home

George Zimmerman Hearing

By Jeralyn, Section
Posted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 08:04:00 AM EST
Tags: george zimmerman, trayvon martin (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A pre-trial motions hearing begins at 9:00 am in the George Zimmerman case.

Here's a link to watch live.

You can read all the pleadings on the Zimmerman web site. For analysis and discussion, visit DiWataman.

Here's a thread to discuss the proceedings.

< Memorial Day Open Thread | Tuesday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    George Zimmerman Hearing | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Respectfully - (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by MikeB on Tue May 28, 2013 at 02:48:49 PM EST
    I encourage you to take advantage of the resources on this site and it's associated forum. Almost none of what you say is true based on physical evidence and eyewitness testimony. I agree that there were valid concerns in terms of admissibility today and we do not have answers to many questions. And clearly George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. But that seems to be the only thing you said that is factual. That evidence has existed for months.

    Thank you, Mike (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by rickroberts on Tue May 28, 2013 at 04:19:28 PM EST
    I'm surprised that some of the posts in this thread have been allowed to stand. This is my first time back here after many months.

    Parent
    As it was heavily raining (I believe), isn't it (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Cashmere on Tue May 28, 2013 at 09:09:07 PM EST
    possible any blood on Martin's hands could have simply washed off?  

    If you are being honest - (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by MikeB on Tue May 28, 2013 at 10:11:48 PM EST
    - in your statement regarding wanting to know the truth, you left out a few key points. First, there are witnesses who have stated Martin was on top of Zimmerman "beating him MMA style". You left out the fact that Zimmerman had a broken nose and two black eyes. Martin's pants have grass stains on the knees. The Stand Your Ground law did not apply here because Zimmerman had no path to retreat. According to Florida law, you can defend yourself - using deadly force if required - even if you initiated the fight. I think you are using the benefit of 20/20 hindsight against Zimmerman as to the level of his beating before he felt compelled to use deadly force. Neither of us know if Zimmerman would have been conscious or not had he delayed action any longer. So, if it's truth you are after, your post doesn't seem to indicate that.

    that comment was deleted for (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:53:58 AM EST
    falsely recounting the facts as to GZ's injuries.

    Parent
    violations by Zimmerman prosecutor (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by lily on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:36:42 PM EST
    Lawyer: Zimmerman prosecutor withheld evidence

    By KYLE HIGHTOWER

    This version is more complete than the copy edited for most major papers today, including quotes such as:

    Kruidbos was placed on leave shortly after White testified during a hearing in George Zimmerman's second-degree murder case on Tuesday. White said Kruidbos was interviewed by state attorney investigators twice before the action was taken.

    White said he wasn't surprised of possible evidence violations by Zimmerman prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.

    "I was saddened by it, but I'm not surprised," he said.

    White first learned about the evidence through Kruidbos more than a month ago, he said.

    From your link, (4.67 / 3) (#1)
    by Anne on Tue May 28, 2013 at 09:36:11 AM EST
    Here:

    Important rulings so far:
    -Martin's alleged marijuana use will not be mentioned in trial.

    -Martin's text messages before his death cannot be used.

    -Martin's school records and history of fighting can be mentioned outside of opening statements.

    -Shellie Zimmerman can be deposed by the state, but she will be able to invoke her Fifth Amendment right on a question-by-question basis.

    -Neither side can mention social media info in opening statements. It must pass authentication to be admissible in court.

    -Marijuana in Martin's system can't be allowed in opening statements. Nelson will determine if it can be used in trial.

    -The court will not sequester the entire jury pool. Jurors will remain anonymous during the trial.

    -The jury will not view the shooting scene in person.

    will be interested to read the analysis on these rulings.

    Unbelievable (4.67 / 3) (#2)
    by RightNYer on Tue May 28, 2013 at 09:48:51 AM EST
    The judge found EVERY single motion in the prosecutor's favor.  Classy!  I don't see how one can argue in good faith that Martin's texts should be excluded, given that they go go to his state of mind and his ability to fight.

    Not all (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by cboldt on Tue May 28, 2013 at 10:27:07 AM EST
    She limited the preclusion of evidence on some matters, and she denied the state's motion for a gag order.

    Parent
    Point taken (3.00 / 4) (#6)
    by RightNYer on Tue May 28, 2013 at 10:33:52 AM EST
    Sure, but ultimately, she is not letting Zimmerman present any evidence that would lead a reasonable juror to think that Martin was a thug, all of which is eminently relevant in a self defense case.

    Parent
    Two barriers (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cboldt on Tue May 28, 2013 at 10:42:32 AM EST
    She erected a specific barrier to reference to any of that evidence during opening arguments, and for the most part, to proffer any of the evidence the state has objected to in motions to the court, outside of jury view, and only talking about that evidence with the court's permission.

    The other barrier, and it's a substantial but not insurmountable one, is that all the stuff on Martin's phone and social media sites is difficult to authenticate; and even if it can be authenticated, much of it is hearsay.

    The way around that objection is to seat live people in the witness chair.

    Parent

    Arguing that he was a "thug" (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:11:23 AM EST
    Is the self-defense equivalent of arguing that a rape victim was a slut and thus the sex was obviously consensual-- its needlessly prejudicial.

    Parent
    Normally, I would agree... (4.00 / 3) (#89)
    by MikeB on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:36:25 AM EST
    ....in this case, not so much. A confrontation occurred where no witnesses exist. A rape is against the law unconditionally. Self defense is not a crime. Zimmerman is charged with murder. Zimmerman claims he was sucker punched by Martin. Martin's character seems to be important to determine if it were plausible he attacked Zimmerman. I'm sorry - your comparison is oranges and apples.

    Parent
    The burden of proof... (none / 0) (#151)
    by heidelja on Thu May 30, 2013 at 03:10:03 AM EST
    ...is on the State to show GZ did not act in self-defense by claiming his head/facial injuries sustained by blows thrown by TM were sufficient for him to be in fear for his life. A jury knowing of ones fighting or passive tendencies casts sufficient doubt for or against the plausibility of GZ's claim over what he says happened in sustaining his injuries. Actually, one would have difficulty not believing GZ's claim was VERY reasonable by knowing what's on TM's phone if it exhibits behavior GZ says he saw in TM on the night of February 26, 2012.

    I can't believe any judge would deny a defendant showing a jury specific and explicit evidence if it is known to exist! There are plenty of analogies that can be made for Prosecutors using incriminating evidence found in one's possession that might conveniently frame a defendant as guilty. Why not when in the possession of the "victim" after one has admitted to the "crime" he might be found guilty of if it is not shown?

    Parent

    self-defense perfectly valid explanation (4.40 / 5) (#52)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 07:08:57 PM EST
    I have only in the last few days decided to pay more attention to this case. . .   In the past few days, though, I have watched and read a number of videos and articles.

    Most of you seem to be discussing things while not considering some of the most obvious and important evidence:

    1. per GZ statement to the police made within 2 days of the killing, TM not only was hitting him and pounding his head into concrete, but TM told him repeatedly he would kill him;
    2. per GZ statement to the police, TM was in fact in the process of asphyxiating him by blocking GZ's mouth and nose;
    3. per GZ statement to the police, GZ did not go for his gun at first, but when it became visibe to TM, TM released the hand on GZ's mouth to reach for the gun;
    4. in light of the attack, the murderous threat and the attempted murder by asphyxiation, reaching for the gun was another part of an attempt to kill GZ;
    5. the police had some voice stress analyzer . . . and based on the analyzer, GZ was telling substantially the whole truth in his statements to police.

    So, TM had both threatened to kill and was attempting to kill or recklessly endanger the life of GZ, when he failed to get ahold of GZ's gun, and was shot.

    The majority of eyewitness statements on the matter confirm that GZ was crying for help and that TM was on top of him.

    So, where is the argument, defenders of TM?

    Uh, you might want to consider the fact that (4.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Angel on Tue May 28, 2013 at 08:19:42 PM EST
    you're basing all of your conclusions on what GZ said.  There were two parties to the confrontation, but, unfortunately, one is dead dead dead.  What happened during the period when there were witnesses doesn't tell us what happened before they got to the point of confrontation.  We'll never know who started what, we'll never know the absolute truth.

    So, where is your argument, defender of GZ?  

    Parent

    also (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 08:55:08 PM EST
    In his statement to police, GZ says that he did not hit or even attempt to hit TM.  This is independently corroborated by the absence of wounds, bruises and abrasions on the body of TM . . . and it implicitly denies an intent to kill or even injure TM on the part of GZ.

    In his statement to police, GZ states that he was crying out for help.  That he or someone was crying out for help is independently confirmed by multiple witnesses.  That it was GZ who was crying out for help is corroborated by the testimony of the primary witness "John" and also by the fact that TM's dad himself when hearing the 911 calls said that it was not his son's voice crying out for help.

    We have just shown that at least 2 elements of GZ's statement to police are both corroborated by independent witnesses or testimony . . . and both elements discredit the idea that GZ was acting with an intent to kill or even a depraved indifference to human life.

    Parent

    also (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:02:04 AM EST
    There seems to be a complete absence of bruising, abrasions and injuries on tm, other than on abrasians on one or more of his knuckles and other than the obvious single gunshot.  This is evidence that GZ was telling the truth when he says that TM assaulted him, and that he did not hit or attempt to him TM.  

    Parent
    Concerning GZ's credibility -- (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by Blast Freezer on Thu May 30, 2013 at 04:19:50 PM EST
    First, GZ spoke to the police (without the assistance of an attorney) immediately after the shooting, and also the next day.  As far as I know everything he said is consistent with the physical evidence and with the accounts given by those who saw or heard parts of the altercation.  If GZ wanted to construct a false narrative he would only have had a few minutes to do that, and maybe not even that.  Immediately after the shooting GZ would have had no idea what other people might have seen, so there was no way he could have tailored a false narrative to be consistent with the accounts of other witnesses.  

    So this is not at all like a Casey Anthony or Jodi Arias case, in which the perpetrator has weeks or months to prepare a false narrative.  And we know that in both of those case the false narratives were exposed as false, even though the perpetrators had ample time to prepare them.

    In short, given modern forensic and investigational techniques, it's really hard for a perpetrator to "save himself" with a false narrative, because the narrative will likely be shot full of holes.

    Second, GZ asserts that he was yelling for help.  This is interesting, because there's no way he could have known that his cries for help would be recorded in the background of a couple of 911 calls.  There's no reason why Trayvon would have called for help.  In fact, it's absurd to imagine Trayvon straddling GZ and hitting him in the face and banging his head on the pavement while yelling "help me!  help me!"

    Third, GZ's demeanor while being questioned, and while doing the walkthrough with police, is that of someone who is simply trying to tell what happened.  There's nothing in what he says that strikes one as being impossible or fantastical.  He doesn't embellish or try to make Trayvon into a monster.  He doesn't say "I thought Trayvon had a gun," or claim that Trayvon was trying to strangle him to death.  Again, everything he says is consistent with his injuries and with the other physical evidence.  

    Parent

    Time For Reflection (none / 0) (#193)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 05:44:17 AM EST
    First, GZ spoke to the police (without the assistance of an attorney) immediately after the shooting . . . If GZ wanted to construct a false narrative he would only have had a few minutes to do that . . .

    That's not correct.

    Zimmerman was not questioned at the scene. It was about 15 minutes after the gunshot that Martin was pronounced dead, and only then did paramedics turn their attention to Zimmerman. After he was examined and treated, Zimmerman was transported to the police station, where he waited for at least half an hour, possibly much longer, before Singleton appeared to question him. See Officer Timothy Smith's supplemental report, 15/184.

    Parent

    the voice analyser (4.25 / 4) (#57)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 08:36:12 PM EST
    The voice analyzer and its human analysis indicated at the time that, as best they could determine, GZ was telling what he knew or believed to be the truth.  

    Moreover, I have watched the statement GZ made to police and which was recorded and is available to be viewed and I think some of it was shown on cnn in the last few days.  The manner of GZ in the statement is that of a fellow who is trying to be careful and accurate.

    In the absence of any reason to disbelieve GZ's statement to police, it should be believed.

    Also, as for his being of a depraved mind indifferent to human life . . . that is hardly consistent with his calling police to come to the scene . . .

    Parent

    Huh? (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by kdog on Wed May 29, 2013 at 09:09:19 AM EST
    Also, as for his being of a depraved mind indifferent to human life . . . that is hardly consistent with his calling police to come to the scene

    Dropping a dime and trailing somebody who is not in the process of murdering, raping, assaulting, or robbing anybody is depraved indifference in my book.  If not to life, than certainly depraved indifference to their liberty and right to pursue happiness.  

