The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

That doesn't matter. If someone knocked me down and started pounding my head into pavement, I would definitely be angry, as well as afraid for my life, but that would not negate my right to self defense.

I agree by the letter of the law Zimmerman was in the right, but once again he entered in the conflict knowing only he had a gun. So he gets in to a fight knowing that at anytime he can pull his gun and end it. We he did end it, but I would not be quick to say he did it out of fear for his life as much as being pissed off he was getting his butt kicked.

Having a gun doesn't mean he intentionally entered a fight. Carrying a gun for self defense also does NOT make one a murderer when they are forced to use that gun to defend themselves. It makes them alive, ans shows they were correct for believing they needed it. He was watching yet another suspicious person. In the past, ALL of these fled. It's more than reasonable to assume that this one would flee as well. As was already pointed out, if he believed this, he would have assumed there would be no confrontation, and that yet another suspicious person would get away. The person that started the fight is the one that was never struck, that sucker punched a man for observing him, that was experienced in fighting, that made actual racist comments towards the REAL victim, and that made the mistake of attacking an armed victim.

Plus, EVERYONE hearing the screams on the 911 call believes that those were the calls of someone in desperate trouble, someone in fear for his life. The guy on top, beating the other guy, would have had no such fear. That guy on top has been positively identified, more than once, as Martin. The screams stopped as the shot was fired, because then no more help was needed. That Zimmerman did NOT immediately pull the gun, even after having his nose smashed, and after more blows, and having his head pounded, shows that he was NOT willing to use that step, unless he had no other option. He cried for help, and help didn't come in time. ONE person tried (the husband of one witness), but wasn't able to get out there before the shot. When martin saw the gun, and went for it, Zimmerman no longer had any option but to grab it himself and shoot, or to allow himself to be shot with his own gun. Self defense doesn't get any clearer than this. He didn't start the fight. He isn't guilty because he was trying to report possible criminal activity in his neighborhood, which was plagued by burglaries and even a home invasion. Plus, please note this. Testimony showed that there was a known issue (known to RESIDENTS) with the sliding glass doors, making them easy to get through. So, someone staying, from time to time, in one residence, would KNOW this. This shows that Martin would have had knowledge that would have allowed him to break in to another residence, if he chose to. Every witness, every piece of evidence, supports the defense. The state has failed to provide any evidence of even manslaughter, much less murder. All the bias from the judge, all the probable tampering by the state (like, for example, a formerly very hostile witness appearing both coached and DRUGGED the next day, leading questions allowed by the judge, treating some of their own witnesses as though they were defense witnesses, etc.), all the evidence concealed from the defense, and the state still failed. If there is ANY justice left in this nation, Zimmerman will walk.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by TKDRL

 

I never said he had to prove his innocence, I said he had to provide an affirmative defence that wasn't full of lies, if he wanted to avoid being charged.

Be sure, if you are ever called for jury duty, to repeat this to the lawyers. That is NOT what the law states, and is not how the legal process works in this nation. The defense doesn't have to prove a thing. How many times must this be pointed out?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by howmuch4another

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
The state didn't have to prove exactly what did happen, they just hadto prove that it didn't happen like George said. There's plenty of proof of that among the evidence the jury has to hand.

edit on 11-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

If you are an American you are providing evidence of our failed education system as your statement could not be any more juxtaposed to the actual rule of law in our country.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

He's from the UK I do believe.

well that's redeeming..thanks. exactly why I don't comment on other countries laws or court proceedings.

reply to post by caladonea


Third degree isn't on the table. Only murder and manslaughter.

I watched the closing argument by the prosecution today. There was a lot of talk about this or that leading up to the event but. And it's a BIG BUT.

1. No matter how the two got into a scuffle, the state failed to prove it was intentional and was not self defense.

A. Travon martin was on top when shot.

B. George Zimmerman had cuts, head injuries, and a bloody nose.


2. The screams for help.

A. Prosecution fails to explain why Trayvon, being on top and beating George Zimmerman would be screaming for help.

B. Prosecution fails to explain witness testimony claiming the "one of the bottom" was screaming for help.

3. The story of George Zimmerman as it relates to the beating and death of trayvon stays consistent.



As for Manslaughter.

1. If the jury finds for the defendant that it was self defense, the second lesser charge is void.

2. If the jury is at at impasse on the first charge but considers the second charge:

A. The state has failed to prove that George Zimmerman was not in fear of his life.

B. That George Zimmerman had the ability to remove, escape, or flee his attacker.

The state has not addressed the law known as the "Stand Your Ground" law.


My judgement is that the defendant George Zimmerman did in fact follow the deceased Travon Martin. That even though he may or may have not followed him up to the point of being face to face with him. This court finds that the defendant could reasonably believe his life to be in danger of severe injury or death.

This court finds the defendant George Zimmerman not guilty of the first charge of 2cd degree murder and the second charge of manslaughter.

reply to post by caladonea


The only 2 options they have is 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.

I think the jury might go for manslaughter, but there is just not proof enough for murder 2.

I have no thoughts on Zimmerman. I've never watched any interviews, don't really care to. Besides, how could someone that did not already know him form a fair opinion of him by tv clips after such an event.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
The state didn't have to prove exactly what did happen, they just hadto prove that it didn't happen like George said.

