General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsZIMMERMAN case NOT a Stand Your Ground case
It's a self defense case.
Zimmerman's defense team went with a straight self-defense case that required nothing from the Stand Your Ground law. You could transplant the Zimmerman case to California and it would still be the same, even though we are, thank God, not a Stand Your Ground state.
Zimmerman claims that Trayvon attacked him, went after him with deadly (MMA) force & tried to grab his gun. Under these conditions (if true), Zimmerman would have been in reasonable fear for his life and would have been justified in using deadly force. The job of the prosecution was to prove that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense but with malice aforethought. This is why Zimmerman's state of mind (including his racial attitudes) and Zimmerman's role in the fight (including whether or not he threw the first punch) are so important.
This is, by the way, why Stand Your Ground has not been mentioned during the trial.
Just for the record, I think we are going to get a manslaughter conviction out of this.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
djean111
(14,255 posts)GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts).
djean111
(14,255 posts)I do believe that a lot of people DO wrongly consider this a SYG case.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)A self-defense case is a good deal more cut and dried. Either the shooter was in legitimate fear for his life or he wasn't. Stand Your Ground is a lot murkier.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i hope the prosecution hammered that home wnough, because i believe that's exactly what zimmerman is. he stalked and murdered a child because: he wanted to. end of story.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)I don't own a gun and am no fan of Stand Your Ground. However, it doesn't apply in this case.
Zimmerman may be a self-serving liar. Unfortunately, the prosecution did not get the opportunity to cross examine him.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)because i don't know you 
they did not get a chance to cros-examine him, but they did expose some of his (many) lies.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)
Let's hope the jury was following closely.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)
frazzled
(18,402 posts)I wish they'd get the 2nd degree conviction, but I'd at least be satisfied with manslaughter. It would be better than acquittal or a hung jury.
I just can't see how they can let him off altogether. (Well, if I presume the jury is all crazy-ass-cracker, I suppose I could see that this could happen.)
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)The one piece of evidence of Zimmerman following Trayvon is on the unredacted Zimmerman call to the police (see below). Zimmerman gets out of the car, pursues Trayvon for a short time, is told to stop, and does. Stalking requires more than what is on this tape.
In order for stalking to be proved, there would have to have been stalking during the two minutes between this tape and the first 911 calls to the police during the actual fight. That two minutes, a crucial time period, has no witnesses. Any stalking during that time could not be proved without witnesses.
What they can prove is whether Zimmerman had a legitimate self-defense case or not. Much of this goes to attitude and to who started the fight. That is why Rachel's evidence was so important.
I still think we are getting a manslaughter conviction.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)Proven in the mind of most reasonable people, legal technicalities aside.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)There was not enough evidence of stalking.
You may be absolutely right in your assumption that Zimmerman followed him AFTER the phone call in which he briefly followed Trayvon. But there is NO evidence of it. That's the problem. The court needs evidence.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)Reasonable, thinking, non-NRA propagandist, non-racist people are not swayed by the manipulations within the legal circus.
My conclusion is not required to be manipulated by legal technicalities. I'm a reasonable, thinking, non-NRA propagandist, non-racist, justice-seeking person. As are most here--who, regardless of legal technicalities and maniplations, conclude similarly.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)You can't just go into a court and say "I feel this is a stalking murder" and have no evidence of it. Really, there is no factual evidence.
I don't own a firearm. I am not NRA. I'm only looking at what the prosecution brought into the court room. They had NO evidence of stalking. NONE.
You can say it was a "stalking murder" all you want, but until you have evidence, you have no case.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)Regardless of whether this court can consider it proven.
And, I am fully aware of the legal technicalities and the differences, therein, so you can cut the condescension.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)Fair-minded individuals don't assume someone committed a crime, like stalking, without evidence.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)are technicalities. Facts of the case that do not meet those definitions and thus can not be used in court are still facts, nonetheless.
Go ahead and join the other Zimmie defenders. But, being condescending as a tactic to convince others is not going to work.
