it. You demonstrate time and time again that there is the real world where the rule of law holds sway and Stoid’s fantasy land where someone is guilty because Stoid says so, rules, law, and evidence be damned.

[aceplace57]

The lawyers are having a bit too much fun mounting that dummy.

It’s hard to believe the lawyers spent hours a few days ago getting Root’s testimony suppressed. The state won. Root can’t say the shooting is justified. But his testimony has been extremely effective anyhow. He brings real world analysis of the situation and the fight. Very basic, common sense testimony. I have a much better understanding how George’s head got banged on the sidewalk. It was indirect, as he raised up, Trayvon shoved his body down.

[hmarvin]

Root said he would have fired at least twice, which reminds me of the incident in the northwest, in which someone was trying to break into a car, a foolish tenant confronted the would be thief, only to be thrown to the ground. This resulted in the prowler being shot to death with four bullet holes.

[aceplace57]

Before today’s testimony I kind of thought that Trayvon grabbed George’s ears (no hair to grab) and slammed the head. But that would have cracked his skull.

I can see a softer, indirect blow only causing lacerations. Basically just shoving George’s body down and the head gets banged. It still ringed his bell but it was nothing like someone grabbing your ears for a hard slam.

[DrDeth]

@Debaser

This.

Stoid, you are adding zero value to this thread. You freely admit that you would convict Zimmerman even if he was innocent. This board is supposed to be devoted to fighting ignorance. You are deliberately generating it. Because of you, the signal to noise level in this thread is so bad that it’s been completely derailed.

If you ever get picked for a jury, please be honest and tell them that you have such radical views about the roles of juries and get yourself kicked out on the first day. Your presence would surely disrupt the whole trial.

Thirded. Look Stoid, we got it. And on a moral viewpoint, I agree. Morally, Z is culpable. But this thread is about THE TRIAL, and as far as The Trial goes, it doesn’t look as if Z is legally guilty. There’s another thread about opinions. Pls keep your opinions to that thread, and discuss only the Trial here.

[doorhinge]

@Stoid

Actually, I’ve been told that condescending is my default presentation. Never figured out how to eliminate that without exacerbating it. It’s a toughie. We all have our baggage, and since the people who matter don’t find me so at all, it’s not especially concerning.

As for congenial communication, I am always delighted by people who are able to engage in an interesting debate in a congenial manner, Hbns, and I feel confident that I have never failed to recognize it and respond likewise. But of course it’s certainly possible that I have missed someone being pleasant, civil and reasonable with me

and I welcome having my error pointed out so that I can rectify it.

(shortened and edited for clarity)

Your error is continually injecting your speculations in to a thread about “the trial”. You can recitfy that problem by 1) discussing the actual trial or 2) limit your speculation to the “speculation thread”.

I’ve pointed out your error as you’ve requested but will you rectify it?

[aceplace57]

Dennis Root’s business website. Jury won’t see it. He’s state certified as a Master Instructor in many areas. He said in court that certified Master Instructors teach the police instructors in Florida.
http://www.tacticalleo.com/Dennis-Root.php

[Bricker]

@aceplace57

The lawyers are having a bit too much fun mounting that dummy.

It’s hard to believe the lawyers spent hours a few days ago getting Root’s testimony suppressed. The state won. Root can’t say the shooting is justified.

He cannot. That would be invading the province of the jury.