    I suppose it is possible young Mr. Martin was going to beat Mr. Zimmerman to death, hence reasonable doubt likely exists, but I consider it far more likely Mr. Coward with a pistol is exaggerating the danger he was in...which in my opinion he put himself in by being an arsehole.  Where I'm from if you drop dimes and play crime-stopper it's only a matter of time till you get your arse kicked.

    Parent

    funny (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu May 30, 2013 at 02:18:25 PM EST
    where I'm from, going around kicking people's asses is liable to get you shot when they decide to defend themselves.  Sorry, but you don't get to beat me up because you think I'm an asshole.  And I'm not going to wait to see if I actually die first before I defend myself.

    Parent
    Potential head/brain injury (3.67 / 3) (#178)
    by Blast Freezer on Fri May 31, 2013 at 12:56:15 AM EST
    kdog writes:  "Dropping a dime and trailing somebody who is not in the process of murdering, raping, assaulting, or robbing anybody is depraved indifference in my book."

    Remember, there had been several burglaries and even one home invasion in GZ's neighborhood.  So he was concerned about someone he didn't recognize who also appeared to be wandering around.  You have to consider the context.

    kdog:  " . . . I consider it far more likely Mr. Coward with a pistol is exaggerating the danger he was in."

    When a person is on the ground and being struck in the face and head, and his head is being banged against the pavement, the concern is not just with the current injuries, but what the NEXT injury will be.  Blows like that can cause a concussion, unconsciousness, brain injury, and even death.  The person being beaten is not legally required to permit the perpetrator to inflict whatever damage he wishes before using lethal force in self defense.  Trayvon Martin's actions had the real potential to inflict serious injury or cause the death of George Zimmerman.  

    Martin's attack on Zimmerman was not only unjustified but reprehensible.  He put Zimmerman at risk of death or serious injury, probably just so he could brag to his text message buddies.  Picture a permanently brain damaged and unconscious George Zimmerman lying on the ground while a triumphant Trayvon Martin is texting to his friends "U shud see da beetin I jus dun," and  then consider if Zimmerman's self-defense was unjustified.

    Parent

    great example of situational ethics (3.00 / 4) (#104)
    by lily on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:34:20 PM EST
    and why you would be a bad neighbor in any area with a high burglary rate.

    Parent
    We probably have very... (4.00 / 4) (#106)
    by kdog on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:44:38 PM EST
    different definitions of good neighbor and bad neighbor.  

    I think being out and about in the neighborhood armed is a bad neighbor.  Good neighbors don't drop dimes when there is no crime, when there is only suspect "suspicion".  

    Parent

    Wair (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by jbindc on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:49:50 PM EST
    So, in a hypotheteical, if you saw a stranger peeking into the windows of your neighbors, you wouldn't call the police because a crime hasn't yet been committed, but there is only suspicious behavior?

    Parent
    Absolutely... (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by kdog on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:00:07 PM EST
    I would ask if they are locked out and if they need any help, but I would not call the police and potentially jam an innocent person up...that would be unneighborly.  

    I've been locked out and walked around the house hoping a window is open, hasn't everybody?

    Peeping in multiple houses windows would mean it's time to walk the dog and see what's up...unarmed, other than the dog.

    When my house was robbed the only saving grace was no one called the police to add misery to my misery...I asked my neighbors to keep an eye out for a thief selling a used Playstation, and closed the case.

    Parent

    the neighborly thing to do (none / 0) (#154)
    by Philly on Thu May 30, 2013 at 06:12:40 AM EST
    I personally wouldn't feel comfortable walking up to a stranger that was peeking into a neighbor's window and talking to them, whether or not I happened to be armed.

    But if a stranger was peeking in the window of my home, I'd be grateful to any neighbor that either called the police or "confronted" the stranger directly.

    If someone spotted me breaking into my own home (because I locked myself out) and a neighbor called police to report suspicious activity, I personally would be grateful as well.  What would it take, all of 5 minutes to show the police my id and thank them for showing up?


    Parent

    If the police... (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by kdog on Thu May 30, 2013 at 09:26:17 AM EST
    don't shoot you when you reach for your wallet, or you don't happen to have an outstanding warrant for an unpaid parking ticket from 1992.  In my experience, police don't always de-escalate a situation, they can escalate it and make a bad situation worse, or turn nothing into a situation.  

    Jamming people up, leaving the house strapped to run errands because everybody is so damn afraid of each other...I just don't get it.  Kingdom of Fear.

    Parent

    zimmerman (none / 0) (#58)
    by morphic on Tue May 28, 2013 at 08:41:34 PM EST
      Obviously, Zimmerman knew that the first available cruiser could have been there at any time.If one had been passing by, the police could have arrived before he got off the phone.

    Parent
    Zimmerman's intent (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 09:00:30 PM EST
    If Zimmerman had had an intent to kill or even a merely complete indifference to human life, he would more easily have accomplished his objective by approaching TM with gun drawn and hoping for a sudden or violent movement on the part of TM.  Calling police to the scene manifests a care for both right and wrong, as well as the lives and well-being of all involved.  For those who accuse GZ of depraved indifference to human life, when did his intentions and motivations change?  For, given the phone call . . . and the possible immediate arrival of police, where would be the opportunity to recklessly kill the teenaged maelfactor?

    Parent
    Except (4.25 / 4) (#23)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 28, 2013 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    It's been established via distance/time calculations that Trayvon would have been at home easily quite some time before GZ ever saw him had he walked straight back.

    Clearly he was doing something, even if it was just moving from shelter to shelter and talking on his phone in the rain.

    And there is every indication Trayvon had either stayed in hiding at the time he confronted George - in which case, why not stay in hiding?- or that he had circled back.

    It's pretty reasonable to think that the only reason those two encountered each other away from the clubhouse was because of Trayvon, not George. George seems to have lost him.

    Facts not in / contrary to evidence. (3.00 / 2) (#124)
    by cboldt on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:15:32 PM EST
    There is no evidence that Zimmerman had in gun in his hand at any point before about a minute into his beating.

    The evidence about WHEN Zimmerman was told "you don't need to do that" was after he got out of his truck, not before.

    You damage your own credibility by making false and unsupported contentions, and you get your posts removed.

    Question for you (2.00 / 5) (#13)
    by ackbarsays on Tue May 28, 2013 at 01:56:07 PM EST
    Obviously you think that Zimmerman should not have left his truck.  You're wrong, by the way, when you say "stayed in the car as instructed."  You either haven't listened to Zimmerman's call to the dispatcher, or you're willfully misrepresenting what the dispatcher said.  Anyway, to my question:

    Since you believe that Zimmerman should not have gotten out of his truck, do you believe that Zimmerman deserved to die for making that mistake?

    "Deserved to die?" Are you kidding me? (4.33 / 9) (#15)
    by Anne on Tue May 28, 2013 at 02:14:27 PM EST
    Is this the latest fiction being peddled now, that George getting out of his truck was an act of self-defense?  That he had no choice?

    Do you think Trayvon Martin deserved to die for fitting some kind of stereotype that George, in his infinite wisdom, decided he needed to "investigate?"

    I know it's not against the law to get out of your truck to follow/observe/whatever someone you think is suspicious, but it ain't smart, either.  

    Jesus.

    Parent

    The Most Relevant Thing (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by RickyJim on Tue May 28, 2013 at 02:29:22 PM EST
    You can say about getting out of the truck is that it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Zimmerman has a valid self defense case.  That is, as the laws of Florida currently stand.  I haven't heard of a serious effort to change that.

    Parent
    I don't think that's what he/she meant (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jbindc on Tue May 28, 2013 at 02:40:39 PM EST
    I think the comment was meant to ask if George deserved to die because he got out of his truck that night, since he did sustain injuries to his head (the ferocity which is a question for trial).

    Parent
    wounds to the head (3.00 / 2) (#54)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 07:15:28 PM EST
    the wounds to the head pale in comparison to the fact that TM told GZ he was going to kill him, and to the fact that TM was holding his hands on the nose and mouth of GZ and preventing him from breathing.

    Parent
    "But it ain't smart..." (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Mr Natural on Tue May 28, 2013 at 04:41:31 PM EST
    No kidding.  Cops have to do this.  Non-cops do not.  

    Parent
    Nobody's kidding you, Anne (2.80 / 5) (#30)
    by citizenjeff on Tue May 28, 2013 at 03:17:50 PM EST
    "Do you think Trayvon Martin deserved to die for fitting some kind of stereotype...?"

    Anne, why the need to imply anyone said or believes such a thing? Is it because you can't defeat the argument you're actually up against? If Trayvon "deserved" (not my word) to die, it was because he tried to take Zimmerman's gun and/or beat him so severely that Zimmerman feared for his life. But you knew that already, didn't you, Anne?

    "I know it's not against the law to get out of your truck to follow/observe/whatever someone you think is suspicious, but it ain't smart, either."

    Is your judgment based on the manner in which you believe Zimmerman followed/observed/whatever, or is it your position that anytime anyone observes anyone acting suspiciously in any way, it's inherently unwise to exit a motor vehicle, regardless of the distance between the observer and suspect, and regardless of any other factor?  


    Parent

    Can you be more dishonest, Anne? (2.60 / 5) (#17)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 28, 2013 at 02:30:53 PM EST
    Who said anyone 'deserved' to die?

    That being said, I'd love to be able to ask God or Reality just why Trayvon felt he had to attack George and whether he intended to kill him or merely incapacitate him.
    I'm operating off two assumptions as to why Trayvon felt getting in the first blow was necessary:
    A. Fear
    B. To teach a lesson

    And since I'm almost 100 percent certain it was George yelling for help (due to the pitch of the voices revealed over the 711 call and the many GZ interviews) I'd like to know why Trayvon felt it was cool to just keep on striking.

    Parent

    "ackbarsays" asked the question: (4.40 / 5) (#26)
    by Anne on Tue May 28, 2013 at 02:50:42 PM EST
    did George Zimmerman deserve to die for getting out of his truck - so I think he's the one who raised the element of "deserving" to die. I found it to be such a ridiculous question, especially given that George wasn't the one who died, that I turned his own question around on him - are we not allowed to do that now?

    But, hey - if you get a chance to chat with God, please make sure you also ask Him why George felt he needed to follow Martin in the first place, and why he decided he needed to get out of his truck.

    For the record, not only did no one deserve to die, no one ever had to be in a position where death was one of the possibilities.  We can follow this "if only" thing all the way back to Adam and Eve, but in the context of that night, five minutes might have made the difference between George and Trayvon ever encountering each other and both walking away alive and well: if George is 5 minutes later or earlier driving through the neighborhood, if Trayvon left the store 5 minutes earlier or later.  

    And, sorry, but if George doesn't get out of his truck - or simply drives away if he felt that threatened - no one dies.

    Let me know what you hear from God.

    Parent

    Actually, what he asked (3.00 / 2) (#27)
    by jbindc on Tue May 28, 2013 at 02:55:50 PM EST
    (Minus the editorial part) At least, this is how I read it

    Obviously you think that Zimmerman should not have left his truck.  

    Anyway, to my question:
    Since you believe that Zimmerman should not have gotten out of his truck, do you believe that Zimmerman deserved to die for making that mistake?

    So, assuming Z made a mistake by getting out his truck, was that mistake worth his life, IF his version of events is true - i.e., he turned back to his truck and was attacked from behind?

    Parent

    What ... GZ was "attacked from behind" ? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by gbrbsb on Tue May 28, 2013 at 04:21:16 PM EST
    Since when was GZ attacked from behind? IIRC the last time I looked at the evidence, according to which of GZ's versions, Trayvon appeared from behind the bushes, out of nowhere, or out of the dark, but which in the re-enactment turned out to be walking towards him in the middle of the dog walk, and not very ambush like as according to GZ in the same re-enactment Trayvon was calling out to him as he walked towards him, "Hey, you gotta problem (homie)? or something similar, and to which GZ had time to reply, "No I don't have a problem man" while fumbling in at least two pockets for his "phone" to call 911 in front of the very person with whom he clearly did have a problem! Hardly an ambush nor from behind.

    Parent
    Following (3.00 / 2) (#38)
    by rickroberts on Tue May 28, 2013 at 04:22:09 PM EST
    GZ has already said why he followed the young man. He was acting strangely, and George knew there had been break-ins in the neighborhood. Nothing illegal there.

    Parent
    "...if George doesn't get out... (3.00 / 4) (#47)
    by citizenjeff on Tue May 28, 2013 at 05:53:41 PM EST
    ...of his truck - or simply drives away...no one dies."