No. The state has to prove that Zimmerman committed murder 2. That means they sure do have to prove what happened. And they didn't put forth any story .. believable or not ... as to what happened.

All they did was stand there and point at Zimmerman and say .. it didn't happen like he said. We don't know what happened. But it wasn't like he said.

That's not a murder 2 case. That's not manslaughter either.

Prosecution has done a poor job to establish any basis.

Just prattling on.

I think the defense will be able to effectively make the right kind of connections.

reply to post by caladonea


I don't think third degree is being considered. So he is only pushing for second degree which there is no chance of.

reply to post by jam321


Defence: If the black kid didn't run, acquit the guy with the gun.

Prosecution: Science don't lie, make George Zimmerman cry.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco


See this is what I mean. This absolute certainty that the gun can solve this kind of problem in your favour. It reads like a powerless person fetishising a means to have some kind of control, any kind. Guns make you feel big and strong and warm in a frightening world, sure, (and perhaps that's what George felt, a little, as he puffed out of his truck) but they also inadvertently make that world much more fearsome.

Once the criminals know you are armed they tool up as well. And acting macho isn't going to so you much good when someone shoots you in the back. Far from making this sort of thing less likely, the Martin case is going to make real thugs more likely to kill you.

Gun control is not what in question though.

The court case is did Zimmerman Defend himself lawfully or not.


If you have a problem with guns and want gun control then its for s diffrent debate.

Fact his the Z man had a legal permit to carry a firearm.

Originally posted by howmuch4another

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by howmuch4another

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
The state didn't have to prove exactly what did happen, they just hadto prove that it didn't happen like George said. There's plenty of proof of that among the evidence the jury has to hand.

edit on 11-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

If you are an American you are providing evidence of our failed education system as your statement could not be any more juxtaposed to the actual rule of law in our country.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

He's from the UK I do believe.

well that's redeeming..thanks. exactly why I don't comment on other countries laws or court proceedings.

Neither do I, but I presume in the UK the burden of proof is on the prosecution as well. I think Ivan likely lives under a bridge somewhere there.

reply to post by FlyersFan

As Assistant State Attorney Richard Mantei said yesterday, the use of deadly force in self-defense is unlawful unless the defendant reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering serious injury when he used deadly force. The reasonableness requirement means that the defendant’s conduct must be evaluated objectively by comparing his conduct to the conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation. The jury of 6 women, 5 of whom are mothers, will decide whether the defendant acted reasonably.

frederickleatherman.com...

I've found some very informative discussion on the blog linked above. If you haven't already, I'd recommend you check it out.

Originally posted by jam321
We need to find some catchy saying like the OJ case.

If the prosecution puts on witnesses for the defense, then you must acquit.

Peace

"If on the dummy he sits, you must aquit"

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by jam321

 

Defence: If the black kid didn't run, acquit the guy with the gun.

Prosecution: Science don't lie, make George Zimmerman cry.

The first one is very clever.
Second one not so much, but admittedly, in your defense, you didn't have much to work with since they didn't have a case. Also the science supports the defense.

I tend to believe this guy....



compared to this....

Corey, who made a striking impression with an in-command performance that laid claim to the moral high ground, said she would pursue "the search for justice for Trayvon," and bristled at the suggestion that it had taken an extraordinarily long time to charge Zimmerman. "Remember, the prosecutor's burden is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, " she said. "Those of us in law enforcement are committed to justice for every race, every gender ... We only know one category, it's a V ... for victim." The Department of Justice is conducting a separate investigation, and Corey said that state and federal officials are sharing information as needed.
Details will have to come out in "an excruciating manner," she continued, for justice to be served. "It is Travyon's family who are our constitutional victims," she said. Earlier on Wednesday, she told the assembled press that the first thing she had done upon meeting his family was to pray with them.

Link

No bias there.....nope. uh uh.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco


You have no way of knowing Martin's intent,

Nor did Zimmerman.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco
he may have got a bad head injury, he may have died - but I reiterate MARTIN IS DEAD. We know about this - it happened. In the other scenario a range of things - as you admit - are possible, and they include NOBODY IS DEAD.

So if someone starts beating the crap out of me I should let it happend and not use all means nessary to defend myself and hope they stop before they kill me?

reply to post by crazyewok


I'd say gun control was a primary issue. Taking Zimmerman's word as fact, because George couldn't defend himself without a gun - despite 100 hrs minimum grappling training - if he hadn't got real lucky and had an attacker who gave up a perfectly good advantage to grab a gun he didn't allegedly need, George would have lost control of his weapon and Trayvon would have that gun he'd been after.

reply to post by howmuch4another


Oh yeah.. this thing actually goes pretty deep. There are documents showing that the dept of justice funded "justice for trayvon" gatherings. That's pretty bad.

Also Corey was up for re-election so she was benefitting by falsifying the arrest warrant and charging Zimmerman.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by crazyewok

 

I'd say gun control was a primary issue. Taking Zimmerman's word as fact, because George couldn't defend himself without a gun - despite 100 hrs minimum grappling training - if he hadn't got real lucky and had an attacker who gave up a perfectly good advantage to grab a gun he didn't allegedly need, George would have lost control of his weapon and Trayvon would have that gun he'd been after.

Well he never actually grappled with a partner, but I wouldn't consider that self defense training anyway.