The Zimmerman trial is a farce. He's going to walk and Rachel is going to look like the criminal.

[kelliekat44]

The prosecutors have not done a good job in my opinion. There were plenty of places to object to what the defense was doing trying to put words in Rachel's mouth and make the jury believe that she actually said something she did not say.

The wounds in the pictures of Zimmerman look like they were from some object and not from a fist fight with the person he was following. Skittles must be a dangerous weapon. I would not put it past the police and Zimmerman staging these wounds...it's been done before. OK, i watch too much TV like the The First 48.

[DesertFlower]

1. at some point trayvon may have tried

to defend himself by hitting zimmerman's head on the concrete. they could have rolled around for a few minutes, but it's trayvon who's dead from a gunshot. who had the gun? who did the stalking? zimmerman was told not to pursue trayvon.

[backscatter712]

19. That's doubtful. Zimmerman's DNA was not on Travon's skin.

There'd be bits of Zim's skin & whatnot on Trayvon's body if they'd been in a serious physical scuffle.

[DesertFlower]

21. so how did zimmerman get the bloody nose

and scrapes on the back of his head? could he have done it to himself to make it look like he was defending himself?

[uponit7771]

51. a bloody gun which is where Z's blood is

[Bluenorthwest]

2. For what it's worth I simply do not agree with your assesment nor the general 'what the

jury is thinking because we are psychic' posts. I just don't. I do not think the girl looked bad to the jury, I think defense looks bad.
I offer nothing but the fact that this is what I think. But it is what I think. She is respectful, he is not. Cursive does not mean shit. Dictation is a common form of authorship. The jury is not made of idiots. The defense in any case will defend. Unrelentingly. The jury knows this.
In my opinion, the jury empathizes and relates to Rachel, does not care for the defense attorney's manner toward her and that's what I think.

[kelliekat44]

10. Your right to disagree. My right to my opinon. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Of course. Did I imply otherwise? No I did not, you just snarked anyway.

You ave a dim view of the witness and of the jury. It is based on nothing, just as my opinion is based on not much. I do not leap to conclusions, as you do.

[elehhhhna]

3. the trial is over, then?

[arely staircase]

4. i guess we are watching a different trial

nt

[H2O Man]

5. THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!!!!!!!!

cluck-cluck-cluck-cluck

[REP]

9. My chickens are smarter than the post to which you are responding.

[yardwork]

12. Are those your chickens?

Beautiful!

[REP]

14. Yes - Chick Jagger and Buff Naked

Thanks!

[CrispyQ]

31. They are beautiful!

I would love to get chickens. I remember having them as a little girl. Delightful creatures! We had ducks, too, although they are not as curious & social as chickens.

[REP]

38. Thanks!

We had ducks when I was a kid; any time my mother spotted an injured duck at the park, she'd bring him (or her) home and the duck would live with us until he (or she) recovered, and would then be returned to the park. Lots of duck poo in our backyard for a while.

[Bjorn Against]

6. I bet the defense attorney really pissed off the jury

I listened to the questioning and he asked the same damn questions over and over again, the judge actually had to tell him to stop repeatedly asking the same question, he would then move on to repeatedly asking a different question over and over again, this went on for hours.

Think about this from the jury's perspective. They are being completely dragged away from their home for weeks, they can't work and jury duty pay sucks so they suffer financial hardship, they can't talk to anyone, can't spend time with their families, and then they watch an asshole ask the same damn questions over and over again to someone who tragically lost her friend and is clearly uncomfortable. If the jury feels this guy is intentionally wasting their time as he clearly is they will not like it.

As far as the prosecutors go I think they are putting on a much better show, they have been far more concise and do a much better job of presenting interesting evidence. And contrary to what you said they have objected on quite a few occassions, the objections seem to have been sustained more often than not, but they are not always sustained and that is why the questioning was allowed to continue.

[HiddenAgenda63]

32. I am at a loss as to what a jury could possibly think of all this.

There is so much extraneous muck being raked up and so many conflicting accounts.

I try to go by the looks on the faces of the general audience at the trial, but the only people I can see that display any emotion of any kind are the Martins.

The prosecution seems more direct and concise in their questioning than the defense, who seem to have a restatement and obfuscatory strategy. Could the prosecution be attempting to get the basics known, then lying in wait in order to recall witnesses to rebut defense mistakes?