    True, but it's also true I have two elbows. So what? If Trayvon didn't go out for Skittles, no one dies. Therefore, what?

    Since when is merely exiting a motor vehicle regarded as reckless, illegal or immoral behavior? Don't other factors - such as the distance between the observer and the suspect - matter? Are all security guards and neighborhood watchmen expected to run for cover whenever they see a suspicious person? Is keeping track of the suspect's whereabout just inherently wrong?

    Parent

    what you seem to have just said (3.00 / 2) (#168)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu May 30, 2013 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    is that GZ did deserve to die for getting out of his car.  Because it seems pretty clear you do not think he was entitled to defend himself, if indeed that is what happened, since he caused the whole event by getting out of his car in the first place.
    He's not politically correct, he probably "profiled" a black kid, so he has no right to defend himself.
    I am finally getting it.  This is a case of "he's just not our sort of people Darling".

    Parent
    tm threats and murder attempt (2.33 / 3) (#55)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 07:24:48 PM EST
    TM threatened the life of GZ, was beating him and was in the process of either killing him or rendering him unconscious by asphyxiating him.  TM was also reaching for GZ's handgun.

    At least, that is the testimony of GZ or his statement to police, and the vsa contraption and analysis of the police indicates GZ was telling the truth.  Anyone doing those things should have been stopped with whatever force necessary.

    Parent

    zimmerman hearing (none / 0) (#3)
    by morphic on Tue May 28, 2013 at 10:17:50 AM EST
       Didn't the judge just allow Trayvon filming his two buddies beating some poor homeless man senseless into evidence?

    No decision (none / 0) (#5)
    by cboldt on Tue May 28, 2013 at 10:30:46 AM EST
    The issue of photos, videos and comments that exist on Martin's phone will be decided at trial, but Nelson telegraphed that she doesn't believe they are going to be admissible because of authentication problems (who actually typed the message?) and hearsay.

    All that means is that O'Mara is going to have to come up with real live people to sit in the witness chair, if he decides to make Martin's fighting abilities and any anger management issues a point for the jury to be aware of.

    On your narrow point, what she (sort of) allowed was the state's motion to keep all the evidence out.  It is certainly out of opening argument.

    Parent

    Does that (none / 0) (#34)
    by Pugfrench on Tue May 28, 2013 at 03:55:22 PM EST
    Does that mean that if the state puts deedee on the stand then the defense could question her about the texts? Or if they wanted the fighting videos in them they would need a witness that can say that martin was present and participating, but that they couldn't enter the videos and texts by themselves without that witness?


    Parent
    Multiple Barriers (none / 0) (#40)
    by cboldt on Tue May 28, 2013 at 04:27:41 PM EST
    As the state's witness, the defense will have cross examination, and can only inquire as to issues that the state opened the door on.  And even in that limited context, the questions can't elicit hearsay testimony.  So, getting to the texts between W8 and Martin can easily come in, just not necessarily with W8 as the state's witness.

    You second question is right on the money.  The texts and videos are arguably inadmissible unless one of the participants in the text or video is present to "authenticate" that recorded material.

    Parent

    Who (none / 0) (#42)
    by Pugfrench on Tue May 28, 2013 at 04:55:23 PM EST
    Who could be the states witness to bring the texts in?

    Parent
    You mentioned Witness 8 (none / 0) (#44)
    by cboldt on Tue May 28, 2013 at 05:05:33 PM EST
    Witness 8, if she is a state's witness, can authenticate the texts between her phone and the phone that was in Martin's possession.  The barrier to defense getting those texts in with W8 as state witness is that cross exam is limited to areas of questioning brought up in direct examination.  Not a big deal, the defense can call W8 as a defense witness, and ask anything it wants.  The boundaries of that questioning are determined by rules of evidence, and I see a slew of hearsay objections coming from the state, especially on the "you were fighting again" texts.  We don't know if W8 ever saw Martin fight.

    Parent
    W8 (none / 0) (#51)
    by Mr Mark Martinson on Tue May 28, 2013 at 06:49:50 PM EST
    said in her interview with BDLR that TM would "never fight."

    She said in her letter to (?) TM's parents that she thought it was "just a fight."

    Doesn't think allow the defense to question her about what she knew about TM's alleged fighting?

    I mean, wasn't W8 implying that she didn't call the police because it was just another fight?

    -Mark Martinson

    Parent

    Defense had now said (none / 0) (#190)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon Jun 03, 2013 at 11:39:52 AM EST
    there is no tape of  Trayvon's friends beating a homeless man.  So as it doesn't exist, it won't be in evidence.  

    Parent
    zimmerman (none / 0) (#191)
    by morphic on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:50:51 PM EST
       It was Trayvon filming, and laughing, while two homeless men fought over a bicycle.

    Parent
    Diiferent than him (none / 0) (#195)
    by IndiDemGirl on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 04:12:28 PM EST
    beating someone up.  My point stands.

    Parent
    Jeralyn, you will want to read this (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 28, 2013 at 11:36:13 AM EST
    Explains about the Daubert versus Frye standard and its application to the George Zimmerman case. Florida will be a Daubert case state starting July 1, if this is believed. It's possible the states 'expert witnesses' might get in under the Frye standard while Zimmermans might be held to the Daubert standard, if this is a correct legal interpretation,and depending on how witness selection goes.

    Daubert versus Frye

    You've Got the Wrong Idea (none / 0) (#10)
    by RickyJim on Tue May 28, 2013 at 01:40:22 PM EST
    It is not necessary for the defense to argue that such behavior by Martin was habitual; just that it is reasonable that he behaved that way on 2/26/12. Right now, if the prosecution has evidence that Martin was "not the aggressor" and "Zimmerman sought him out" (if you mean by that, ran after and caught him), they haven't made it public.

    How on earth (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Tue May 28, 2013 at 01:54:34 PM EST
    This isn't a bar fight or a situation where Martin was exhibiting behavior to cause confrontation where such past actions would be especially relevant. This is a situation in which he was not the aggressor so introducing a mound of evidence that reflect on situations in which he was the aggressor would be terribly misleading and confusing for the jurors.  

    do you know that?  Were you there?

    You have NO IDEA what behaviors Martin was or wasn't exhibiting, which is kind of the whole point of this hearing and will be at trial.

    Don't we though? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by vicndabx on Tue May 28, 2013 at 02:31:24 PM EST
    know that TM wasn't

    exhibiting behavior to cause confrontation

    We have the statements Z has made thus far.  Correct me If I'm wrong, but I don't remember hearing any statements about confrontational behavior before the confrontation.  All we've heard Z say is TM was acting strange - which presumably he observed from a distance.

    Parent

    Which is why (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Tue May 28, 2013 at 02:39:32 PM EST
    It's what's to come out in the hearing and trial.

    Z also said that Martin approached him after Z turned his back and said "You got a problem?"

    All relative.

    Point is - ABG was making statements of which he has no idea if they are true or not.

    Parent

    Key phrase being (none / 0) (#31)
    by vicndabx on Tue May 28, 2013 at 03:20:25 PM EST
    "after Z turned his back"  You have to approach someone to turn your back, no?  Approaching a stranger, after said stranger was either followed by you or runs from you - most people would feel that's confrontational - which aligns w/the point ABG was trying to make about prejudicial not relevant info.

    Parent
    I'm not arguing relevancy (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by jbindc on Tue May 28, 2013 at 03:25:05 PM EST
    I'm pointing out that ABG made a factual claim - Martin exhibited no behavior that warranted being checked out by Zimmerman.  That claim is one that is currently being litigated and is an issue for the trier of fact to decide in this case, so for ABG to state it as a fact, when he was not there, is what I was calling him out on.

    Parent
    ABG's comments have been (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 28, 2013 at 03:32:17 PM EST
    deleted.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Tue May 28, 2013 at 05:55:43 PM EST
    I wrote a bunch of stuff trying to defend the merits of what I wrote and show that they were well within the rules, while also pointing out the fact that others in this very thread are making equally if not more opinionated statements and . . .

    what's the point.  The trial is going to start shortly, those who view the evidence one way are going to be tightly monitored and censored and given that it is a private website, that is something that I have to accept.

    I thought I was commenting in the right place and in an acceptable way, but who knows.  I can't figure out a way to speak her on this topic without getting in trouble no matter how hard I try.

    Parent

    I, for one, am very interested to hear... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MikeB on Tue May 28, 2013 at 10:32:27 PM EST
    ....what you have to say. I have no dog in this hunt. I want to know everything. Having said that, you made many assertions that are factually untrue no matter how much you believe them to be true. This is not opinion - there is physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that show you have not yet come up to speed on the facts of this case. I can't speak for Jeralyn, but I don't think she wants people to Google information that points to here and it contain non-factual information. All of us have had posts deleted - don't take it personally. Although yesterday I couldn't fathom how the latest revelations (texts, photos, etc) could be denied admissibility, I think most of Nelson's rulings today were in fact, correct.

    Parent
    I Get Posts Deleted Too (none / 0) (#66)
    by RickyJim on Tue May 28, 2013 at 09:48:12 PM EST
    But for entirely different reasons.  I think you have a tendency to make assertions, not well supported by the evidentiary record, but which you intuit really happened. The certainty with which you state them and your unfortunate user handle causes discomfort in readers who disagree.  Have you considered a kinder, gentler approach? :-)

    Parent
    That was the first time (none / 0) (#99)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:01:35 PM EST
    I posted to this site in 3 months.  I basically put the same slant on the evidence that those who tend to side with Zimmerman do.  

    But I will try a kinder and gentler approach and see if that works.

    Parent

    You could start by not (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:51:33 AM EST
    misrepresenting the known facts. If you have a different interpretation of them, you could say "In my opinion, GZ was at fault for [some action he took.] What you can't do is declare he was wrong for some action that never happened or for a response to something that was never said to him.  E.g., he was not instructed to stay in the car before he got out and started walking. I don't recall exactly what you said now, but I read your two comments at least twice before deleting them. They contained misrepresentation of the facts.

    Parent
    I think what is so frustrating is that (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Anne on Wed May 29, 2013 at 12:40:51 PM EST
    there seems to be no end to the speculation that is allowed to pro-Zimmerman commenters - I've read comments that put motives and ideas in the mind of someone whose testimony we will never hear, because he's dead, and this seems to be okay as long as there are a few facts in there somewhere.  

    On the other hand, rebuttal of these kinds of comments is not tolerated well, and it seems that a much finer examination is done on those kinds of comments than on those that are pro-defense.

    Here's a comment that demonstrates what I'm talking about:

    It's been established via distance/time calculations that Trayvon would have been at home easily quite some time before GZ ever saw him had he walked straight back.

    Clearly he was doing something, even if it was just moving from shelter to shelter and talking on his phone in the rain.

    And there is every indication Trayvon had either stayed in hiding at the time he confronted George - in which case, why not stay in hiding?- or that he had circled back.

    It's pretty reasonable to think that the only reason those two encountered each other away from the clubhouse was because of Trayvon, not George. George seems to have lost him.

    Here's one that's even worse:

    We all know that Trayvon Martin was calmly walking home where he was going to fill out his application for an astronaut training academy.  Obviously he wouldn't have wanted to get into a fight that would have negatively reflected on his stellar reputation.

    Now, if I were to write a comment that speculated and assumed and ascribed negative actions, motives and reasons to Zimmerman's role in this event, I'd probably have my comment deleted for "misrepresenting the facts."

    And, for what it's worth, I don't see any kind of language like "in my opinion" in either of those comments - and yet, they stand, along with others very similar to them.

    It's your blog, Jeralyn, so you make the rules and decide how the rules are to be enforced.  I think we all recognize that you are pro-defense, that this blog takes a pro-defense position, but I think you do the blog a disservice by summarily deleting comments that are, by and large, responses and rebuttals to comments that use a few facts to package a speculative and imaginative point of view.

    You are vigilant about not allowing discussion on aspects of this case that haven't been made a part of legal case/proceedings - will you now not allow discussion about those elements of the case that the judge is not allowing to come in?  

    I guess I would say that, if I'm someone who is pro-Zimmerman, I wouldn't worry about anything I might post in the comments being deleted - but those of us who have chosen to take a more devil's advocate role find ourselves walking on eggshells just to be able to question some of what the pro-George crowd is putting out there.

    That seems unfair and disingenuous -but it's your blog and no one's forcing me to read it or comment on the Zimmerman posts.


    Parent

    Welcome to the club (none / 0) (#100)
    by jbindc on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:02:57 PM EST
    Odd - I'm ususally the one being called out by commenters on this site for being too "pro-prosecution" for playing devil's advocate on other cases.

