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

[Zuri]

I totally get what you are saying. But sadly we live in a different world. When I was growing up, parents didn't kill their babies, and lie about it. Parents spanked their children for misbehaving. We slept in a house with the door unlocked. Children ran all over the neighborhood, for hours at a time with no thought of danger. That's all over. I have friends who came home from work and their home had been robbed and ran-sacked, others with their car stolen, others robbed in the parking lot of Walmart. You never know what's next. Although it has never happened to me, I see what effect it has on the people it happened to, and it makes me think twice.
In this country, we have the right to bear arms, and if you are not insane or a criminal, there should be no problem with it.
I carry a weapon for protection. If someone came too close to me, I would ask them to stop, stay back. Once it happens, its too late.
I live in a rural community, and sadly half of the homes have those little signs in the front yard with their security service printed on it. At first, I thought they were nuts, now I'm thinking about looking into it myself.
At our church, we now have people on security patrol during the services, because cars were broken into.
Sad, what life in this country is becoming.

:goodpost:

 

[qwerty2013]

...
I too did give some pause to the fact that George's blood/DNA was not on Trayvon's hands. That is something to consider, and the jury should consider that. But my understanding from some testimony I heard (unfortunately can't point you to exact person/times) is that it is not guaranteed that DNA will be left on anybody when you come in contact. There is a possibility in a wet environment that evidence will be lost. That opens up some reasonable doubt and the jury should consider that as well.

John Good's witness testimony may not be direct evidence of a "lethal attack" but it does corrobate many details of George's story so there is some merit in that.

To your point that self defense requires that you prove the possibility of imminent death, the prosecution has to prove that George acted with ill-will and hatred and intentionally killed Trayvon. In my opinion, and as if I were on that jury, being suspicious of hooded people in your neighborhood that has been repeatedly burglarized, making one statement about a-h*les getting away and walking to see where this person may have gone does not even come close to proving that George had hatred and wanted him dead.

Here is a scenario to consider... if I am at home in my condo complex and see somebody that (for whatever my own reason) seems suspicious, do I not have a right to go look and see what is going on? Sure, it's probably bad judgement, but do I have right to go check it out? Maybe I'll bring a flashlight and golf club just to be safe. It's not so much of a stretch for me that people go and check out suspicious activity. Again, bad judgement does not equal the intent to kill somebody.

One item that I really have to disagree with is that somebody of a different size couldn't kill you in 2 minutes. Of course they could. I mentioned this in a previous post, so my apologies that I am repeating but when I was in high school, two guys got in a fight out in the driveway... one guy threw the other guy on the ground, he hit his head on the pavement and died later that night. Pavement can absolutely kill if applied with the right force. He wasn't bleeding all over the place... he had massive internal injuries. His friends didn't know he was dying and drove him home to his parent's house that night where he died.

We can make the argument that cars are not lethal weapons but they sure as heck can kill. I believe that it depends on how you apply that force. But I am not a legal person, so I'd really need for somebody to chime in who understands the law fully about applying lethal force. I don't believe it's limited to items that are intended for great damage/death i.e. a gun or a knife.

Oh also, I don't necessarily believe that he directly aimed at the heart and intended to shoot him there but that is my own pure speculation. I can see the scenario where you grab a gun, aim at what is in front of you and shoot. If he was leaning over him as it seems more and more likely that has been corroborated, then I think it could potentially be easy to shoot somebody in that spot without aiming - it's right in front of you.

So many different ways to slice and dice this info. As I mentioned, you have great points and believe me, I have surely considered them. I took myself by surprise when I realized that I could totally see the case for self defense. That's just how I see the information.

I am fascinated to know how the jury feels, although I will be surprised if any of them speak afterwards. I am ready to accept whatever they decide and hope that they are left alone afterwards (although, I highly doubt that will happen).

Thanks for the spirited debate. Look forward to your response.