[davidn3600]

49. That's what good defense attorneys always do

This is not unusual... Usually the prosecution tends to be much more professional and methodical. Defense attorneys many times act goofy and try to divert attention. That's what's they do.

But you have to understand that juries don't base their verdicts on the behavior of the lawyers. Lawyers are not trial here.

What they do pay attention to is the credibility of a witness. And Im sorry, but Rachel was not a very credible witness. She DID change her story and her words around. Her demeanor would not be considered cute by a mostly-white jury. So if you are a juror, you have to be sitting there thinking..."OK, what version of this girl's story am I supposed to believe?"

[Bjorn Against]

52. Her basic story did not change

The only points that changed were her age and her reason for not attending a funeral, a white lie told by someone under extreme emotional distress is forgivable. Her story about the conversation on the phone has been consistent.

[AFJROTCcadetEcho]

7. joke

This trial is the biggest joke in history.

[arcane1]

8. "The biggest joke in history?" How so? That's a lot of jokes to choose from!

[bravenak]

34. That would be Bush.

The biggest joke I mean.

[noiretextatique]

56. and you just signed on here to make this statement? very credible

[Recursion]

11. Maybe people shouldn't have pressured the DA to bring charges before he was ready

[yardwork]

13. Maybe the DA is doing just fine.

I can't watch the trial. I'm reading news reports. So far the case against Zimmerman looks strong.

Real life is not a TV drama. Real people aren't always poised and polished. I don't think jurors expect them to be.

[kudzu22]

16. I've been watching some of it, and it's not going well for the prosecution

So far none of the state's witnesses have contradicted Zim's account of the events of that night. The prosecutor even has to impeach the credibility of his own witnesses because they've been helping the defense so much. That's not a good place to be as a prosecutor. Reasonable doubt will be a cake walk.

For the record, I do think Zim is at least partly at fault in Martin's death, but there is no way he'll be convicted of murder. Not with the weak case the state has.

[hack89]

17. When prosecution witnesses confirm Zimmerman's account then it is not a strong case.

that has happened at least twice.

[noiretextatique]

18. in spite of the the desperate attempts by some to alter reality

his story has beeb totally discredited by the witnesses. his story simply does not add up.

[yardwork]

20. It never did.

even if Martin tried to defend himself, he was covered by Stand Your Ground.

So what if Martin hit Zimmerman after being chased by him? That was Martin's right by FL law.

And I'm not convinced that Martin hit Zimmerman anyway.

[gejohnston]

22. Stand Your Ground only means no legal requirement to retreat

Last edited Sat Jun 29, 2013, 01:51 PM - Edit history (1)

even in duty to retreat laws, if they exist. Even then, you are only expected to retreat if you think you safely can. Most places that don't have SYG is actually based on common law like California and Wyoming.
That said, the State has to prove it. So far, they are not. Following someone doesn't make them a threat under the "reasonable person standard" which these laws are based. If Zim swung first or pulled the gun, then you would be correct. There is no evidence of that so far.
I am convinced Martin hit Zimmerman.
direct examination by the State

cross by Defense

#at=504

[yardwork]

23. Zimmerman was following Martin with a gun. His own words recorded on the 911 tape document that.

If Martin hit Zimmerman it was in self defense. Zimmerman's injuries are so minor they didn't require attention from the EMTs on the scene. That did not give Zimmerman the right to pull out a gun and shoot Martin dead.

[gejohnston]

24. only if Zimmerman had the gun in his hand.

Otherwise, no. Following is not a threat nor is it justification to use any force and there was no way of Martin knowing of a concealed gun. Even if the gun were open and in a holster, illegal in Florida for the most part, that would not meet the reasonable person standard of a threat, especially in a place where police detectives open carry.
I drive my pick up truck in a gated community their security notices me and follows me. I punch one out, I'm going to jail and I'm white.
I have to go with what Mr. Hood and other witnesses described. The place where it happened shows Martin lied to his friend on the phone.

Zimmerman's injuries are so minor they didn't require attention from the EMTs on the scene.

EMTs testified they did treat on the scene. They did clean and bandage. If I can find a video of the EMT I'll post it.
The amount of injury is not reverent under Florida law, nor the law of anyplace else I'm aware of. The requirement is reasonable belief. Sorry, someone more muscular and larger than you pounding your head in the sidewalk is reasonable belief. As the PA testified, any injury to the head can lead grave injury or death.
The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense. So far they are failing to do that with their own witnesses.
Since the media created this narrative, they have a vested interest in maintaining it even though the facts at trial say otherwise. It typically happens in trial by media. A more famous example was the Chicago Seven trial. That is why I watch the actual trial and not trusting the media.