    I don't know if anyone here is "pro-George", but clearly many of the "anti-George" people want to put their fingers in their ears if there is even a hint that Martin was not the angelic little boy mistakenly shown by the media in all those pictures.  Did he deserve to die for his actions?  Absoltuely not. From what I've been reading of the evidence, he probably deserved a good punch in the nose.  But some of those actions - whatever they were - were responsible for putting the events of that night in motion.

    That's how I'm reading the comments here.  

    It's odd.  All those here who readily want to jump on the defense side of the bandwagon on just about any case that's posted here, all of a sudden are screaming for George Zimmerman's blood.

    (And for the record, I am not saying that Mr. Zimmerman is not culpable in this. I am saying it isn't as black and white, if you'll pardon the pun, as many would like to make it out to be).

    Parent

    I don't know how anyone could be (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by Anne on Wed May 29, 2013 at 03:08:22 PM EST
    reading the many Zimmerman posts and have any doubt that there is a preponderance of "pro-George" commenters here - I think some of them are living this case as if they were personally involved in defending George instead of posting comments on a blog.

    I don't claim to have any illusions about Trayvon Martin, but I'm not willing to project onto him whatever qualities he'd need to have in order to become the villain in this drama.  I completely understand why a grieving family would give the media a photo of Trayvon as they would want the world to see him and as they would want to remember him - they wouldn't be human if they had done anything else.  

    One can have a strong belief in all the constitutional rights and privileges and protections that are supposed to be afforded to the accused and still have questions and doubts and be skeptical about what one is reading and hearing - I think a good defense attorney is going to ask those questions just as a matter of strategy, as a way of finding out all he or she needs to know in order to provide the best defense possible.  They are going to see things as the other side would, to be able to counter what will be coming at them from the state that is going to be trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    I happen to be of the opinion that what happened that night didn't have to end the way it did - and it is likely that both parties contributed to what happened.  I'd like to think that in the dead of night, when George Zimmerman is alone with his thoughts, he regrets ever getting out of his truck, ever deciding to follow Trayvon, and not just letting the police handle whatever inquiry needed to be made.  Should he go to prison?  I don't think that's for me to say - that's the jury's burden and one I'm glad I don't have.


    Parent

    Why release (3.00 / 2) (#143)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:21:06 PM EST
    a photo taken five yrs ago of Trayvon Martin in his red Hollister Tee when he father used a totally different and age appropriate photo for the 17yr old to Serino?  It was a perfectly acceptable, even handsome IMO, picture of young Martin.

    The Crump team has played on the emotions of their supporters for months.

    Now there is a whistleblower in the SAO office that has been put on administrative leave because he gave a report on pictures and texts retrieved from Martins phone to the Prosecution.  It seems that Bernie has been playing "hide the ball" yet again with evidence.

    url Miami Herald

    No hue and cry about that one though...not even a peep.

    Parent

    My opinion ... I doubt if the Martin family.... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cashmere on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:26:14 PM EST
    did anything intentionally to misinform, during their time of grief.  I think they were struggling with their loss and Team Crump swooped in to make the case about civil rights... and misinform.  

    Parent
    I think that attorneys (none / 0) (#155)
    by Anne on Thu May 30, 2013 at 06:44:47 AM EST
    on all sides attempt to put information out there that makes the best case for their respective clients - Mark O'Meara's done his share of this, too - even being caught by the judge having to admit that in spite of her clear and forceful instruction not to disclose what was being discussed in chambers, he did just that.  He's sorry - it was a mistake...but that's one more bell that can't be un-rung - and he knows that.

    So, let's not kid ourselves: as much as we would like to think this is about justice and truth and due process and all that other good stuff, these kinds of cases devolve into games of strategy that each participant plays in the best interests of the client or whoever is signing the checks - with a bit of "all this time in front of the camera is good for business."

    If this was a sausage factory, I doubt it would pass inspection.

    Parent

    My opinion ... I doubt if the Martin family.... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cashmere on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:26:45 PM EST
    did anything intentionally to misinform, during their time of grief.  I think they were struggling with their loss and Team Crump swooped in to make the case about civil rights... and misinform.  

    Parent
    I can agree with some of this. (none / 0) (#117)
    by leftwig on Wed May 29, 2013 at 03:47:50 PM EST
    "I happen to be of the opinion that what happened that night didn't have to end the way it did - and it is likely that both parties contributed to what happened.  I'd like to think that in the dead of night, when George Zimmerman is alone with his thoughts, he regrets ever getting out of his truck, ever deciding to follow Trayvon, and not just letting the police handle whatever inquiry needed to be made.  Should he go to prison?  I don't think that's for me to say - that's the jury's burden and one I'm glad I don't have."

    But, I don't understand why getting out of his truck to see where TM ran off to should be considered a regrettable move. Certainly the eventual outcome is regrettable, but I don't think GZ had any idea of what the outcome was going to be after TM ran off.  If I were living in a neighborhood that had many break ins and knew that I left my wife and kids at home, you bet your butt I am going to do whatever is in my legal right to do to make sure I protect them to the best of my ability.  

    Now, if GZ did something illegal when the two met face to face (threaten or try to detain TM), then thats a different story.  

    Parent

    Should this whole mess be seen as an... (none / 0) (#167)
    by heidelja on Thu May 30, 2013 at 01:29:42 PM EST
    ..."accident"? Or is interpreting this:
    "I happen to be of the opinion that what happened that night didn't have to end the way it did - and it is likely that both parties contributed to what happened"
    to imply (unconventional) "accidental death" correct?  Somehow by further stating
    "I'd like to think that in the dead of night, when George Zimmerman is alone with his thoughts, he regrets ever getting out of his truck, ever deciding to follow Trayvon, and not just letting the police handle whatever inquiry needed to be made"
    your deepest feelings are that he not be left off without punishment. Of course, you skirt that my concluding
    "Should he go to prison?  I don't think that's for me to say - that's the jury's burden and one I'm glad I don't have."

    This would explain anyone being disenfranchised with the "Pro-Zimmerman" element (regardless of all else) because if being so, it implies no further punishment which is contrary to your uneasy feelings for "supporting" him.

    Parent

    An accident? No, I wouldn't call it that. (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Anne on Thu May 30, 2013 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    If you're asking whether I think George intended for the end result to be shooting and killing Martin, no, I don't think that was his intent.  Had it been an accident, I think we could have expected George to have said something along the lines of, "I didn't mean to shoot him - it was an accident," but unless I missed something, he's never claimed that the shooting was accidental in nature.

    But, as I have said on other occasions, the consequences that flow from the decisions we make are not always in our control.

    I don't fault George for calling the non-emergency number - that's the kind of thing it's for - calling in one's concerns/suspicions.  And while there was nothing illegal about getting out of his car and taking up his "observation" on foot, he, as one of the watch captains, was supposed to know better.  There isn't a watch program of any credibility that would ever recommend doing what George did, over and above his call to the police.

    His actions set things in motion.

    Now, what of Trayvon's role in this?  Should we blame him if he was weirded out by being followed, first by a truck and then by a man on foot?  I wouldn't blame him for that.  

    In his shoes, I feel pretty certain I would have beat feet for my house - or called 911 myself.  I might have yelled out, "I don't know who you are or what you want, but I've just called 911" and hoped whoever it was would make a rapid exit from the scene.

    So, does he share some blame for not just running home, as fast as he could?  Since people keep pointing out that it wasn't illegal for George to get out of his truck, do I need to point out that it wasn't illegal for Trayvon not to have run home?  And if I did make that point, isn't the comeback to that, "well, he was foolish for not going right home?"

    Yes, he was - just as foolish as George was for not staying in his truck and letting the police do the job he called them to do.

    There are a thousand things both of these people could have done differently - any one of them could have resulted in no one being killed, or it could have resulted in George's own death.

    But it wasn't an accident.

    A jury will decide whether George Zimmerman is or is not guilty of the charges, and one hopes they will do so in accordance with the legal standards.  Not having immersed myself in this case, and not being a lawyer, and not having the time to wade through the law, I have no idea whether, when all is said and done, the jury will decide he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or whether they will do so with the law in mind, not emotion.

    Whether he's convicted or not, he will suffer punishment, whether of his own making, or by the community in general.  Sure, there will be those who laud his actions, who will reward him for his story, will give him a book contract - but there will be those who shun him, who won't want to be associated with him.

    Has he suffered enough?  I don't know.  Have Trayvon Martin's parents and loved ones suffered enough?  

    Two young men's lives intersected that night, and it's been nothing but heartache and misery ever since.  Plenty of suffering to go around, even if George never spends another day in custody.

    Parent

    the first illegal thing that happened (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu May 30, 2013 at 08:45:00 PM EST
    was physical assault. So far the evidence points to TM assaulting GZ and GZ defending himself.  If the circumstances turn out to be something else I'll eat my hat.  But if I am right then regardless of what anyone thinks of the actions of either man, this is not a civil case where there are degrees of culpability by all parties..... GZ will be innocent by way of self defense.  At that point he will NOT deserve some sort of partial punishment to ease societies collective white guilt.

    Parent
    And, that's the problem. (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:45:13 PM EST
    "So far the evidence points to TM assaulting GZ and GZ defending himself."

    The only "evidence" of an assault that I know of comes from Zimmerman's account of things. Witness statements are inconclusive. Some have changed their stories, others recanted. None were in a position to make a categorical identification of what happened, and how it happened.

    "If the circumstances turn out to be something else I'll eat my hat."

    I won't hold you to it but, if GZ is found Not Guilty I hope it's because a truly exhaustive investigation  concurs with Zimmerman's account of why, and how, the shooting happened.

    But, for me, there are plenty of things that shed doubt on Zimmerman's story. First of all, and, I'm sure Corey will have expert testimony to illustrate this, it's highly unlikely that a 150 lb. stick like Martin could "pin down" for any length of time a burly 200 lb. guy like Zimmerman. Also, and, admittedly it`s only a personal opinion, it seems incredulous that in a short scuffle with a skinny kid, Zimmerman would be "screaming" for help like he claims. From battlefields in war to the streets of the Bronx, I have never seen such a thing. However, I have seen people scream for their life when having a gun pointed at them.

    There are many more items that need explaining such as, do you really "forget" that you're carrying a loaded gun when you're confronted with a hostile situation?  And, if Martin was administering such a horrific beating to Zimmerman why was there no evidence of that in Martin's autopsy report? As to Zimmerman's head being "pounded, or smashed repeatedly into a concrete sidewalk: from his medical examination report: "She described his head as "normocephalic and atraumatic'' -- normal and without injuries."

    Anyway, I'm not trying to start a point by point debate on this subject. I'm just trying to say there's a reason for a thorough investigation, in contrast to the emphatic, almost breathless demands by so many Zimmerman defenders that he's being treated unfairly, and should be released simply on his account of things.

    Parent

    All that plus this... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Angel on Fri May 31, 2013 at 07:19:19 AM EST
    How did GZ - on his back, on the ground, with TM supposedly straddling him and "smashing his head into the concrete"  - manage to reach and grab hold of his gun which supposedly was in the back pocket of his jeans?  

    Parent
    Meant to say "grab hold of his gun (1.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Angel on Fri May 31, 2013 at 07:29:23 AM EST
    which supposedly was inside holster near right back pocket of jeans."

    Parent
    I'm so glad you brought this up... (none / 0) (#184)
    by gbrbsb on Fri May 31, 2013 at 10:07:23 PM EST
    As to Zimmerman's head being "pounded, or smashed repeatedly into a concrete sidewalk: from his medical examination report: "She described his head as "normocephalic and atraumatic'' -- normal and without injuries."

    I had comlpetely forgotten about that medical observation on his report when the other day I had a comment deleted for:

    "...falsely portraying the evidence as to GZ's injuries."

    The only thing I had noted in respect of GZ's injuries which was in reply to zaitzefftheunconvicted2's comment:

    "... TM not only was hitting him and pounding his head into concrete..."

    was that "two small scratches and a small graze don't make "a _ _ _ ."", (can't risk repeat so you fill in the three blanks!) because, for me "a pounding into concrete" conjures up images like those I get when googling, "man beaten up", and which make images like those taken of GZ pale to say the least.

    The rest of my post never mentioned injuries, as I merely replied to all of the points argued:

    "The only version of events is as per the only survivor..."

    further adding that it should therefore be scrutinized, adding:

    "... and whether the Jury considers under the circumstances that GZ was in fear of his life or serious bodily harm when he shot the unarmed TM. IMO, "reasonable" may well be the crux of what this trial is all about."

