George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #12 Wed July 10

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If you hold the view that it was TM screaming that could point to his potentially being shown a weapon or having one held on him.
Of course we have no evidence as George is the only real witness due to the darkness of the area.
IMO

However witness testimony leading up to the shot shows GZ and TM both involved in the fight on the ground.. So no way GZ was holding a gun on him.

 

[justbeachy]

IMO GZ is quoting TM as making two of the corniest things out there in Grade B movies -"You're gonna die tonight Motha******" and "you got me" - no 17year old hip young kid would ever say stuff like that.

Just high drama for effect and not real at all. As a Canadian and anti-gun person I find this case horrendous but when I read/heard those GZ say those two things I actually laughed out loud.

I agree...him saying, "You got me" is a little absurd. I've wondered if TM actually said, "You shot me." Almost like he was shocked about it and expressing disbelief that it was actually happening. But...then I think that "sh" and "g" sound very different and I think I would recognize the difference. Plus, I'm not sure TM was able to say much of anything at that point.

Just food for thought. IMO

 

[DIBSY]

Did you read page 13 of the autopsy report? Some of you would like to add words that are not there.

I believe GZ told Serino in those five hours after that he confronted TM but just to ask him why he was there.

Serino believing GZ said this and it was true did not lie on the stand. He did not elaborate about which statements he believed just that he did. It's not perjury.

the ME investigator wrote Serino as POC, point of contact and what that person reported happened. So if you disbelieve the exact wording of the report in evidence you don't believe Serino or GZ . IMO

Thank you very kindly for referring us to Page 13 of the autopsy report and all the other vital information you provide for us, Mahouston69. :rockon:

 

[costalpilot]

I did not say abuse. But, he was prescribed Adderall, was he not? Adderall's side effects can be pretty bad in terms of restlessness, mood swings, etc...

http://www.rxlist.com/adderall-side-effects-drug-center.htm

My point was that GZ's alleged negative past was not brought in, either, at least not in front of the jury.

IMO

a unbiased consideration of the past of the two would tilt way negatively to TM

imo

course the judge wont allow that

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I get your meaning. You are right no proof of who is the aggressor. However I have always understood it that when using an affirmative defense (self defense) that the burden shifts to the defendant. We know he shot and killed TM now he has to prove he was justified. Like when someone says guilty by reason of insanity. We know they did the crime, so they have to prove they are insane.

Of course FL law may be different. My legal knowledge is from NC. But in that scenario I don't think GZ has proved self defense. I think he is guilty of manslaughter. IMO the case was overcharged, however I don't believe he should just walk away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. The state has to prove that he willfully with ill will went after TM and killed him. That is what Murder 2 is. Maybe if it was just manslaughter and willful disregard for human life, But with MURDER 2 that state has to prove that.

 

[katiewonders]

I realize now that I am applying perhaps a double standard. I have not even considered the pasts of TM or GZ because in my mind, they are moot. TM was 17 and so young. One will never know if he could have reached his full potential. Having had 3 children who surpassed 17, I have to admit it was a tough year for one of them. She is not the person she was then when she was making extremely poor choices, much to the chagrin and heartbreak of my husband and me.

I expected GZ to know better. I expected him to act with the knowledge, maturity and reasoning of an adult. I expected him to not have to use deadly force to defend himself when he had the power of words. I expected him to not put himself in harms way. I expected MORE from GZ that is perhaps unreasonable. That is why I have such a hard time wrapping my head around what happened.

This case is far harder than the Arias trial. I don't see a cold blooded killer when I look at GZ. What I do see, is a man who perhaps used poor judgement, and whose life will be forever changed. JMV, IMO

Thank you for this post Zuri, I enjoyed reading it. You see GZ as using poor judgement. I wonder what stops you from seeing him as a man who shot TM in self-defense? I totally agree that RZ's life is forever changed. MOO

 

[logicalgirl]

Not intending to be snarky or personally attacking when I say this:

Perhaps your nationality and lack of familiarity with the urban cultures in the United States lead to your opinion. I grew up in Atlanta, and went to schools in which I was in the vast minority as a white male. I have no trouble at all believing that these things may have been said - especially the first phrase.

