George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #11 Tues. July 9

[costalpilot]

Actually, IMO, it's the other way round, there is *no proof* to support the versions of events as stated by GZ, no GZ DNA on TM, indicating at least *some* physical contact, no lethal weapon on TM, no signs of 25 blows on the concrete sidewalk, no eye witness accounts, etc.

IMO, GZ had *some* injuries, but I've had suffered worse from falls of my own doing, so those cuts and bruises do not provide clear evidence, only suggestions.

very creative of you:

a displaced nose, a lacerated scalp, a battered skull, together with an eyewitness who stated flat out that TM was sitting on top of GZ and pummeling him.


all of this is "only suggestions". not clear evidence.


what are these things suggestions of, to you????

 

[gxm]

Yes, but your comment that led up to this was that you thought it was GZ saying get off and not TM.. if the Jury (or a Juror) made this conclusion even after the witness testified, they would be thrown off in a nanosecond! Or at least I'd hope so! IMO They are told to stick to the facts.. the evidence... they are not legally doing their job if they start using their feelings.. Does it happen? Of course... Unfortunately

The ear witness was not an eye witness and her testimony doesn't include, beyond a reasonable doubt, who started the physical confrontation since she didn't actually see anything. However, from her testimony we know that TM had made it back to his father's girlfriend's house and returned to confront GZ. We also know that TM initiated the verbal confrontation. And, based on eye witness account, we know that TM was on top of GZ using a "ground and pound" assault. JMO. OMO. MOO.

 

[Truthy]

IMO, then I am curious - what is the criteria for legal, reasonable determination that someone killed another in self-defense because he or she was facing imminent death or great bodily harm, according to the self-defense law you cited in a previous post, if there are no eye witnesses or physical signs of great injuries that would suggest such a threat did exist? Is the killer/defense's own account enough? IMO, JMO

The jury must find that the shooters fear was reasonable. That is why if it were him screaming, or his injuries much worse than they appear to be- they might find it reasonable. Conversely- if he shot Trayvon after 20 seconds of begging and screaming, they could find it depraved.
IMHO

 

[lauraoh]

His entire testimony should be thrown out! He knew the rules and went against the judges orders. Witnesses have no business being in the courtroom, with the exception of the victims families. :twocents:

Witnesses are free to sit in the courtroom after they have been dismissed by the judge.

 

[missmazzy]

Yes, and the most critical part, IMO, is that it appears GZ will not testify so he will not be challenged by the State. The jury will be instructed not to take the fact that he didn't take the stand as evidence of anything. But I'm not on the jury and I take it as evidence that he couldn't withstand a cross-examination on the facts of the incident nor his obviously false story about it. If he were at fault, and I am 100% convinced that he was, he certainly would not admit it, but make up a story to cover his actions as being self-defense. And I believe that's what he did. If not, get on the stand and back up the story. IMO

Most defendants don't take the stand. Does this mean they're guilty? According to the law, no.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

We're back

Missed his name - but this is the antiomation guy?

 

[deelytful1]

Im sorry.. I am so incredulous that people don't understand how our system works. Juries are to take all the information and use what they find credible and factual to lead to a conclusion. They can throw out whole witnesses, Or keep the witness and just through out some of their testimony or all.

This is what a jury does. Looks for the truth in the facts and evidence. Weighs it and then see if it means the state has proven their case.

Honestly.. I have never heard it put this way. I mean, that leaves room for an AWFUL lot of a person's personal feelings to get involved, no? I mean if the prosecution tells me that they found the knife in a defendant's house, based on my lack of faith in the police, can I decide that it was planted? I'm not being facetious.. just kinda fascinated and disappointed if that's truly how a jury works...

 

[qwerty2013]

IT does not have to be lethal. I would find the argument from the other side in support of the state if there was some proof, fact or law behind it.

I have posted the law two times now.

There is nothing wrong with the law, however, there is nothing, no evidence that supports GZ's account of how he came to believe he was in enough danger to justify killing TM, IMO.

In fact, evidence pointed to the opposite of GZ's account, that TM did not have much physical contact with GZ, no GZ DNA *at all* on TM.

The law is not a problem, it is GZ's account and the evidence that pointed to the contrary, that is the problem. Evidence does not support GZ's claim of his "belief", IMO.

 

[Truthy]

And, based on eye witness account, we know that TM was on top of GZ using a "ground and pound" assault. JMO. OMO. MOO.