    And I stand by what I said about "reasonable" being possibly the crux of the case, because either the prosecution proves BARD that the altercation and/or shot could not have happened the way GZ tells it, which we will see during trial, or its audio experts convince the jury it was TM screaming and/or begging for his life BARD, both difficult hurdles to surmount, otherwise, as far as I can see, it will boil down to what the jury finds "reasonable fear", because even IF the prosecution proved GZ were the aggressor, normally a bar for him claiming self defence, if the jury found it was reasonable for him to fear for his life that last minute before he shot TM then, if I read it correctly, Florida law places a claim of self defence firmly back on his table again.

    Parent

    Completely false (4.40 / 5) (#107)
    by Yman on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:48:39 PM EST
    I don't know if anyone here is "pro-George", but clearly many of the "anti-George" people want to put their fingers in their ears if there is even a hint that Martin was not the angelic little boy mistakenly shown by the media in all those pictures.

    1)  You "don't know" if anyone here is "pro-George", but you do know there are "anti-George" people here?

    Really?

    2)  The photos of Martin shown by the media in the period shortly after the shooting were family photos released by the family.  Of course they're going to release photos as they want to remember him - a happy, smiling kid.  Since that time, many other photos have been released (some falsely claimed to be Martin - others correctly) that show that he was not "the angelic little boy shown in those pictures", and they've been published in the media.  Of course, no one here is claiming - or even suggesting - that he is a "perfect angel".  But you do have people here openly mocking him for a straw caricature that no one here is pushing:

    We all know that Trayvon Martin was calmly walking home where he was going to fill out his application for an astronaut training academy.  Obviously he wouldn't have wanted to get into a fight that would have negatively reflected on his stellar reputation.

    You also have people here suggesting that Martin was a drug dealer because he (gasp!) apparently smoked m@rijuana:


    The other possibility was that Martin was selling and couldn't buy the blunts after he sold to/shared with the 3 guys around the 711.  Several tweets indicate that sold MJ to his friends.  He had enough time to put his stash in his father house before going back to confront Zimmerman.  Most people who use marijuana do a little selling on the side so it wouldn't have been unusual.

    IMO, if these types of claims were being posted about GZ, they wouldn't be allowed to remain.

    Parent

    Speaking ill of the dead (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    -- not supposed to be allowed either.

    Parent
    Response (none / 0) (#112)
    by jbindc on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:21:12 PM EST
    1. You're right - I "don't know" for sure there are "anti-George" people here, but it's not hard to connect the dots by some of the comments from some people.

    2. The inital photos released by the family show a young innocent boy.  Since then, age-appropriate photos have been released and yet the media still show the one of Martin at about 12 in a red shirt.

    I'm not defending those that are making up wild theories. And the first comment you quoted was snark, was it not?

    And I certainly have seen many comments calling Zimmerman a "cowboy" and a "wanna-be-cop" and a "liar" (which may or may not be true), among others that have stayed up.

    My larger observation was that there are many commenters who generally question the side of "law & order", but who, in this case, are ready to throw the book at Zimmerman.

    Parent

    But it's interesting ... (4.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Yman on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:36:43 PM EST
    ... that you're able to "connect the dots" in only one direction.

    The inital photos released by the family show a young innocent boy.  Since then, age-appropriate photos have been released and yet the media still show the one of Martin at about 12 in a red shirt.

    "About 12"?  Based on what?  And they still show GZ's photo wearing a tie, which is not how he was dressed that night.

    So what?

    My larger observation was that there are many commenters who generally question the side of "law & order", but who, in this case, are ready to throw the book at Zimmerman.

    Of course, your "larger point" (All those here who readily want to jump on the defense side of the bandwagon on just about any case that's posted here, all of a sudden are screaming for George Zimmerman's blood.") could just as easily be reversed and applied to you.  I can't speak for "many commenters", but I'm guessing it has to do with the fact that: 1) they feel GZ caused the confrontation by taking a gun and following an unarmed teenager based on very vague suspicions and/or 2) they find his story incredible.  That doesn't mean they're "ready to throw the book at Zimmerman."  It does mean they feel charges  and a trial are appropriate, as opposed to those who are openly advocating for the dismissal of the charges.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#114)
    by jbindc on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:53:31 PM EST
    "Abotu 12 years old" - maybe he was thirteen, and while I've seen the picture of GZ in a suit and tie, it took a while for that photo to come out, if you remember.  The photo they kept showing (and still show) was of him, many pounds heavier, and in an orange polo in a mug shot (which makes it look like prison garb).

    1) they feel GZ caused the confrontation by taking a gun and following an unarmed teenager based on very vague suspicions and/or 2) they find his story incredible.  That doesn't mean they're "ready to throw the book at Zimmerman."  It does mean they feel charges  and a trial are appropriate, as opposed to those who are openly advocating for the dismissal of the charges.

    1. You have no idea how "vague" his suspicions were, as you were not there to witness what was or wasn't going on, what crimes had been committed in the area.

    2. Did I say the charges should be dismissed??


    Parent
    Not according to your link (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Yman on Wed May 29, 2013 at 03:43:55 PM EST
    Your link (of which there is no way to judge the accuracy) says 13 or 14, indicating they are also guessing.  Benjamin Crump said the photo was taken in August, 2011 - about 6 months before the shooting when Martin was 16.  I have no idea how old he is - but the "about 12" is nothing more than a guess.

    ... while I've seen the picture of GZ in a suit and tie, it took a while for that photo to come out, if you remember.  The photo they kept showing (and still show) was of him, many pounds heavier, and in an orange polo in a mug shot (which makes it look like prison garb).

    The media went with that photo because for the first month or so, it was the only photo available and (as your article pointed out) the "decimation" of news photo editing staffs, which means less people to hunt down updated photos.  Zimmerman - like Martin's family - was free to release photos at any point he chose to.

    You have no idea how "vague" his suspicions were, as you were not there to witness what was or wasn't going on, what crimes had been committed in the area.

    Sure I do - I heard him express them on the NEN call.  If you have concrete suspicions about someone's behavior, wouldn't you voice them when you call the police?  (i.e. "There's someone looking in windows", "There's a guy with a gun", "there's someone trying to get in a sliding door", etc.).  As far as the crimes that had been committed in the area, I'm well aware of them, but you're right - I didn't actually witness the crimes - for whatever that's worth.

    Did I say the charges should be dismissed??

    No, but then again, I never said you did.  I applied your standard ("many commenters") to note that many here have advocated for the dismissal of these charges, while "many commenters" are not "throwing the book at him" or "screaming for his blood".

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#159)
    by jbindc on Thu May 30, 2013 at 08:26:47 AM EST
    If Benjamin Crump said it, then it definitely MUST be true.

    Parent
    people with gun permits (none / 0) (#175)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu May 30, 2013 at 08:00:48 PM EST
    don't "take a gun and follow an unarmed teenager", they are simply armed as usual. GZ followed the kid because he thought TM was acting suspiciously.  Whether he jumped to conclusions or not is besides the point.  There had been more break-ins than usual in the neighborhood recently.  He was doing what he thought best.  It's not like he was stalking TM, gun in hand.

    Parent
    I think you are wrong (none / 0) (#158)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu May 30, 2013 at 08:25:32 AM EST
    about whether or not people HERE are putting forth a straw image of Martin or not.  But even if you are right, must people only address what is said on this web site?  When we discuss this case is what happens here of the most relevance to GZ's case?

    For instance, just two days ago I turned on the TV and right there on HLN was the Martin family lawyer asserting again that if TM were white GZ would have been arrested immediately.  Would I be able to address that guy playing the race/victim card and his continuing attempt to stir up anger rather than relying on reason and evidence to make his point of view known?  Or must I wait until someone here is doing it?  

    Parent

    Speculation based on evidence (none / 0) (#103)
    by cboldt on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:18:06 PM EST
    So, you object to the time / distance factors being discussed?  Martin had a certain amount of time out of Zimmerman's view - I think that amount of time can be agreed on without any controversy; and there is a certain distance between the "T" and Brandi's porch, another fact that I think is not contentious.

    If I said that a person can move 120 yards in 30 seconds, would you find that to be objectionable?  If Martin was out of view for 30 seconds, could he have moved 120 yards?  Is that somehow an objectionable deduction?

    As for the absence of the "in my opinion" modifier to the sarcastic remarks about the difference between how Crump and the press have portrayed Martin, vs. how Martin's own words portray him, well, I suppose it's excused just because it's obvious sarcasm - although, in my opinion, it's sarcasm that well illustrates the media's chronic misrepresentation of Martin.

    Parent

    Way to miss the point... (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Anne on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:56:15 PM EST
    I was objecting to things like this:

    Clearly he was doing something, even if it was just moving from shelter to shelter and talking on his phone in the rain.

    "Clearly"  To whom?

    And there is every indication Trayvon had either stayed in hiding at the time he confronted George - in which case, why not stay in hiding?- or that he had circled back.

    "Why not stay in hiding?" not only asks a question that can't be answered, it imputes a negative action we have no way of verifying.

    It's pretty reasonable to think that the only reason those two encountered each other away from the clubhouse was because of Trayvon, not George. George seems to have lost him.

    "Reasonable?"  Again, to whom?  The commenter?  Okay, sure - but let him own that opinion instead of drawing a global conclusion.

    As for the "obvious" sarcasm of the second comment, tell you what...you construct an equally sarcastic comment about Zimmerman, and we'll see how long it stays up, okay?

    I guess even those with an eye for detail can sometimes miss what's right in front of them, but then, I'm not up to my armpits in Zimmerman minutiae 24/7 as some here appear to be.

    Parent

    Keep in mind... (none / 0) (#152)
    by heidelja on Thu May 30, 2013 at 04:28:52 AM EST
    ...posts can go arbitrarily deleted for reason of the 200 comment technical limitation for each "thread." This allows more to comment.

    As for your examples...the former is spot-on "speculation" knowing the abundant retrospective analysis of the evidence of GZ's recorded call to the SPD on Feb 26, 2012. The latter is unabashed sarcasm requiring no speculation.

    This is not to suggest go someplace else to "play devil's advocate," but if you dare go to some other (liberal) articles and find those kinds of comments, how reasonable do they really sound given all you should have learned here already?

    Nejame in his analysis on local Central Florida (cable) Channel 13 following Tuesday's hearing encouraged viewers to keep open minds because all the evidence had not come out. I'm not so sure about the evidence not seen, but reading some recent comments, there are many "devil's advocates" who do not have a good grasp of the evidence and judicial procedures that have been made public months and months ago and thoroughly hashed out here. And many tend  to recite the soundbites of Crump. I figure that's what Nejame must be meaning.

    Parent

    There is a Diffference in Burden (none / 0) (#153)
    by RickyJim on Thu May 30, 2013 at 06:09:52 AM EST
    I would think the discussion in this blog would reflect the task at trial.  We are not speculating about what "really happened" just what can be proven in  a law court.  The prosecution has to show all innocent (as far as Zimmerman) scenarios are unreasonable.  The defense just has to be sure that the jury is aware of one reasonable scenario.  It may be fun to banter about what the actual reality was, but not particularly profitable unless the task is to write a novel.

    Parent
    Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    The following paragraph is in a post on this chain:

    "TM threatened the life of GZ, was beating him and was in the process of either killing him or rendering him unconscious by asphyxiating him.  TM was also reaching for GZ's handgun."

    OK. So I can't remember the exact wording but I am pretty certain that what I said contained nowhere near the level of factual assertion, bias and slant that those two sentences did.

    But that doesn't get deleted.  

    I don't think the standards are fairly applied.

    Parent

    There is evidence (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by cboldt on Wed May 29, 2013 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    All those things you object to are in evidence, by Zimmerman's words.  You could use Witness 8's words as evidence too, if you want.

    Compare that with the assertions you made.  If you can find evidence of them, point to the evidence.

    The standard is simple, point to the evidence.

    Parent

    that is George Zimmerman's version (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:14:48 PM EST
    of evidence which is contained in discovery.

    Your statements were your own and were an inaccurate representation of the disclosed evidence and no documents or testimony supported them.

    Parent

    confrontational behavior (none / 0) (#53)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 07:11:48 PM EST
    per the statement of GZ to police, shortly after TM saw GZ, TM was staring at him, and then, TM walked to nearby the car of GZ and walked around it.  In order to avoid a confrontation or even a discussion, GZ kept his window closed while TM was walking around his vehicle.