Appreciate that fact and ask the question - how long ago did you go to school? Because I would have seen that in a movie about the age I was at when I was in school - but that is a long way away. Listen to the way Rachael speaks - does that sound like something she would say? That's not kid stuff GZ is saying - and are you assuming I am Caucasian?
All IMO.

 

[William N]

yes, I believe aggravated manslaughter is a lesser included in florida.

Last night on CNN, Mark Geragos said it makes no difference because of the way the prosecution styled the case around GZ with malice hunting down TM. This is the main thrust of their case and if they can't prove that there cannot be a guilty verdict on a manslaughter charge.

 

[Donnareit]

He wasn't. When TM did not return home that evening, the father assumed he was with a cousin.

I really don't know what his father thought, but I was raised in a community where most of my family lived also. My father would never have thought to call anyone to see where I was. My mom might have made the call, but most likely not as she would assume I was staying at my grandparent's house unless I let her know different.
Just my opinion based on my somewhat tribal family, and how we did things in that structure.

 

[Mrs.g]

The point is that TM was home. He told her the guy was not around anymore. He was safe. Then when she talks to him again, he is breathing heavy and "runs" into GZ who is still in the area of his truck, Up at that end of the T. TM's dads house is at the complete other end 70 yards away. HE was home safe.

According to this state witness TM see GZ again, and says " What are you following me for."

To get to where GZ was he had to be the one that went looking for him. There is just no way around that.


I came into this trial hoping the state had a clear case and I could firmly vote for conviction. But it is not there. When this case was first playing in the media, I was firmly swayed by the rumor and innuendo and wanted GZ to hang. I did not like MOM and then I stopped following it because I was so upset.. I decided to wait for trial.

AS a rule I am always on the STATE's side. This is the only case other than that WM3 that has me not believing their case even though I am following their witnesses and evidence ready to be convinced.

I don't believe that GZ is any hero. But I do believe he was in fear for his life and by law he did what he could to save himself. I have not seen anything at all that points to anything else.

And I am trying.. Believe me, I am.

BBM, IMO, if you believe all this then what's the difference in GZ following TM and TM going up to GZ (if he did). It's all the same to me. So if TM went to confront GZ and said, "why are you following me" based on RJ's testimony the next thing was TM saying, "get off, get off." That shows that GZ put his hands on TM first IMO.

 

[gxm]

I get your meaning. You are right no proof of who is the aggressor. However I have always understood it that when using an affirmative defense (self defense) that the burden shifts to the defendant. We know he shot and killed TM now he has to prove he was justified. Like when someone says guilty by reason of insanity. We know they did the crime, so they have to prove they are insane.

Of course FL law may be different. My legal knowledge is from NC. But in that scenario I don't think GZ has proved self defense. I think he is guilty of manslaughter. IMO the case was overcharged, however I don't believe he should just walk away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it is different in Florida. But IANAL so I can't back that up with professional knowledge. JMO. OMO. MOO.

 

[Chelly]

When MOM reached for the Prosecutor's manniquin and said, "May I use your doll for a minute?" it cracked me up...LOL
imo

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Did you read page 13 of the autopsy report? Some of you would like to add words that are not there.

I believe GZ told Serino in those five hours after that he confronted TM but just to ask him why he was there.

Serino believing GZ said this and it was true did not lie on the stand. He did not elaborate about which statements he believed just that he did. It's not perjury.

the ME investigator wrote Serino as POC, point of contact and what that person reported happened. So if you disbelieve the exact wording of the report in evidence you don't believe Serino or GZ . IMO

That is just the ME Report and not what GZ said. It is basically a summary and before the full investigation of the events. GZ said from the very beginning that TM came up to him. Not the other way around..

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf

 

[Mahouston69]

Then why would he say he "sees" him after he already saw him at the back of Brandy's condo? Also, that would put the confrontation down two units from where it actually occurred. How would GZ get back to the other end of the street without meeting TM in the middle? IMO, your interpretation of what RJ said is too broad. JMO. OMO. MOO.

Watch you youtube animation in my signature

 

[rob]

I kind of thought it was self defense a long time ago but I waited to see and hear what the state was going to come up with and they still haven't proved their side.

So I jumped off the fence and landed on the defense side. Could the judge have know about tm behaviors and violence all along? There were many things that came out about text messages, fighting, gun use and "purple drank" last year- just to touch the surface- and I'm sure many of us waited till the state rested to draw a conclusion. IMO

I came into this trial thinking manslaughter. I didn't know any of the things in your second paragraph, because I refused to read or listen to it. I have only watched actual testimoney, and no TH about this case, and now my opinion is GZ is innocent.
I'm usually with the proscution in every case, but this is the least amount of evidence against a person I have ever seen. And this judge seems to not want to let anything in. Every other case, they let in stuff that I can't believe, about the victim and then nothing about the accused. PO's me everytime. But here it is the opposite.
I also wonder if for a lot of people, this is the first trial they have followed, and have a lot personally invested in it. They are not open to hearing the evidence, their opinion has already been formed. I went into Jodi A and Casey A that way, and the evidence only reinforced my beliefs.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You know, I have to say - that if the jury is as split as we are on this board- it's going to make for some long contentious deliberations. I cannot really recall a time in all my years on Websleuths that we have been so divided. Running high on emotion yes - but for the most part, in my experience, the vast majority of us have been on the same "side." Definitely not so in this case. And I can barely even look in the mirror at myself on this one- suddenly I am liking defense attorneys, annoyed with prosecutors--who am I?! I think everyone will breathe a sigh of relief once this case is concluded - hopefully with the just verdict and without incident following whatever that just verdict is. IMO.

I think a lot of the split comes from the fact that some of us have watched the case every day and are following evidence and some are just passionate about gun laws and how TM is perceived. That is where I see the biggest divide.

 

[JudyBolton]

TY for your professional input!

As I've watched this trial, I've felt as if I'm in topsy-turvy land. :scared:

And likewise - when someone is accused of murder - the judge will *usually* (not always) rule more in favor of the defense ~ especially when there is a fine line at issue - NOT THIS JUDGE....

UP is Down and Down is UP.... There is a lot going on behind the scenes - lots of things are being exposed today in the media about the potential "riots"....

 

[katiewonders]

When MOM reached for the Prosecutor's manniquin and said, "May I use your doll for a minute?" it cracked me up...LOL
imo

I've been around toddlers too much, but in my head I heard Guy say, "No! My dolly!":floorlaugh:

 

[justbeachy]

I have a friend on FB who is following the case also. She is pro-prosecution. She just posted something about how great the prosecutor is doing. My first thought was, "Are you watching the same trial as me??"

And then it hit me. We are all watching the EXACT same thing and getting completely different opinions and perspectives on it.

Is it any wonder that 2, 4, 6, whatever witnesses can see something and all have a different account? We can't even watch trial coverage and get a consensus on what is going on.

Seriously, though. She must be watching a different trial. LOL!

IMO

 

[bellaalex]

There is actually precedent for this. I think (not sure so IMO) that Florida treats the owner as the one who sent the text/picture from a device unless it can be proven otherwise. But the defense is not even given the opportunity to present it.

Is this how it's going to be from now on? In the Aaron Hernandez case, can we auto assume now that someone else sent texts to and from his phone?

I agree it is ridiculous. The text messages were obviously sent to and from Trayvon as he was in possession of the phone. I'm sure if the defense found out who the people who sent and received the messages were, they would all be friends of Trayvons. The phone account was in TMs father's name so this may or may not be an issue. IMO MOO