FYI: He recanted on that. GZ isn't the only one with multiple versions of the incident. IMHO

 

[AngelWings444]

If he has been dismissed as a witness then he can be there.

WFTV is stating that he was not excused and was in court prior to his testimony. They have footage of him being in court. I guess he heard one of the 911 tapes...not "the" 911 tape. They said MOM made a big mistake and so did the entire defense.

Let me look for more info.

 

[gxm]

----------
Hi Logicalgirl!! no. I believe that is one of the stumbling stones. G. should have.:seeya:

IMO, GZ didn't have time to identify himself. TM punched him in the nose after answered TM's question saying he didn't have a problem. Maybe if TM had waited before punching GZ, he could have identified himself. JMO. OMO. MOO.

 

[gxm]

FYI: He recanted on that. GZ isn't the only one with multiple versions of the incident. IMHO

When? I watched JG's testimony and missed that. JMO. OMO. MOO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Honestly.. I have never heard it put this way. I mean, that leaves room for an AWFUL lot of a person's personal feelings to get involved, no? I mean if the prosecution tells me that they found the knife in a defendant's house, based on my lack of faith in the police, can I decide that it was planted? I'm not being facetious.. just kinda fascinated and disappointed of that's truly how a jury works...

Not if they live up to the oath they take. They are the mediators of the truth. They have to find it credible to use it to make their decision on whether the state has proven their case.

 

[qwerty2013]

The jury must find that the shooters fear was reasonable. That is why if it were him screaming, or his injuries much worse than they appear to be- they might find it reasonable. Conversely- if he shot Trayvon after 20 seconds of begging and screaming, they could find it depraved.
IMHO

Yes, exactly! IMO, this is why they are pushing for M2 and not manslaughter.:twocents:

 

[gxm]

The jury must find that the shooters fear was reasonable. That is why if it were him screaming, or his injuries much worse than they appear to be- they might find it reasonable. Conversely- if he shot Trayvon after 20 seconds of begging and screaming, they could find it depraved.
IMHO

IMO, if it had been TM "begging and screaming," there would have been mention of a gun, such as "don't shoot!" or "he's got a gun!" JMO. OMO. MOO.

 

[Karmady]

FYI: He recanted on that. GZ isn't the only one with multiple versions of the incident. IMHO

he explained that the specific words ground and pound may have come from Serino and that he had agreed with him. He also confirmed his prior statement that it was an MMA type assualt. No recantation whatsoever, imo.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There is nothing wrong with the law, however, there is nothing, no evidence that supports GZ's account of how he came to believe he was in enough danger to justify killing TM, IMO.

In fact, evidence pointed to the opposite of GZ's account, that TM did not have much physical contact with GZ, no GZ DNA *at all* on TM.

The law is not a problem, it is GZ's account and the evidence that pointed to the contrary, that is the problem. Evidence does not support GZ's claim of his "belief", IMO.

That is according to you. Not the jury. I see all the evidence in totality so far as a case of self defense.

The problem is that there is no evidence that proves that GZ was the aggressor or that he had any ill will toward TM.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

Originally Posted by lauraoht
I was on vacation and missed him. Is it worth pulling up his testimony on youtube?

YES It is!

I agree. Watching the ME's testimony (Friday) for the shock/surprise value is quite the lesson in testifying. Rather, how not to testify. I think everyone should watch it just for the experience.

Watching the other medical testimony from today, different person, was far less "shocking" as I understand it. Both are worth watching, imo.

 

[deelytful1]

The ear witness was not an eye witness and her testimony doesn't include, beyond a reasonable doubt, who started the physical confrontation since she didn't actually see anything. However, from her testimony we know that TM had made it back to his father's girlfriend's house and returned to confront GZ. We also know that TM initiated the verbal confrontation. And, based on eye witness account, we know that TM was on top of GZ using a "ground and pound" assault. JMO. OMO. MOO.

It still does NOT negate the fact that according to her testimony.. TM said to GZ "get off, get off" IMO.. TM could have approached GZ to find out why he was following him (totally legal) BUT as soon as one person put their hands on the other.. THAT'S when the confrontation started. IMO.. GZ started the altercation.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Not enough drugs in Trayvon's system. Dr. Drew had his panel of lawyers on last night, and it was stated THC is very low. (not MOO) from TV

That is not what the ME said based on research.