    Parent
    Oh come on... (1.50 / 10) (#14)
    by ackbarsays on Tue May 28, 2013 at 01:59:12 PM EST
    We all know that Trayvon Martin was calmly walking home where he was going to fill out his application for an astronaut training academy.  Obviously he wouldn't have wanted to get into a fight that would have negatively reflected on his stellar reputation.

    Parent
    ackbarsays' comment should be removed (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by shoephone on Tue May 28, 2013 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    It's utterly trollish, and totally gratuitous.

    Parent
    Maybe you should aqcuaint yourself (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by shoephone on Tue May 28, 2013 at 06:45:39 PM EST
    with what constitutes trollish internet behavior, because it's clear you have no clue. Equating "troll" with "Nazi" is proof of that.

    The commenter was not only casting aspersions on someone who is dead, and cannot speak for himself, but was implying things not in evidence. In other words, making sh*t up, which seems to be de rigeur for zealous commenters on these Zimmerman threads.

    Parent

    Agreed, not in evidence, but not.. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cashmere on Tue May 28, 2013 at 09:06:12 PM EST
    ...not... just "making stuff up".  The sarcastic reference was to the actual way Trayvon Martin was initially presented by the press, thanks to statements made by Benjamin Crump and his team.  

    Parent
    So by that standard (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Yman on Tue May 28, 2013 at 09:29:40 PM EST
    If someone were to post equally sarcastic/offensive statements about George Zimmerman, based on the way GZ was "presented to the press" by his family, it would be just fine.

    Heh.

    Parent

    As you so OFTEN type... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Cashmere on Tue May 28, 2013 at 09:47:43 PM EST
    Read again.  I did not state that at all.  Did I state that it is fine, from either side of this case?  If I did not make myself clear, my reference was that the poster above was not "making stuff up", rather than repeating how TM has been portrayed by the media, courtesy of Crump, etc.

    Parent
    seems to me (2.00 / 1) (#156)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu May 30, 2013 at 07:31:12 AM EST
    people have done that.  Did you object at the time?

    Parent
    So was (none / 0) (#35)
    by Pugfrench on Tue May 28, 2013 at 04:00:27 PM EST
    So was this hearing almost a total bust for the defense or what?

    Certainly Not (none / 0) (#39)
    by RickyJim on Tue May 28, 2013 at 04:22:20 PM EST
    If the prosecution makes the Trayvon character material relevant, she ruled that it can come in as rebuttal providing the defense satisfies authentication and hearsay requirements.  So what else is new?  She scheduled a Frye hearing, completely ignoring a prosecution motion that one wasn't necessary.  The only serious defense defeat was a no to continuance motion.

    Parent
    Thank you (none / 0) (#43)
    by Pugfrench on Tue May 28, 2013 at 04:59:31 PM EST
    All the pro prosecution sites seem elated and the pro defense sites seem suicidal. This site takes a more cautious stance so I wanted to know what everyone thought.

    Parent
    commenters don't speak for this site (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:51:45 AM EST
    they speak for themselves.

    Parent
    nonsense (none / 0) (#91)
    by ZtoA on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:19:31 AM EST
    You delete comments that you don't agree with or fee their arguments are too threatening, yet you let offensive comments like #14 stand.

    Parent
    I never delete comments for (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 10:42:55 AM EST
    point of view. I limit those to four a day. I delete comments that are off-topic, contain character attacks or obscenity, falsely portray known facts or misrepresent their opinion as fact. Or if the commenter is blog-clogging. Our comment rules on this case are here.

    Your comment is also not-responsive. Pugfrench was thanking Ricky Jim for answering a question, and said, "This site takes a more cautious stance so I wanted to know what everyone thought."

    I was pointing out that the "stance" of "this site" isn't determined by commenters, but by me. I happen to agree with Ricky's comment, nonetheless, it's his view, not the view of TalkLeft. Perhaps I read it wrong, and Pugfrench meant since the threads here are more cautious, he wanted to know what everyone thought. If so, than my comment was unnecessary.

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Pugfrench on Wed May 29, 2013 at 04:42:03 PM EST
    I meant that the threads were more cautious. I knew you wouldn't allow anything that wasn't factually accurate to remain.

    Parent
    non responsive (none / 0) (#163)
    by ZtoA on Thu May 30, 2013 at 11:14:01 AM EST
    My mistake. I thought hitting the "reply to" meant I was replying to that comment. I thought I was replying to you not Pugfrench.

    And you absolutely do have an extremely biased habit of deleting comments you simply don't like. Why do you let ackbarsays' #14 stand? You say you are not out for character assignation but your actions belie that.

    Parent

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Pugfrench on Wed May 29, 2013 at 04:37:06 PM EST
    My wording was clumsy. I meant that your strict rules about what can be said filter out a lot of nonsense that get posted elsewhere. I know people complain about it, but I appreciate that fact since I have no legal experience and am sometimes not able to tell what is nonsense and what are legitimate views based on factual evidence.

    Parent
    The Reasonableness of His Fear (none / 0) (#69)
    by RickyJim on Tue May 28, 2013 at 10:28:16 PM EST
    of great body harm comes from the fact that the last view of the combatants that Witness 6 had before he went inside to call 911 was Zimmerman on the concrete, on his back, with Martin in a dominant position, straddling him.  At least it shows that it is reasonable to think that his fear was reasonable which is all that is needed for an acquittal.  

    Sounds right, except that (none / 0) (#134)
    by gbrbsb on Wed May 29, 2013 at 06:09:27 PM EST
    IMO, there is one finding the Jury may have to reach that could make irrelevant whether GZ's fear for his life was "reasonable" or not, i.e.:

    IF, (and I emphasise IF), if the jury as the tryer of facts were to find after having heard all the evidence (I presume the the tape is included but not necessarily the experts) that it was TM screaming, "I'm begging you" and "stop" (I heard both utterances with my own ears some 8 months before Reich's opinion) just before the shot, would that not mean that, even if TM were found to have been the aggressor, he was capitulating and/or pleading for his life, and in which case would that not block GZ from a claim of self defence under Florida's self defence rules?


    Parent

    IMO -- I would think that such a situation.... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cashmere on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:55:01 PM EST
    ... would all come down to forensics.  

    Parent
    No, it was a question of law not forensics, (none / 0) (#157)
    by gbrbsb on Thu May 30, 2013 at 07:37:03 AM EST
    because if I understand the law correctly, once an aggressor makes known he wants to desist or capitulates, I believe the other party no longer can avail themselves of self defence.

    My application to the case was, in the event the jury found TM the aggressor but also found screams, especially "I'm begging you", and or "stop", (ones I hear with my own ears as well as hearing "help" and "help me" which I assume are definately GZ's so not impossible for a jury to also hear) belonged to TM, wouldn't that indicate TM had capitulated?  

    I pose the question because, if correct, a major prosecution effort will be to convince the jury those screams were TM's. In which case, shouldn't MOM forget bartering and look for the best audio expert possible? In the first place, as he is doing, to try to bar the experts from testifying, and if unsuccessful, to raise doubts or refute the expert's testimonies, because IMO who screamed could be a very compelling piece of evidence to a jury, (there are witnesses for and against on both sides), so unless the prosecution has forensic, witness or or GPS testimony and/or work product that can do it, might ownership of the screams along with what was screamed, be the penetrable chink in what appears to be GZ's "tops it all" claim to self defence?  

    Parent

    Begging Time (none / 0) (#194)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 08:11:09 AM EST
    I'm confused. Are you saying that months ago you thought you could hear Martin say 'I'm begging you' shortly before the gunshot? Reich says the 'I'm begging you' was much earlier, at the beginning of the call. See p. 2 of Reich's report.

    Parent
    zimmerman's statement and reasonable fear (none / 0) (#71)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 10:38:23 PM EST
    Per GZ statement to police, TM threatened his life verbally with words such as you are going to die, expl. del. and/or I am going to kill you, expletive deleted In any reasonable person, those statements would create a fear for one's life in the context of a "fight," especially if one was being beaten and/or not fighting back.

    Per GZ statement to police, TM was holding his hands over the mouth and nose of GZ, with the purpose of temporarily or permanently suffocating him.  In any reasonable person, that would create a fear for one's life, unless was playing a bdsm game with a partner, and even then, such "breath play" is regarded as highly dangerous and therefore, it is avoided by most pro dommes who don't wish to be taken away.ractictioners

    reasonable fear (none / 0) (#72)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    while walking the sidewalk in downtown seattle near a bus stop several years ago, in daylight and good light, a "fellow" reached out and grabbed and removed my wallet from my pocket, without my permission.  In that particular case, I got the wallet back in a bit . . .  If he had threatened me verbally, would I have been in fear of my life?  Yes.

    Reasonable fear for your life can exist from verbal threats . . . from random or intentional gunshots . . . or from a number of factors, including such things as suffocation.  People who make verbal or written threats to or about the POTUS are picked, questioned, arrested and charged.  Why?  Because we regard such threats seriously and some who make threats intend to carry them out.

    we should just convict gz? (none / 0) (#73)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 10:50:35 PM EST
    There are no other witnesses of which I know who can confirm or deny that TM was threatening the life of GZ.  There are no other witnesses of which I know who can confirm or deny that TM was holding his hands over the mouth and nose of GZ.  So, according to you, perhaps, we should just convict GZ, because, in the absence of a confirming witness, we don't have enough evidence in the dark night from a distance or reason to believe that TM was threatening or attempting to suffocate GZ?

    After all, you would admit, would you not, that either verbal threats in the context of a fight or attempted suffocation would be reasonable to establish fear for one's life?  And, because the neighbors seem to have been indoors rather than out in the rain, we should convict GZ?

    Who on this thread said (none / 0) (#75)
    by shoephone on Tue May 28, 2013 at 11:18:16 PM EST
    "we should just convict GZ"? Who?

    No one. That's who.

    Parent

    gbrbsb suggests it (none / 0) (#78)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 11:59:12 PM EST
    gbrbsb says that zimmerman is guilty at least of manslaughter.  You can read his own words.  

    His reasoning is that having one's head hit into the concrete is not sufficient to create a reasonable fear for one's life.  

    I would feel reasonable fear for my life if i were verbally threatened by someone acting with hostile intent and manner and I would feel reasonable fear if a person were suffocating me, with or without having made verbal threats.

    The only way to say that Z is guilty of manslaughter is to suppose that

    1. because no witness other that Z can confirm or deny that he was verbally threatened and was being suffocated, we should assume or can reasonablely assume that GZ is lying about that, although all or substantially all of his statement to police made on the day of the killing and the day after seems either to be reasonable or, when subject to corroboration, corroborated by witnesses and evidence;

    2. having your head hit into concrete doesn't create a reasonable fear for one's life.
     

    Parent
    his comment was deleted (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:55:56 AM EST
    for falsely portraying the evidence as to GZ's injuries. No need to refute him.

    Parent
    zimmerman (none / 0) (#86)
    by morphic on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:37:13 AM EST
       Having yopur head struck repeatedly on concrete leads to death.

    Parent
    strange possible falsehoods from w8, deedee (none / 0) (#77)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue May 28, 2013 at 11:39:08 PM EST
    According to w8, TM had told her that he had arrived at his house, or, what we may call, his house, though it was the house of other people and merely where he was staying at the time.

    However, the killing of TM took place 4 to 6 house north of the TM house.  If w8 is being truthful, what was TM doing 4 houses to the north of "his house"?

    There are 3 possible explanations:

    1. TM arrived at "his house" and then, for the purpose of confronting, challenging and fighting with Zimmerman, doubled back and headed north 4 or more houses;
    2. TM lied to his gf about his whereabouts, when he claimed he had arrived at "his house;"
    3. w8 lied when she said that TM told her he was at his house.

    Which of these is most likely?  2 should be discounted as reasonable . . . TM would have had no motive, at the time, to lie to his gf about his location.

    Is it more likely that TM went south to his house and then returned north to confront and fight with Z, or, did w8 lie?

    What we know about TM does not suggest to me that he would have reason to turn around and head back north.  One would have to suppose that he made one decision to return home, nearly completed that, and then, decided to go looking for a confrontation/fight instead.  

    Instead, what if w8 materially misrepresented, or lied? We already know, or the prosecution already admits that she lied about her location at the time of the funeral, and she later called the lie immaterial.

    When she was first put forward as a witness, the TM attn said she was 16, but in fact she is/was 17 or 18.  Either she lied to the attn or the attn "lied" on her behalf, it appears.  Either way, neither possibility commends her credibility to us.  And, the attn "lied" on her behalf, while she remained silent . . .

    We have a tape of her being interviewed by police at one point.  And she is asked a particular question and she responds with, "Is that what you want, too?" approximately.