[HooptieWagon]

25. Zimmerman was following Martin in a manner that concerned Martin.

Martin expressed his concern to gf. That constitutes stalking. And apparently Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, hence the confrontation/fight. Also illegal. Z committed 2 felonies while armed, even before he shot Martin.
Have a little faith in the jurors. Fl juries have been pretty consistant in not buying the "stand your ground" argument when the shooter is the aggressor.

[dkf]

27. Is that Florida's definition of "stalker" or your own?

You don't get to create your own laws you know.

[gejohnston]

29. not under Florida law

That constitutes stalking. No it doesn't.

And apparently Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, hence the confrontation/fight. Also illegal.

Who said that? Where was the evidence? Or is it something that Ben Crump said? Media speculation? Apparently doesn't mean anything.
What matters is what the witnesses say and the evidence shows. None of that came out in court so far.
True Florida juries have been fairly good at that.

Judging from the way the Prosecution witnesses back up defense claims, the ASA having to impeach his own witnesses on re direct this is obviously a politically motivated show trial. Had Zimmerman been black, he would be free. If Martin been white, Zimmerman would be free. If the Martin family hadn't hired ambulance chaser Ben Crump as a PR hack, there would be no trial. That is how it is beginning to look. I have no emotional or ideological investment in this either way. If the weight of the evidence changes, my opinion will change.
I'm old enough to remember other cases of the media just making stuff up.

[shadowrider]

37. It's looking that way to me too. I sure as hell hope Florida isn't prosecuting this

simply due to media and political pressure. So far the state witnesses are doing an excellent job for the defense.

My opinion, yours may differ.

[gejohnston]

39. It is due to media and political pressure

that is why Scott picked Angela Corey for the job, a SA that routinely overcharges and other questionable acts. Remember the lady that got 20 years for firing a warning shot in her house? That was Corey's case.

I agree, they are.

[HooptieWagon]

40. Zimmerman admits he was following Martin.

Its on the emergency calls. Its reasonable to deduce he was following him for the purpose of detaining him. He certainly wasn't chasing him for the purpose of discussing the weather. And at some point, they came face to face. Its likewise logical that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin, because that was his goal in the first place. Z is not police, he has no legal authority to detain Martin. Martin is within his rights to resist being detained.

[gejohnston]

44. no one is disputing he was

Following Martin until told "don't need to do that". The State must prove not deduce. Speculation is not proof. You may be correct but it must be proven with evidence.

[MillennialDem]

46. Chasing someone for 4-5 minutes... running.... then yelling at them who are you what are you

doing here IMHO does meet the reasonable standard.

At 7:11pm Zimmerman states Martin is running (after Zimmerman followed him in his truck talking about a suspicious person). We can surmise that Trayvon thought Zimmerman was a weirdo staring at him / following him. At the same time, Zimmerman gets out of his car and starts chasing Martin.

At 7:16pm Trayvon's call goes dead and reports of a fight break out. Right before 7:17, the fatal shot is fired.

Now, if someone is walking down the street behind you, that is not reasonable to self defense. If you are both jogging, that is not reasonable.

If someone stares at you from their vehicle and you start to RUN and they RUN after you for FIVE MINUTES and when they catch up to you / cut you off, IMHO that is reasonable to assume they mean you harm. Correctly or incorrectly.

[gejohnston]

47. not sure, but

that would probably depend on a lot of things. The jury has to hear it first.

According to Zimmerman, he lost track of Martin when told "you don't need to do that." The claim is that Martin doubled back and attacked him, which would not be self defense. I'm sure the DA still has a lot of witnesses to go. The defense hasn't started yet. I haven't seen anything to show who attacked whom first. It may be manslaughter. For example, if Zimmerman started it, and was losing before firing that would be manslaughter. If Zimmerman backed off and Martin counter attacked, then it would be justifiable. The State needs and eyewitness or physical evidence to show how it started.

I haven't seen that in trial yet, watching and listening to live feeds in my office. I love self employment and telecommuting. Raw footage can be found on Youtube. Most of what blogs and MSM claim is bullshit. I knew a guy that was on the Chicago seven jury and noticed the same thing, what happened in court is different what the media claimed.
My pick up truck and "hick" attire attracts attention in these neighborhoods, and I get followed. If I were to punch one of these guys out, I doubt SYG or white privilege would get me off.

[Shivering Jemmy]

33. Your answer is rife with sexism

"Reasonable man standard"


Ask any "reasonable woman" if being followed is threatening.

[gejohnston]

35. that is the historical legal term

and still often used. although reasonable person would be more appropriate. I normally use the word "person" but my age and the hour gave way to history. My bad, no sexism intended and I fixed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

[Just Saying]

26. I think Rachel did fine.

Jurors will see a young woman whose friend was killed. The defense always has to walk a line going after witnesses particularly when they are young and female and in this case the lawyer looked like a jerk.

I also think that genuine emotions shown on the stand-even anger and frustration, can make the witness seem more believable.

[dkf]

28. Maybe they didn't have enough to work with.

[CrispyQ]

30. Didn't Zimmerman decline medical treatment right after the incident? --nt

[shadowrider]

36. He didn't decline medical treatment, he was treated at the scene. He declined a trip to the hospital

n/t

[CrispyQ]

45. Thanks for the clarification. --nt

[uponit7771]

53. He declined to be seen by another medical expert, he wounds were superficial as desbribed by his FP

[Nye Bevan]

41. I haven't watched many trials, but this is by far the worst prosecution case I have ever seen.

If ever a case cried out for a plea-bargain, this is it. I mean, the prosecutors knew how awful their witnesses were going to be. But the politics of the situation dictated a murder charge, so here we are.

[DirkGently]

42. Zimmerman could walk. But Rachel did fine.

West succeeded only in showing he could somewhat rattle a young woman by badgering her. That can backfire. The case may turn out one way, or another way, but Rachel's testimony put Martin in a positive light, and Zimmerman in a bad one.

Don't assume the jury is going to lap up every provocation or insinuation an attorney lays down.

[gejohnston]

50. true, but

in all fairness, the court reporter, and I, had a hard time understanding her much of the time. It seemed more like acoustic problems than badgering. The witness stand microphone malfunctioned several times.
Since Rachel can not read cursive (Florida stopped teaching kids cursive writing) how could she write a not she can't read? Who wrote it and did they follow Rachel's instructions?

[ChiciB1]

43. Been Commenting On This A Lot Since Yesterday...

I simply want to say that this is a travesty and I really feel Zimmerman is not only a racist, but a trigger happy one. Still, he's arguing self defense and a lot of evidence isn't going to be "allowed" to be considered by the jury.

It sickens me, but I'm not feeling the Martin's are going to get much justice for Trayvon. And as I said in another post. Can anyone say Casey Anthony???

[gejohnston]

48. I can say Casey Anthony

trial by media at its worse. This was the State's problem:
couldn't prove time of death, cause of death, or who last saw the child alive. More than enough reasonable doubt. Even if she were convicted, it would have been an automatic reversal because the State was caught not turning over exculpatory evidence. Florida has a lot of faults, but the sunshine laws are not among them.

All of the evidence not being allowed that I know of puts Martin in a negative light. Some of it was deleted from Trayvon's phone before turning it over to the defense, the deleter is facing disciplinary action. One was a video of someone beating the shit out of a homeless man. I would provide the original Miami Herald link, but they don't leave stories up for very long.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/2/1/23854/40798/crimenews/-Age-of-the-Tele-Rat-Trayvon-Martin-s-Missing-Cell-Phone-Data
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2333423/George-Zimmerman-trial-Court-employee-withheld-photos-Trayvon-Martins-phone-lawyer-claims.html

So far, the Prosecution witnesses are turning into defense witnesses to the point where the DA has to impeach them on re direct. At first I felt the same as you, but watching the word for word, I honestly can't buy it anymore.

[longship]

54. With all respect, don't assume you know the jury.

They will rule as they will rule. And unlike them, none of us are sitting in that court room with their task in front of us.

Our biases inevitably creep into these discussions, such as those in your post.

It is normal to be concerned when one wishes for justice to prevail. But don't forget. Justice is blindfolded. These forums are not. Lots of opinion going on here on all sides. Don't be swayed by it if you have convictions. Don't lose faith if things go against that faith.

Best regards. I know of and understand your concern.

[HockeyMom]

55. Overcharge with 2nd degree

in order to plea down to Manslaughter. If they originally charged with the lesser, what could be plea down to?