Public opinion is NOT bound by legal manipulation and technicalities. That's what YOU can not accept. And that does NOT mean those opinions are not based on FACT, even if those facts are not allowed to be considered in court.
anomiep
(153 posts)If there's no evidence that something happened, claiming it happened should have no basis, in law or in ordinary life.
This isn't, in my mind, about defending Zimmerman. It's entirely possible that Zimmerman, in those minutes, stalked Martin.It's possible that they talked to each other and decided to have a two round MMA fight to settle their differences and then Zimmerman decided to renege. It's possible that Martin sucker punched Zimmerman with no provocation. Lots of things are possible.
Stating that they are possible is reasonable. Claiming that any one of them absolutely had to have happened, without an evidentiary basis, is not, whether the topic is Zimmerman and Martin or anything else.
While I recognize that the collective public opinion is not bound to legal standards, I would suggest to you that when public opinion does not have a basis in fact, it is quite likely for things to go terribly wrong. Consider the claim that it was correct to invade Iraq. "Public Opinion" considered that a correct decision back in 2003. Should we consider 'Public Opinion' to be the be all end all always, or only when it happens to agree with what we want to argue, or never?
I say - go with what can be established by evidence, and "Public Opinion" can do what it wants to do.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)And, yes, after I have repeatedly differentiated between what the public and court can, should and will do with the same set of facts--the difference between legal opinion and public opinion--the fact that you refuse to acknowledge that I am making that differentiation does tell me that you are merely among the determined Zimmie defenders.
While I hope that you don't get to crack the champagne with a full acquittal, I DO realize this to be a very real possibility.
A very tragic one, IMHO
anomiep
(153 posts)what am I to do with your conclusion that I didn't?
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)It has nothing to do with Zimmerman's guilt or innocence. But to continue to accuse him of stalking makes you sound irrational. Those of us who would like to see him convicted are concerned about the actual facts and how that conviction can happen.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)No matter how little you think of what happened and how determined you are to promote Zimmerman and his actions.
Response to hlthe2b (Reply #36)
Post removed
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)Alerting...
On edit, it appears someone beat me to it.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)"My conclusion is not required to be manipulated by legal technicalities. I'm a reasonable, thinking, non-NRA propagandist, non-racist, justice-seeking person. As are most here--who, regardless of legal technicalities and maniplations, conclude similarly."
its all about what you think eh? the next step is punishing outcomes you don't disagree with.
Alert away.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)where vigilantism take root, regardless of ideology's involved.
an idea whipped into hysteria that has the potential to foment action based on what you see on the news is a pretty screwed up worldview. just sayin'
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)vigilantism.
That you equate public opinion that is in disagreement with legal requirements as giving license to lynch or other horrendous vigilante actions is beyond horrendous. I am aghast.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)included prior. He deleted the link to the graphic photo of a KLAN rally.
Rather dishonest action to take, but he knew he'd been alerted on for calling out those who disagreed with him in this manner.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)i have no clue what happened to that pic. wasnt me.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)for vigilante justice? I have NO doubt some here saw it and will weigh in, but in the meantime, I guess we all know what we are dealing with here.
galileoreloaded
(2,571 posts)because that is the most apt reference to deluded vigilante justice that follows groupthink, a position YOU advocate, that I could come up with.
your statement was reactionary, NOT progressive, and claims superior judgement than a jury of peers. YOU have a real issue to advocate either the half measure of mob justice, and by default, its logical conclusion..
clear enough?
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)Since you are so good at making parts of your posts disappear, whether by deleting the hosted source of your photo or whatever means you used, I will document this post before you edit:
View profile
because that is the most apt reference to deluded vigilante justice that follows groupthink, a position YOU advocate, that I could come up with.
your statement was reactionary, NOT progressive, and claims superior judgement than a jury of peers. YOU have a real issue to advocate either the half measure of mob justice, and by default, its logical conclusion..
clear enough?
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)If you’re a wannabe cop loser with a gun who starts stalking a kid in the dark, you’re responsible
JOSH MARSHALL JULY 12, 2013, 1:36 PM
If you’re a wannabe cop loser with a gun who starts stalking a kid in the dark, you’re responsible for the outcome.
I know that sounds harsh or flippant. But I really do feel like this is what the whole case comes down to.
http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/my_take.php?ref=fpblg
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)Evidence would be is some neighbor actually saw Zimmerman (after the phone call to the police) rummaging through the shrubbery looking for Trayvon. Unfortunately, there was no witness to this kind of thing. No witness-no evidence.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)between what the court can/will do and public opinion's use of the same facts. So, I will NOT be responding further....
Go post with your other Zimmie defenders.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)No one is defending Zimmerman. What several of us on this thread are trying to point out is that you have to have some actual facts before you accuse people of things, either in or out of court.
I don't know you at all, but according to your definition, I could accuse you of killing puppies. It doesn't matter that I have no evidence. I can just say that you kill puppies because I am not in court.
Would that be right to do?
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)THAT IS EVIDENCE.
And, no, I can not prevent you from lying (e.g., as you say, "accusing me of killing puppies"
, if you so desire.
But these facts are in the public record re: Zimmerman and not denied.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)By the end of the phone call to dispatch, Zimmerman didn't know where Trayvon was.
(3:36 on the tape below)
That one act alone is not enough to establish stalking legally.
Now, if Zimmerman got off the phone and searched for Trayvon and continued to chase him, then there would be some grounds for talking about stalking. However, there is no EVIDENCE of this. Either for court or for a personal argument.
Look, I believe that we will have a manslaughter conviction out of this, and I think some kind of conviction is needed to right the wrong that was done. No question. People just can't walk around with guns, get into fights, and shoot others, especially minors.
However, you have to be really careful about what you accuse people of. I understand there's a lot of high emotion around this case, but when you look at the facts, a stalking charge is not supported. It just isn't.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)No matter how desperate you are to defend Zimmerman, in the court of public opinion, we are not required to forgive nor excuse murder.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)And no one should. This was a tragedy that simply didn't have to happen. Zimmerman should have gotten back into his truck and stayed there.
But no one is defending Zimmerman here. If I were, I would be arguing for his innocence and claiming he should walk. I'm not. I believe he is guilty of manslaughter and should be serving time. However, you can't say he did things that he didn't do. That's just wrong.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)as a neighborhood watch volunteer, which expressly disallowed his stalking behavior--which is exactly what it WAS>
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)You have a brief chase that ended with Trayvon getting away. After that, we don't know what happened. That's the problem. That's why you can't say there was stalking. We have no proof that the chase was continued after the phone call. No eyewitnesses.
That's why I think we'll end up with manslaughter.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)The fact that the DA did not file stalking charges means that there wasn't evidence for those charges. Think about it.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)You really don't get that prosecutors are going to pick and chose what they present and what evidence they use to make their strongest case--even if that means excluding other evidence or downplaying it.
I don't fault prosecutors for picking and choosing to foster their strongest case. That doesn't mean there was not a case to be made for stalking.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)I think you must routinely accuse people of things without facts. That means it's useless to argue with you. You will only argue from emotion.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)nor to other threads that contradict your own conclusions. Very convenient reasoning, you've got going there GG, but it belies any moral high ground that you claim.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)The facts are the facts.
Have a nice day.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)And you too, have a nice day.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)End of story.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)You really don't get that prosecutors are going to pick and chose what they present and what evidence they use to make their strongest case--even if that means excluding other evidence or downplaying it.
anomiep
(153 posts)Listen to the call.
At 2:09/2:10 you can hear Zimmerman open his car door (and the tones indicating the door was opened). This is reasonably when he got out of his vehicle.
It's not until 2:23 (approximately) that the person he is talking to asks "Are you following him?", Zimmerman says yes, the dispatcher says 'We don't need you to do that", and Zimmerman says "OK".
It is impossible, listening to that call, to support your claim. He was *already* out of the vehicle before the dispatcher said anything, and he wasn't told not to get out of the car, he was told that "We don't need you" to follow him.
*That* is evidence.
Whether you think Zimmerman provoked Martin or not, continually claiming that Zimmerman did something that listening to 30 seconds of the call factually rebuts is not 'evidence' of anything but the idea that you're not actually listening to people when they are (correctly) telling you that something you are claiming is not accurate.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)It was then reinforced when he DID get out of the call and was reprimanded by the 911 officer.
Stalking. Whether the prosecution chose to charge or not, the fact remains...
...the repeated act doesn't have a time span either...it can be done in a SHORT time span or a long one.
http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2011/784.048
(3) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury of the person, or the person’s child, sibling, spouse, parent, or dependent, commits the offense of aggravated
anomiep
(153 posts)Yes, he got out of the car.
Nobody told him not to get out of the car. He was already out of the car when he was told not to follow. If I were you I would just admit that the claim he was told to not get out of the car was inaccurate and move on.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)If it makes you happy, go ahead and keep pressing the issue. It doesn't change the fact that, yes, Zimmie was stalking--even if prosecutors decided they could make a stronger case sans that charge.
anomiep
(153 posts)Are you serious?
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)of making errors... It is immaterial to the conclusion, however. Zimmerman was stalking.
anomiep
(153 posts)That much is true.
The fact that you made a statement that was provably, factually incorrect, and that you are now calling my statement of that 'Erroneous', when in fact what you actually claimed is impossible because Zimmerman got out of his car before anything was even suggested to him, and when something was suggested to him it was not 'don't get out of your car' but 'we don't need you to do that' in reference to following Martin - that is certainly material to evaluation of your statements on the matter.
Do you disagree?
If I see you make provably false statements and then fail to acknowledge that when the statement you made is *proven* to be false, it is reasonable for people to take that into account when you make statements in general.
I make errors all the time. When I make errors, I try to acknowledge them, rather than changing my argument without acknowledging the error. Although, at this point the fact that you're claiming error is at least *some* acknowledgement of it.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)you have suggested in a very ugly manner versus unintentional error. I certainly have not done the former. One small aspect of my statement was erroneous that does not change the conclusion
And, no, you can pick at it all day and all night, but it doesn't change the conclusion.
Ok. Then I misinterpreted what you meant by erroneous.
See? Human error, acknowledged.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)anomiep
(153 posts)Go back through the posts between myself and yourself, and look, and see if there's anywhere where I stated that Zimmerman did not stalk.
Seriously, I don't think it makes any sense for you to be arguing that. My only point of contention is that you were continually stating something that was provably false - and we resolved that - or did we?
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)
Mr. David
(535 posts)No matter how you pretty it up, it's a STALK MURDER.
It justifies the 2nd degree murder verdict that will be delivered within the hour. No need to deliberate when we already know what Zimmerman is made out of.
He is nothing but a bully with an unauthorized use of a gun which resulted into a death. That's a stalking murder.
Second degree murder justifies it, and I hope Mr. Zimmerman enjoys the rest of his life in Florida prison.
I doubt he will survive very long in GP.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)None was presented in court. All you have is a short chase during Zimmerman's call to the police, after which Zimmerman stopped, out of breath, when the dispatcher told him to. Then you have Zimmerman talking to the dispatcher for about 2 more minutes.
After that call, we don't know what happened. No neighbor saw Zimmerman "stalk" Trayvon after that call. What you do have is Rachel's testimony that there was a confrontation, so it's clear that these two came together at some point, but we don't really know how. There were no eye witnesses.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)While that may not meet the court required definition for stalking, it is stalking, nonetheless and it is FACT>
This is what YOU are defending***
http://gawker.com/this-courtesy-of-msnbc-is-trayvon-martins-dead-body-753370712
(***warning to others not actively celebrating Zimmerman's actions--this link is to the result of those actions)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He got out of the car, followed Martin, was then told to stop, and stopped at least for a while. He may have continued following Martin after that. We don't know. We know that he got out, was then told to stop, and then stopped.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)Thanks for proving my point. (regardless of whether or not it meets the narrowly defined legal definition)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)He did not get out of the car after being told not to follow Martin.
He followed Martin until the dispatcher told him to stop.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)Are you another of the determined pro-Zimmies? If so, sadly, I imagine you will likewise get to crack out the champagne.
The rest of the public, though is free to forever conclude based on the facts, including facts the jury was not able to consider. And with that, to mourn the loss of freedom--not only for a young adolescent black youth, but for all of us-- to be free to go about our business without the frothing gun-obsessed or racists among us killing us with free license.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I find neither the prosecution's nor the defense's narratives implausible. I can see a racist douchebag attacking a black kid, and I can see a pissed off teenager attacking an old dude who was irritating him.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)Listen to the tape I posted of Zimmerman's phone call. Here is a brief synopsis (not a complete transcript) of what is on the tape around Zimmerman's pursuit:
2:08 Trayvon starts to run
2:10: Zimmerman opens his car door. You can hear the "chime" of the open door.
2:20: Zimmerman gets out of breath
2:23: Police dispatch asks "Are you following him"
2:24: Zimmerman admits that he is
2:25: Police dispatch says, "You don't need to do that."
2:38: Zimmerman says, "He ran", indicating that Trayvon has outrun him
A few seconds later, Trayvon is out of Zimmerman's sight. By the end of the call, Zimmerman doesn't know where he is:
3:20: Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of"
3:22: Zimmerman: I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address
3:27: Dispatcher: OK, do you live in the area?
3:28: Zimmerman: Yeah, yeah
3:30: Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?
3:32: Zimmerman: It's a home. It's 1950--Oh crap. I don't want to give it out loud. I don't know where this kid is.
There's no evidence of stalking on the tape. Just one short pursuit that overweight George huffed and puffed his way through. You can hear it on the tape.
Now, after this call, there was about two minutes (maybe a little less) that we can't account for. If during that time Zimmerman went chasing Trayvon again, then we could talk about stalking. The problem is we have no witnesses for this time period.
Look, I want a conviction. I am furious at the prosecution who not only dropped the ball but never seemed to have it. I do believe we will get a manslaughter conviction out of this and I am glad the judge put manslaughter on the table. In Florida, manslaughter with a firearm can carry a long prison sentence (30 years). That's not chicken feed.
But you can't go around saying that there was stalking. There's just no evidence of it, and that is in real life as well as in court.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)official neighborhood watch criteria. So, yes, this is stalking.
And, yes, there WAS STALKING. AND YES, I and everyone else can say so, because there WAS STALKING>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023234862
anomiep
(153 posts)It has been your statement multiple times in this thread that "he got out of the car when told not to" or variations thereof.
That is inaccurate. Whether he was following neighborhood watch rules is a different statement entirely.
If it were me, I'd just admit my claim that "he got out of the car when told not to" was in fact inaccurate and move on.
*Note: I thought I was responding to a different post when I wrote this, in another portion of this same thread. My apologies for that, I wanted to put this note here just to make that clear.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)I know you are very much in Zimmie's camp and that is your right. I'm done debating with you, however... It is too depressing to see so many seemingly defend what most consider to be blatant murder.
anomiep
(153 posts)I'm in the camp of actually being accurate.
But if you want to make the ad-hominem fallacy of attacking me rather than the point I made, there's really nothing I can do about it.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)Have a nice day.... we can agree to disagree.
HolyMoley
(240 posts)Key word here is "repeated(ly)"
--------------------------------------
re·peat·ed
adjective \ri-ˈpē-təd\
Definition of REPEATED
1
: renewed or recurring again and again <repeated changes of plan>
-------------------------------------
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repeated
784.048
Stalking Defined as Willful, malicious, and repeated following or harassing. (704.048(2)); Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury; or willfully, maliciously, repeatedly follows or harasses minor under 16; or after injunction for protection or any court-imposed prohibition of conduct, knowingly, willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or harasses another person.
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-stalking-laws.html
* Please note with regard to "follows or harasses minor under 16": Martin was 17 at the time of the encounter.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)It meets the common sense definition of stalking and murder, no matter the legal technicalities.
You won't convince most fair-minded, justice seeking, non-racist people otherwise. It was a stalking MURDER.
HolyMoley
(240 posts)along with possible ignoring of the judges final instructions, that's not how cases should be decided.
"Justice seeking" is a relative term depending on which side of the fence one sits.
Zimmerman would be denied justice if the "legal technicalities" were brushed aside and replaced with your interpretation of "common sense"
And with all that, bottom line is that Zimmerman was never stalking, and was never
charged with stalking. If that were true, the prosecutors would most assuredly have added that charge.
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)which is not bound by legal technicalities nor your condescension. Because guess what, even if he is acquitted, that does not mean the majority of those he encounters for the rest of his life are bound to that conclusion. They have the right to judge based on the facts, which is not bound by legal technicalities. (and NO, I'm not advocating for any harm to come to this dweeb, but he should live with the righteous moral indignation of the public for the rest of his life).
Mr. David
(535 posts)He is not going to have a career beyond what he is right now.
And that's a big fat perennial loser.
If he is acquitted, watch for him to show up on Faux or on TruTV's World Dumbest Idiots a a commentator.
If he is guilty, he won't get out until he's at least 60 years old.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)written by a ghost-writer with Zimmerman's name on it... bank on it.
sP
hlthe2b
(113,973 posts)If you’re a wannabe cop loser with a gun who starts stalking a kid in the dark, you’re responsible
JOSH MARSHALL JULY 12, 2013, 1:36 PM
If you’re a wannabe cop loser with a gun who starts stalking a kid in the dark, you’re responsible for the outcome.
I know that sounds harsh or flippant. But I really do feel like this is what the whole case comes down to.
http://editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/07/my_take.php?ref=fpblg
Now, feel free to start back up on your Zimmerman defense. 
Spazito
(55,501 posts)at all. There is more proof of his intention to continue to follow Trayvon Martin when, at first, he told the 311 operator to have the police meet him at his vehicle then he changes his mind and says to have them meet him at the club house, changes his mind yet again and says to tell the police to call his cell and he will tell them where to find him.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)There were no witnesses for the time between Zimmerman's phone call to police dispatch and the fight itself. We don't know how Zimmerman found Trayvon or how Trayvon accidentally ran into Zimmerman. We simply have no eye witnesses for that time period.
That is why it was so crucial for the prosecution to poke as many holes as they could into the defense.
Spazito
(55,501 posts)into the defense." That is exactly what they did by pointing out the three changes of mind by Zimmerman as to where the police should meet him, the impossibility of Zimmerman's story, using his own walk-through and interview tape, regarding the positioning of Trayvon Martin in relation to the position of the gun as well as Zimmerman's position.
Remember, the jury is not limited to just the evidence, they are expected to use their common sense in evaluating that evidence and, in reality, the lack of same in coming to their verdict.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)Let's hope that has some salience for the jury.
Spazito
(55,501 posts)he connected dots in that area very clearly, it certainly brought home to me how important those changes made by Zimmerman were on the issue of where he intended to be as opposed to his claim to have been returning to his vehicle.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts) (They are very imaginary until payday.)
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)Emotion over logic. I know you told me on another thread I would be a poor juror because I would be too likely to decide a case on my feelings rather than instructions given by the judge.
Do you think the state hopes they do have jurors like me? Or was he appealing to the jurors' emotions knowing he was talking to women who often make decisions based on a mix of logic and emotion? I am certain my emotion (intuitive feelings) do not betray me even though I can be manipulated. Logical arguments seem the safest; however, I don't see how one can remove the heart from one's determinations.
I see you believe the jury will not acquit. Would you mind explaining why? I am interested in how you drew this conclusion. Based on logic? Are you able to separate the emotions?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)An unarmed teen is dead. Zimmerman told his story, which reasonably could be considered a work of fiction, having zero corroboration of the salient points; e.g., number of times head met concrete. E.g., Trayvon's alleged leap from bushes to attack. E.g., any alleged dialogue between killer and victim.
MOST importantly, Zimmerman, a student of MMA and in much better shape than he is now, and now known to have suffered only minor injuries for which he REFUSED hospital treatment, claims to have feared for his very life sufficiently to have aimed the perfect shot into Trayvon's chest.
The jury is well within their assigned rights to disbelieve that claim of MORTAL fear. And that is what I think they will do.
Feel free to see my imaginary bet and raise me!
Generic Other
(29,080 posts)so I better not take that bet.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)If he wasn't defending himself, then he should be convicted of 2nd degree murder. If he was defending himself, then he should be acquitted. The question in my mind is whether the prosecution proved it was not self defense. I don't see how he could be defending himself and still be guilty of manslaughter.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)The issue of manslaughter, however, involves the idea of negligence. There's more wiggle room for a jury to determine that Zimmerman had some responsibility in how the fight ensured and in creating the dangerous situation in which he was forced to shoot.
anomiep
(153 posts)... and the jury finds that he was actually defending himself, they cannot convict on manslaughter. If he was legally defending himself his shot is not negligent.
The only way they can convict on manslaughter is
a) They find he didn't act with a depraved mind
b) They find he wasn't defending himself.
and in my mind, finding b conflicts with finding a.
HolyMoley
(240 posts)either through being uniformed, willful ignorance, or just plain stubborn.
Zimmerman is either guilty, or not guilty by reason of self defense or he isn't.
The claim of self defense applies equally to both charges.
It's up to the jury to decide if the self defense claim is valid or not.
And really, that's what this trial has been about from the beginning.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Or just defending George Zimmerman's actions?
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)The jury will have to decide a self defense case, not a Stand Your Ground case. There's been a lot of confusion on this point.
The decision the jury will have to make is not whether Zimmerman stood his ground (legally) but whether Zimmerman was in reasonable fear for his life when he shot Trayvon.
My guess is that the jury will come back with a manslaughter charge.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)"the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony."
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)The defense did a lot of muddying of the waters.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)I'm not a MMA expert...... but in a "ground and pound" fists and elbows are the weapons of choice. Much more effective than trying to bash the guy's head against the sidewalk.
Zimmerman is a liar, a stalker, and a cowardly killer.
Atman
(31,464 posts)That surprised me.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)(My hope is that she said it didn't apply)
Atman
(31,464 posts)She said "George Zimmerman had the right to stand his ground."
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)Not good at all. And it's inappropriate. This is a self-defense case. What is she trying to do? Go for an instant appeal?
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)not sure what the hell she was thinking.
sP
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)Could this be a cause for a mistrial?
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)then again, a mistrial and retrial may be the only way he gets convicted. i have only seen highlights of the trial but the prosecution has not impressed me...
sP
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)They've asked for an index of the evidence, so it seems they are going to deliberate carefully.
rollin74
(2,301 posts)rollin74
(2,301 posts)"if George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony"
about 10:05 to 10:29 of the video
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)It's the wrong theory of the trial and the wrong instruction to give the jury.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)For all accounts, she doesn't play games And knows the law. She's by the book. There is a reason she feels this stands And i refrain from saying she's wrong without knowing her intention.
GiaGiovanni
(1,247 posts)She has done some really questionable things. However, we'll wait and see.
ctaylors6
(693 posts)is straight from the FL statutes for self-defense (see 776.012 and 776.013). It is saying that there's no duty to retreat or try to retreat in order to claim self-defense. That part of the SYG legislation applies to all self-defense cases in FL where the crime took place outside of a home and where somewhere is legally allowed to be. No grounds for objection by prosecutor.
Btw, I think at least half the states have no duty to retreat in self-defense laws.
vaberella
(24,634 posts)Thanks for clarity