    And the detective says he wants the truth, but the question itself suggests that someone has coached her and led her to know that some answers are what is what people want.

    Given what seems to be evidence of her being coached to answer . . . given what seems to be one or two cases of clear lying . . . I would make the guess that she was coached to say and did say that TM had reached his home.  Reaching home would create innocent motives for TM; hiding in some bushes or behind a wall in order to assault Zimmerman unexpectedly puts TM in a bad light.

    Likewise, w8 says she heard TM saying to someone Get off, get off.  

    However, we have good reason to believe that TM was on top of Z, and if someone was saying Get off or get off of me, it is more likely to have been GZ.  To me, it appears that w8 was coached to lie, and another area of her lying was who was saying Get off or get off of me.

    dz

    this is not about today's court hearing (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:57:04 AM EST
    and really should be taken to the forums.

    Parent
    Please keep this thread to the 5/28 hearing (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 02:58:11 AM EST
    You can discuss other aspects of the case on the forums.

    After having some time to ponder... (none / 0) (#85)
    by MikeB on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:00:37 AM EST
    ....because "pondering" is something we do here in the midwest....I have a question about the authentication premise Judge Nelson ruled on. Is there no case law that exists where someone were held accountable for texts, tweets, or whatever? In other words, can a person say anything they want via text without having to take accountability for what was said? For example, I could slander and libel someone in a mass text, but because you can't prove it was me who typed it, I can do whatever I want? I can tweet salacious claims all day long because you can't prove it was me typing it? I'm not a betting person, but I would be a cup of eCoffee there are cases where someone were either criminally charged and convicted or lost their hat in a civil trial based off social media missives. At first, I though Nelson made a good ruling. Now I am wondering if in fact, a double standard exists.

    On authentication (none / 0) (#94)
    by cboldt on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:33:00 AM EST
    The authentication rule says:

    Authentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility. The requirements of this section are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.

    The biggest weasel word in there is "sufficient," but be that as it is, simply producing a printed page showing an e-mail, and claiming that Fuzzywinkle sent it, is not enough to establish that Fuzzywinkle did indeed send it.  There has to be something more.  Something "sufficient."

    With printed papers, that something is typically in the nature of seals and signatures.  In the case of texts sent from Martin's phone on February 26th, the fact that he was in possession of the phone that day, there is no evidence it ever left his possession, the state claims he was using that phone to communicate with Witness 8, etc., well, I think that is sufficient to authenticate the texts emanating from the phone as being sent by Martin.  Nelson may find differently, but I don't read the rule as requiring proof to a metaphysical certainty.

    Parent

    One piece of case law (none / 0) (#95)
    by cboldt on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:47:31 AM EST
    State v. Raymond Lumarque, Appellee., No. 3D09-2781 (Fla. 3d DCA, 2010)

    The images and text messages were found on the defendant's cellular telephone, seized pursuant to a search of the defendant's home through a warrant shortly after the alleged incident. This fact, testified by the State's forensics expert, is sufficient to authenticate these exhibits. U.S. v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 1001-02 (11th Cir.1985) (holding that authentication of evidence merely requires a finding that the evidence is what it purports to be).


    Parent
    It can be admissible (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 11:54:57 AM EST
    First it needs to be authenticated. Here are two law review articles on it:

    The Esi Tsunami: A Comprehensive Discussion about Electronically Stored Information in Government Investigations and Criminal Cases By Justin P. Murphy & Matthew A.S. Esworthy, ABA Section on Criminal Justice, Spring, 2012, 27 Crim. Just. 31


    UNDERSTANDING AND AUTHENTICATING EVIDENCE FROM SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES    , Heather L. Griffith, Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts, 7 Wash. J.L. Tech. & Arts 209

    Methods of authentication include presenting a witness with personal knowledge of the information (they wrote it, they received it, or they copied it), searching the computer itself to see if it was used to post or create the information, or attempting to obtain the information in question from the actual social media company that maintained the information the ordinary course of their business.

    Courts largely seem to be ruling in favor of admissibility and leaving concerns about the evidence itself, such as who authored the evidence
    or whether the evidence is legitimate, to jurors to decide what weight to give that evidence.

    Sometimes digital notaries are used. A digital notary attests to the authenticity of a digital item as it is reflected at a particular date and time. In simple terms, digital notaries "seal" a digital item with specialized software in order to preserve the integrity of the item and digitally date and timestamp the item. Digital notaries perform a wide variety of services,
    including the authentication of the data on computer hard drives, e-mails, website ESI, Internet postings, digital photographs, and text messages or instant messages.

    For one of the more well-known cases, see Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance Co.  , 241 F.R.D. 534 (D.Md. May 4, 2007)(explained here)

    Also see Admissibility of Writings (Emails and Texts), and Tienda v. State (Tx)

    Here is a list of published cases on social media evidence for the first six months of 2012. Cases from 2010 and 2011 are here.

    Parent

    Thanks - (none / 0) (#97)
    by MikeB on Wed May 29, 2013 at 12:31:51 PM EST
    ...after a cursory look through the information you provided and a little more digging, it's clear that text messages are admissible. I can't remember and could be wrong, but I thought Judge Nelson ruled the texts were not going to be admitted because they CAN'T be authenticated. Not that they weren't authenticated. According to some of the stuff I've read, characteristics of the writing (which is consistent in most of the texts I've read from TM's phone) are consistent. In Gulley v. Arkansas, the Supreme Court of Arkansas ruled that three text messages were properly admitted pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 901(b)(4). And I think that follows the Federal Rules of Evidence 901. That state's supreme court examined the contents of each of the text messages and concluded that they were sufficiently authenticated on the basis of their distinctive characteristics.

    So either MOM blew it, or Judge Nelson got it wrong - in my opinion.

    Parent

    There were so many motions I may have got it wrong (none / 0) (#119)
    by gbrbsb on Wed May 29, 2013 at 04:12:55 PM EST
    but in respect of:

    ...but I thought Judge Nelson ruled the texts were not going to be admitted because they CAN'T be authenticated.

    I thought JN's rulings on texts etc. relevant to propensity for violence and some other matters could be brought in by the defence during trial (not in opening statements) if the door was opened by the State and the defence could satisfy authentication and hearsay rules.

    Parent

    The minutes of the hearing (none / 0) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:23:16 PM EST
    are now available:

    On Text messages:

    States Motion in Limine Regarding Trayvon Martin Regarding Text Messages Received by or Sent by Trayvon Martin Prior to February 26, 2012 Was Heard. State Attorney Guy Addressed the Court. Defense Attorney O'Mara Responded.

    Order-court Granted Motion in Limine until Relevance and Admissibility of the Same Has Been Ruled upon by the Court*

    On Twitter and social media:

    States Motion in Limine Regarding Communicated Screen Names via Social Media Regardless of Format and the Contents of Any Such Communications. State Attorney Guy Addressed the Court. Defense Attorney O'Mara Responded.

    Order-court Granted Motion and Will Not Allow Information to Come in During Opening Statements or Trial until Relevance and Admissibility of the Same Has Been Ruled upon by the Court*



    Parent
    Yes, but did the op really use "really" (none / 0) (#122)
    by gbrbsb on Wed May 29, 2013 at 04:54:29 PM EST
    or was it just,

    NEN: "Are you following him?"
    GZ:  "Yeah"
    NEN: "Ok, we don't need you to do that"
    GZ: "Ok"

    because, and maybe I'm a nitpicker with usage of the English language, which makes me a bit of a glass house dweller considering I'm not a good writer anyway, but IMO the adverb "really" puts another connotation to the phrase making it sound a bit too casual, when, IMO, even if not an imperative or order for GZ to stop following, the ops voice takes on a seriousness, even urgency, when he says it, placing it in a firmer level than just a passing comment. And even GZ seems to recognise this as he immediately replies, "OK", and, seconds later, what appear to be sounds of him moving quickly stop.

    Seriously? That's what you focused on? (2.33 / 3) (#126)
    by shoephone on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:24:06 PM EST
    Whether the 911 operator included "really" in the statement?? Hey, if you makes you feel better, take the "really" out of it, and then let's deal with the other 99.9% of my question. Because claiming that you're simply a nitpicker when it comes to the English language as a way of not dealing with the core of my question tells me everything I need to know about your position on the matter, not to mention your credibility.

    And, by the way, when a 911 operator tells you "we don't need you to do that" it's serious enough, without qualifiers. Because it's coming from a 911 operator.

    (Did I spell everything correctly? Were there any typos? If so, I apologize in advance, knowing it may prevent you from being able to read and answer this comment.)

    Now I'll go do some of my business stuff, because this thread has already drifted into the ridiculous. And I'm not going to waste my time on ridiculousness. But then, the Zimmerman threads seem to ALWAYS drift into ridiculousness.

    Parent

    it was not a 911 call (none / 0) (#128)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:29:42 PM EST
    It was a call to the non-emergency number of the police. It was just what the homeowner's association told residents to do: Call and report anyone suspicious.

    You are omitting that when the dispatcher said to GZ, "We don't need you to do that", George's response was "Okay."  And according to GZ, he did not follow Trayvon after that, he walked through to the end of end of the T to get an address (house number on Retreat View Circle) and then began walking back to his car. He says as he was walking back to his car, Trayvon jumped out and confronted him.

    No witness has reported seeing something different.

    If you feel the Zimmerman threads are ridiculous, please scroll on by.

    Parent

    They certainly are ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by shoephone on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:38:50 PM EST
    and I have absolutely no problem scrolling by them. It's what I've done for almost all of them. In addition, I took a two-month break from this blog last year when the Zimmerman threads started pulling in the stand-your-ground gun zealots. The policy for deleting certain comments but not others on the GZ threads has been inconsistent, and questionable at best.

    It will be easy to take a break from the silliness here once more. Have a nice summer, y'all.


    Parent

    Here is the part of the (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 06:21:51 PM EST
    Feb. 2012 Twin Lakes Newsletter telling residents to report suspicious activity to the non-emergency number. (I highlighted that part, the original is here.)

    Parent
    Your comment about (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:40:44 PM EST
    "gun in hand" has been deleted. That is grossly unsupported claim.

    Parent
    But, this is allowed (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by NYShooter on Wed May 29, 2013 at 06:00:35 PM EST
    "So far, almost all of what GZ said has been true. GZ began interviews immediately after the shooting. Conversely, W8 waited 2 weeks - and with a lawyer. She lied. Now it's clear there were other lies as well. Finally, almost every talking point in Martin's defense has been proven false."

    Emphasis mine

    That's my comment for the day.


    Parent

    What is not true? (none / 0) (#174)
    by MikeB on Thu May 30, 2013 at 07:18:35 PM EST
    Almost everything Zimmerman said was true. The things he did not get correctly was because of not having a perfect memory - especially while being freaked out. But nothing he said contradicted any available evidence. It all lines up. Again, he did this without a lawyer and he did so immediately. Further he passed the voice stress tests (which I will be the first to admit, I don't know the validity of this either). As far as DeeDee, she lied about not going to the funeral because she was in the hospital. That was not true. She also lied about her age. Further, she did not come out of the woodwork for 2 weeks and when she did, she did it through a lawyer - not the police. If the tables were turned and we were defending TM killing GZ during the struggle, you may have the same problem(s) with this. I wait to be corrected,

    Parent
    Sorry... you missundertood my comment (none / 0) (#141)
    by gbrbsb on Wed May 29, 2013 at 07:31:13 PM EST
    I absolutely agreed with the core of your post about what the NEN said (which is why I started my reply with "Yes,...") and I am sorry if I offended you. I had my first comment deleted today for "falsely portraying the evidence", which I did not think I had done, so I was trying to write on tiptoe, so to speak, to not see another go the same way.

    I feel the same as you, i.e. when a NEN operator says "Ok, we don't need you to do that" IMO it is much more imperative than some here appear to opine, and indeed GZ certainly appears to have thought the same as you and I because, as I noted in my reply, he immediately assents "Ok".

    I questioned your added "really" because IMO, and IMBW, and it certainly wasn't to have a go at you as we appear to think the same, because by adding it I felt you weakened the force with which the op had said it, leaving it less of an imperative, when even if not an "order" it was, IMO, tantamount to one, or at least the nearest a NEN op can get to one seeing that, iirc, they are without official authority.    