EDITED: I forgot to add in my point about George's injuries coming from somewhere other than Trayvon's hands. For me this is just a logic thing. IMO, it is a huge stretch that he would have received injuries to the front, back and sides of his head by his own doing or by trees as the prosecution threw in yesterday. There are many witnesses that corroborate there was a fight and the bodies were touching.

IMO

Thank you lisasalinger, it's a great pleasure to read your replies, they are always measured, even, well-reasoned, well-argued and considerate. :tyou:

Your scenarios about DNA is possible, however, the law requires "reasonable expectations" rather than exceptions. Even if it were raining/drizzling, based on GZ's account of painful punches raining down on the face and head, and profuse bleeding, it is strange that not a trace of GZ DNA was found in the numerous crooks and cranies of the hands, nails, clothing, etc.

Ditto for the one punch deaths...out of the millions of punches thrown everyday, how many of them are lethal? What are the reasonable expectations that a single punch by an average male is deadly?

Indeed, I will change my mind if defense can produce evidence that TM repeatedly *bashed GZ's head against the sidewalk*. IMO, no evidence related to that has been shown, i.e. signs of concussion, medical documentation, blood on sidewalk, eyewitnesses, DNA on TM?

To me, GZ's other actions do not matter as much, except the one shot that ended TM's life. To be fair to TM, he is entitled to a thorough investigation, to determine if he was indeed coldly killed, and if it happened so, to seek justice for his murderer and to rest TM's soul. It's what we as a society owe to an innocent among us who is killed, as any of us or our loved ones could be the next innocent.

And if GZ did commit a crime, he must be punished, especially if he did it with ill will and indifference to TM's life and rights. If he didn't, then it is great that he will be publicly exonerated.

A car is not the same as a concrete pavement, as it does lend the driver a lethal advantage over a pedestrian, i.e., one without a car. However, I balk at describing just about anything hard in one's environment as a "lethal weapon", in that case, what does "unarmed civilian" mean? Does it mean armed persons can shoot/kill any unarmed person and argue "self-defense" if there's concrete nearby? To me, that's a disturbing precedent and a slippery slope...and aha, a slippery slope is a "lethal weapon" now...

I understand that it's a huge stretch for you that GZ did not receive his injuries at the hands of TM. However, it's unbelievable for me that TM repeatedly hit GZ when there's no DNA on TM...this is because DNA, like fingerprints, is legally admissible and highly incriminating evidence, and the tiniest trace of blood, flesh, skin, etc. would test positive. For me, absence of evidence is just that, i.e. no evidence to "incriminate" TM for putting GZ in a life and death situation..IMO..

Hope it's clearer where I'm coming from. :blushing: Looking forward to your future posts!

:cheers:

 

[defense101]

Where is the evidence that TM was in 'fear'? Because he ran while GZ was still in his car? Show me the testimony of RJ, his 'friend' that says at any time that TM was scared, that she was scared for TM, etc.

I think the statement saying that there is a creepy *advertiser censored* cracker following me shows fear, you call someone on a dark rainy night and tell them that do you think that shows you are ok with that or are in fear? IMO

 

[logicalgirl]

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

You could be right - somehow I think a 17 year old who got shot in the chest let alone the heart might just scream from shock - and yes, I know there was no screaming after the shot - would be more likely to say OMG than an observation like you shot me.

I think GZ made it up. IMO

Also a general question?

Did we ever hear how exactly TM got turned over on his stomach with his hands underneath himself after GZ claims he sat on him and stretched his arms out. Or did he do that himself during his 10 - 15 sec consciousness he had left?

 

[Donnareit]

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.

Thanks William. IIRC there is such a gap between the two charges based on showing intent it is not included as a lesser offense. But watching some FL trials make everything mysterious to me. IMO I'd rather mud wrestle Sarah Palin for the last of the grizzly jerky than be on a FL jury. :floorlaugh:
:truce: JMO Floridians, please don't shoot. :truce:

 

[ShadyLady]

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 hate being on the opposite side of a lot the people I like here....but I have to be true to my own conclusions.

Making it a "personal" issue is not helpful, and is wrong on so many levels, so I am going to try and keep personalities out of it. But, debate the points and evidence.

This is the first time I have not been on the side of the prosecution....feels odd to say the least...LOL.

I started at manslaughter....but have moved off that after analyzing and hearing evidence and witnesses.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

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

Being prescribed adderall under the care of a physician is negative? I'm not seeing it. I don't think side effects of adderall include shooting people for no reason. TM was on an illegal street drug. Huge difference imo. Yes, adderall can be abused, certainly, but I have yet to see evidence that GZ was abusing his prescriptions. More grasping imo.

 

[DIBSY]

The only "evidence" defence have that TM was instigator is that of GZ. IMO

Quite true since it's been shown over and over that TM was pursued by GZ and Rachel Jeantel's testimony provides us with TM initially telling GZ to " Get off."

That's why they won't put GZ on the stand. His various reenactments, statements, tv interviews, ALL contradict each other in the most basic terms. IMO
This morning the Judge reminded GZ that he could testify to the jurors in court..and should be considering it and discussing it with his lawyers...his rigid stare indicated, to me, that he has been warned against doing so by his lawyers for fear of the outcome. IMO

 

[Mahouston69]

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

The POC - Serino gave her the summary based on evidence and GZ accounts.
Where else would he get it? GZ realized the 'confrontation' is the basis of his defense and immediately changed his semantics.

 

[defense101]

TY for pointing that out. I find it interesting that the prosecution seems to want to avoid that 2 minute timeframe that would have given TM more than enough time to have arrived @ his father's GF's house.

Good to see you posting again. :seeya:

MOO applies to the entirety of the above post (except for the part about being glad to see moocow posting again, which is a fact).

Or for GZ to be back in his car where he could see an address waiting for the cops IMO this isn't on TM this is on GZ

 

[Just Sailing Thru]

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.

Pus IMO a manslaughter verdict would result in 15 years due to Fl law as having a gun involved...Thought I got the link here, if not I will find one..IMO this is not manslaughter, and just to convict of something " lesser" is wrong, this is self defense. That is the defense,, to the State's M2 charge.

 

[costalpilot]

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"....

oh the media is flaming the "riot" mentality, what a shcok

 

[Candy_Pickletoes]

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

BBM With all due respect, isn't that what you're doing in your 'translation' of RJ's testimony?

Yes there is per the STATE WITNESS RACHEL JEANTEL.

HE told me " HE AT THE BACK OF HIS DADDY's HOUSE"

Her exact words. under direct.. Not cross.

He was home. The phone hangs up. She calls him back he is breathing heavy and then he says that he sees GZ and then TM says.. " WHAT ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME FOR. "

All facts in evidence.

Bolded by me

Translation " Trayvon told me the man following him is at the back of his Dad's house"

 

[kimlynn]

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.

And some of the testimony was changed in that no actual punches were observed and that it was possible that TM may have been trying to restrain GZ.

IMO

 

[cityslick]

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

Every lawyer I've heard talk about this says the burden is still on the state unless GZ had claimed SYG, which he did not.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Thank you lisasalinger, it's a great pleasure to read your replies, they are always measured, even, well-reasoned, well-argued and considerate. :tyou:

Your scenarios about DNA is possible, however, the law requires "reasonable expectations" rather than exceptions. Even if it were raining/drizzling, based on GZ's account of painful punches raining down on the face and head, and profuse bleeding, it is strange that not a trace of GZ DNA was found in the numerous crooks and cranies of the hands, nails, clothing, etc.

Ditto for the one punch deaths...out of the millions of punches thrown everyday, how many of them are lethal? What are the reasonable expectations that a single punch by an average male is deadly?

Indeed, I will change my mind if defense can produce evidence that TM repeatedly *bashed GZ's head against the sidewalk*. IMO, no evidence related to that has been shown, i.e. signs of concussion, medical documentation, blood on sidewalk, eyewitnesses, DNA on TM?

To me, GZ's other actions do not matter as much, except the one shot that ended TM's life. To be fair to TM, he is entitled to a thorough investigation, to determine if he was indeed coldly killed, and if it happened so, to seek justice for his murderer and to rest TM's soul. It's what we as a society owe to an innocent among us who is killed, as any of us or our loved ones could be the next innocent.

And if GZ did commit a crime, he must be punished, especially if he did it with ill will and indifference to TM's life and rights. If he didn't, then it is great that he will be publicly exonerated.

A car is not the same as a concrete pavement, as it does lend the driver a lethal advantage over a pedestrian, i.e., one without a car. However, I balk at describing just about anything hard in one's environment as a "lethal weapon", in that case, what does "unarmed civilian" mean? Does it mean armed persons can shoot/kill any unarmed person and argue "self-defense" if there's concrete nearby? To me, that's a disturbing precedent and a slippery slope...and aha, a slippery slope is a "lethal weapon" now...

I understand that it's a huge stretch for you that GZ did not receive his injuries at the hands of TM. However, it's unbelievable for me that TM repeatedly hit GZ when there's no DNA on TM...this is because DNA, like fingerprints, is legally admissible and highly incriminating evidence, and the tiniest trace of blood, flesh, skin, etc. would test positive. For me, absence of evidence is just that, i.e. no evidence to "incriminate" TM for putting GZ in a life and death situation..IMO..

Hope it's clearer where I'm coming from. :blushing: Looking forward to your future posts!

:cheers:

How do you suppose he got the injuries?

 

[bellaalex]

This is an interesting article on some of the factors/events that led to the charges being filed on GZ. It is rather telling. IMO MOO
http://communities.washingtontimes....-zimmerman-reportedly-tried-due-web-activist/

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

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.

Because GZ was following him while on the phone with police to help them with location. When TM was right in front of him while on the phone he could have walked up to him and confronted him. IN THE LIGHT and front of the buildings.

He is walking across the T As noted when he gets out of the car after parking and is walking across when the Operator says he does not need to look for him. He says he is walking back across the T and that is when T questions him and hits him. That fits with the events and area of the fight.

I don't know about the Get off get off. I just don't believe for a minute that GZ got the upper hand on TM. He has no rips in the hoodie, No injuries that would have been there from being attacked before the minutes leading up to the final event.

 

[ShadyLady]

You could be right - somehow I think a 17 year old who got shot in the chest let alone the heart might just scream from shock - and yes, I know there was no screaming after the shot - would be more likely to say OMG than an observation like you shot me.

I think GZ made it up. IMO

Also a general question?

Did we ever hear how exactly TM got turned over on his stomach with his hands underneath himself after GZ claims he sat on his and stretched his arms out. Or did he do that himself during his 10 - 15 sec consciousness he had left?

If a hundred pounds of weight were on top of me....and I crawled out from underneath....the position of the body that was on top would not change....unless, I purposely (and had the strength to) move his body over. If I was just trying to escape...logic tells me the body would stay orientated the same.

 

[gxm]

Watch you youtube animation in my signature

Sorry. Not interested in an animation someone not involved in the case created. IMO, the state's supporters are trying to broadly interpret the actual testimony so that it fits their narrative. It is clear that RJ testified that TM had reached Brandy's condo at the far end of the street.

At one point, West suggested that though Martin told her he was by his father's fiancee's house while Zimmerman was following him, that she doesn't know that for sure.

"Why he need to lie about that, sir?" Jeantel asked West.

"Maybe if he decided to assault George Zimmerman, he didn't want you to know about it," West replied.

"That's real retarded, sir," she said. "That's real retarded to do that, sir."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...jeantel-george-zimmerman-trial_n_3509141.html