    Parent

    The Question I Always Ask Here Is: (none / 0) (#173)
    by RickyJim on Thu May 30, 2013 at 05:29:30 PM EST
    If the dispatcher had said nothing, what would GZ have done differently?  If he testifies ata his trial (a very foolish move IMHO) we may find out.  Some people think he would have headed down the path between the houses instead of going forward to Retreat View Circle.  However, he didn't have an adequate working flashlight and there is testimony from several sources that visibility was extremely poor there.  I could keep Zimmerman on the stand all day questioning his decision to get out of the car and not return 15-20 seconds later when he said OK. Right now, it seems inconceivable to me that the defense would give the prosecution that opportunity.

    Parent
    zimmerman (none / 0) (#130)
    by morphic on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:39:07 PM EST
       There were actually 3 neighborhood watch captains in that complex. That's their job, to keep an eye on the neighborhood. Besides, Zimmerman was on the way to the store. The dispatcher suggesterd Zimmerman not follow Trayvon AFTER Zimmerman was already out of his vehicle. He never stated Zimmerman shouldn't get out of his vehicle, or to return to it,just not to follow Trayvon. .

    I hope I can say this without it being deleted (none / 0) (#132)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Wed May 29, 2013 at 05:58:14 PM EST
    Is it the case that if I am in my neighborhood and see someone alone and there are no eye witnesses other than the two of us, that I can shoot the other person (who is unarmed) and kill them and unless there is some type of evidence to suggest otherwise, that I can say I was attacked and get off free under a self defense assertion.

    I haven't thought about the various framing, burdens of proof, etc. on this case in some time, but that is the one thing that stands out to me based on reading this post.

    One thing to keep in mind:

    The justification to use self defense is not available to a person who initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself.

    It seems odd that people are ignoring this very clear standard in making very definitive statements about what a jury is likely to do based on the evidence we have now.  In addition, the jury will evaluate Zimmerman's credibility and the incentives he has to be dishonest.

    no that's false (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 07:11:48 PM EST
    and I will delete it. The person who provokes the use of force (referred to as the aggressor) can raise self-defense  under Florida law.

    The aggressor statute in Florida, § 776.041, allows the aggressor to respond with deadly force to the victim's use of force against him, if:

    ((2) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

    The first subsection of the statute applies only to someone who is charged with another felony. You can read here for more case law on this.

    I do not want false statements of the law spread around the internet under this blog's name. Which means your comment will be deleted.

    And if you pose a hypothetical, please try to make it fit the disclosed evidence. For example, your hypothetical supposes no other evidence to support the word of the accused he was attacked. In this case, there are physical injuries and the state conceded at one of the bail hearings that Martin struck Zimmerman. The photos of the injuries speak for themselves and will be admitted into evidence. Also here. Witness 13 took the back of the head photo at 7:19 pm. The medic's report states his injuries were consistent with being hit by a blunt or thrown object.

    If you cannot make a comment that does not contain false information, you should refrain from commenting.


    Parent

    I meant to also include (none / 0) (#139)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 29, 2013 at 07:15:56 PM EST
    this photo, taken by a police officer at the scene.

    Parent
    I can't remember which, and sorry to trouble, (none / 0) (#142)
    by gbrbsb on Wed May 29, 2013 at 07:47:14 PM EST
    but at the bail hearing did the State concede "TM struck GZ", or that TM may have struck GZ ?

    Parent
    Sort of Paraphrasing (none / 0) (#144)
    by DebFrmHell on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:40:14 PM EST
    BDLR:  At some point Martin did strike/hit Zimmerman.

    He never could say that Zimmerman had struck Martin because there was no evidence to support that statement.

    Parent

    Thanks, I think I get it (none / 0) (#145)
    by gbrbsb on Wed May 29, 2013 at 08:57:36 PM EST
    but was BDLR referring to TM hitting GZ at any time during the altercation or the initial punch ? In any case think I may re-visit the hearing so would you happen to know which and/or have a link ?

    Parent
    Actually Jeralyn (none / 0) (#161)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:55:31 AM EST
    I am aware of the jury instructions as to the forcible felony requirement, but there are a number of arguments I have read regarding the interplay of the first section of the statute and other portions of the self defense statute that indicate that the net result in this situation would be a modified jury instruction that takes into account the unique circumstances of this case.  But I felt no need to get into all of the intricacies in a brief post generally talking about things from a 1,000 feet.

    But I will endeavor to challenge your assertions with full legal support from now on.  

    I will start with the very post that you reference wherein it starts with the "objective" statement "The Aggressor Statute: Why Zimmerman is not the Aggressor, But If He Was, He Could Still Use Deadly Force" and goes on to discuss the ways in which Trayvon could have interpreted Zimmerman to be an aggressor but dismiss the notion without further comment.

    In fact, a jury may well find that the accumulated evidence is enough to show that Trayvon or any other reasonable person could have feared imminent bodily attack. They may also find that Zimmerman had lesser means (particularly if the cries of help are deemed to come from Trayvon).

    Your statement that "Zimmerman was not the aggressor" is a matter for the jury however your statement asserts it as if it is uncontestable.

    I look forward to challenging and forcing you to explain some of your statements on the case in more detail.  I have looked at the trial from the emotional position of a black man with kids who sees fairly clearly what happened here, but I think it is important for defense leaning legal pundits to be challenged more directly on their own turf.

    I will do so within the rules that you have provided.

    Parent

    This is why... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MikeB on Thu May 30, 2013 at 02:17:29 AM EST
    ...your posts get deleted. What you say is NOT true. Under Florida law, you can use deadly force to protect yourself even if you started it. This is the reason GZ was never originally charged. There is NO evidence to suggest GZ was not defending himself from a person on top of him causing fear for his life. Im sorry this runs counter to everything you feel, but these are facts supported by witness and physical evidence. If Trayvon Martin sucker punched GZ as claimed, but GZ got on top TM, and Martin killed GZ, my stance would not change. This is a tragedy made worse by people misrepresenting the facts of this case for some type of gain. To her credit, Jeralyn - a nationally well respected attorney - is not allowing it here.

    Parent
    This is not correct (none / 0) (#162)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:57:28 AM EST
    There is evidence to indicate that Zimmerman was not defending himself and was the aggressor in this scenario.

    Parent
    I would love to see it... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by MikeB on Thu May 30, 2013 at 11:38:05 AM EST
    ...please provide a source for that information. It is very important and I would like to see ALL evidence. The key word being, "evidence".

    Parent
    Evidence vs. Inference (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by cboldt on Thu May 30, 2013 at 01:11:19 PM EST
    I think the evidence being used is that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and walked on the sidewalk.  Combined with his earlier and admitted viewing of Martin in a suspicious light, and an inference of something in the nature of malice from "they always get away" is used to infer Zimmerman in an aggressive frame of mind, and Martin in a frightened state of mind.  So, when the two of them get close together (you are left to infer that it was Zimmerman's decision that this happen), Martin took that combination as a threat to use force.

    I don't think that cuts the mustard as far as finding aggression or provocation on Zimmerman's part; not even if you add in Witness 8's proffered testimony.  It is certainly not direct evidence that Zimmerman threatened or used force, and reaching the conclusion (or finding) requires conjecture and inference.

    The same evidence can be used to cut the other way.  Martin spoke first; Martin had time to stay out of Zimmerman's view; a person inclined to threaten or use unlawful force is not likely to call the police in advance; etc.

    Parent

    Isn't that (none / 0) (#165)
    by jbindc on Thu May 30, 2013 at 12:03:45 PM EST
    the crux of the case?

    Parent
    If you were talking to NEN (3.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Jack203 on Wed May 29, 2013 at 06:54:20 PM EST
    2 minutes before, and are beat up badly, and were screaming for help for 45 seconds.

    Yes you almost certainly would not be charged.

    This is not about race no matter how much you want it to be.  It's about self defense and common sense.

    Parent

    ABG didn't mention race in his comment. (2.33 / 3) (#137)
    by Angel on Wed May 29, 2013 at 07:11:34 PM EST
    Your chastising him is totally uncalled for.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cylinder on Wed May 29, 2013 at 07:25:18 PM EST
    Is it the case that if I am in my neighborhood and see someone alone and there are no eye witnesses other than the two of us, that I can shoot the other person (who is unarmed) and kill them and unless there is some type of evidence to suggest otherwise, that I can say I was attacked and get off free under a self defense assertion.

    As a layperson, I think the answer is clearly yes.

    You can also skip self defense and get off free under an assertion of innocence as long as there's not sufficient evidence to dispute that claim.

    All that establishes is that the burden of proof lays with the government in its claim of criminal misconduct.

    Parent

    your hypothesis has some discrepancies (none / 0) (#150)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 30, 2013 at 02:58:05 AM EST
    as it relates to Zimmermann

    => In the Zimmermann case there were eye witnesses to GZ's beating

    => In the Zimmermann case, GZ's battered head is evidence of the attack

    => In the Zimmermann case, GZ is on trial for 2nd degree murder even though GZ claimed self defense

    And as others have pointed out, Florida's 776.041 Use of force by aggressor is not what you have claimed.

    Parent

    zimmerman (none / 0) (#172)
    by morphic on Thu May 30, 2013 at 04:40:02 PM EST
       Will someone try and explain how the prosecutor will claim that Trayvon  even had a reason to take off, while George is sitting in his parked truck, talking on the phone? I personally wouldn't have been the least bit frightened if a vehicle had followed me for a short distance, unproven in this instance, and than pulled over to the side of the road to talk on the phone. Why would anyone?

    Wouldn't that be DD's testimony ? (none / 0) (#181)
    by gbrbsb on Fri May 31, 2013 at 07:44:40 AM EST
    Or will that part of her testimony be barred for some legal rules?

    If allowed, and I haven't heard it will not be, DD explains how TM had seen someone following in his car. IMO if I were walking in the dark on a quiet evening in a quiet community with little lighting that would certainly cause me to at very least enter into "worried" mode, and if the following continued with the car occupant not calling anything out, like, "do you know the way to..." panic and "take off" mode would certainly set in.

    And it will be for the jury to determine whether they believe DD and, if relevant, whether in the circumstances it was "reasonable" for TM to be worried/scared/panicked and enter into flight mode, just as they will also have to determine whether it was "reasonable" for GZ to be in fear of his life and shoot TM.

    Parent

    I can see someone being worried about (none / 0) (#182)
    by leftwig on Fri May 31, 2013 at 09:26:54 AM EST
    someone following them in a car in an area they are unfamiliar with.  If I were worried enough to take off and had run far enough in the direction of my home to be near it and out of site of the individual I had run from, my next step 99.9% of the time would be to go inside.  If I was so fearful of the man that I didn't want to lead him to that house, I wouldn't have run in the direction of my house in the first place, but my next step would have been to call 911 and the last thing I would have done is head back to the location of where I last ran from.

    IMO, you never know how you will react until (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by gbrbsb on Fri May 31, 2013 at 02:09:28 PM EST
    until you are in that situation.

    And there are other possibilities, e.g., TM may have got lost in his rush to get away, considering how all the streets and houses look the same, and it was dark and he was not a regular to the area. Or maybe he just wanted to finish talking to DD before going inside where his half brother could hear ? Or maybe, as DD claims, TM thought he had lost GZ by taking a pedestrian path ?

    Certainly I am pretty sure that if I was walking home at night in a quiet community and I realised someone was watching me and following me in a car, without asking me if I knew such and such address or something, and I then took a pedestrian path to lose them, and believing myself "safe", a minute or two later while I dilly dallied along in my own sweet way chatting and flirting with my friend I realised the same person was now on foot behind me "going in the same direction" I was, which as Serino commented with a wry laugh, "that's following!", I would have at least been extremely worried if not scared.

    And it's not as if you can even knock on a door to ask for help or ask the way over in the US, without risking getting shot dead, as a 19 year-old Japanese student on his way with a friend to a Halloween party sadly found out only a few years ago!

     

    Parent

    so if you were (or TM was) (none / 0) (#187)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 10:55:29 AM EST
    extremely worried or scared why not lose GZ a second time?

    There was no need to knock on a door. Many of the neighbors had open windows...shouting for help would have foiled the "followers" plans

    Parent

    Hind sight is 20/20 vision... (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by gbrbsb on Sun Jun 02, 2013 at 04:58:21 PM EST
    He was a teen not an experienced streetwise 30 year old. IMO you cannot expect the same logical cold thinking as that of a mature adult, otherwise why are 17 year olds not allowed the vote? And why if a 27 year old has sex with a 17 year old is it called rape... or is that just in the UK?

    Parent
    zimmerman (none / 0) (#192)
    by morphic on Thu Jun 06, 2013 at 07:55:11 PM EST
       DD's excuse for not calling 911 was it just a fight, which makes no sense, considering her dramatic (alleged) reenactment.

    Parent
    George Zimmerman Hearing | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment