George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General discussion #5

[Isabelle]

Just an observation: DT said that GZ writes with his left and yet shoots with his right. Today, I see he wears his watch on his left. That is the way right-handed people wear a watch, typically.

Jodi seemed to be ambidextrous too!

 

[magnolia]

I have to say that it seems to me that JG keeps vacillating between whether the so-called arm movement ("ground & pound") occurred on the concrete or on the grassy area of the ground...sometimes it sounds, to me, as if JG went directly in an called 911 and while waiting for the call to connect TM was already shot and then from JG's now upstairs window he sees that TM appeared dead. TM's head, by that moment ended up pointed toward JG's patio and perpendicular to the JG patio about 5-10 feet from the sidewalk my estimate).

Still not one witness other than RJ saw or heard who started the physical altercation.

BBM

Actually, who starts a physical altercation is irrelevant. I could start and engage in a physical altercation/fist fight with John Doe. Even though I started the fight, John Doe is not within his rights to straddle me, hold me down, and pound my head into the concrete. At this point, I would be within my rights to defend myself from the risk of death or serious bodily harm. IMO

 

[Arishia]

Alright, so my questions are: how is "who was the aggressor" determined? Even if you are the aggressive initiator, can you be exonerated by self defense if you were just losing the fight, and feared for your life? Or, can SYG apply to the person killed? If GZ isn't the initiator of the actual fight, but did follow and encounter and confront TM, possibly trying to restrain TM (to keep him there until LE arrived?), and TM "stood his ground" feared for HIS life, and initiated the fight, who is held responsible and who gets to be exonerated? Clearly both had every right to be where they were that night, and both feared the other, so how is this addressed in law?

 

[Peliman]

Who can he sue?

If he's found not guilty his lawyers might start with MSNBC for their initial reports of the incident.

 

[callyn]

I am unfamiliar with BS's history, but watched him today. If he were any more in favor of the state, he would be up there trying the case (IMO).

If GZ was pinned to the ground getting his head bashed in, how does BS think he could get away? Did BS think he wasn't injured enough? How much is enough? Busted nose...check. Bashed in head...check. Maybe if his brain was leaking out of his ears, BS would think it was self defense?

Sorry to get annoyed, the glee BS showed while revealing what he thought was a bombshell just rubbed me the wrong way.

I am still waiting for the ME to testify.

Who is BS please? I get a little snowed under with all the initials:facepalm:

 

[GetToTheTruthNow]

To it looks like Zimmerman was telling the truth and passed a voice analyzed stress test at the police station.

1. Rachel testified that TM was already in front of his 'daddy's fiance's house'. Rachel also told him to run, and Martin said he wasn't running.

2. Witness Selene testified someone was running 'left to right' toward the "T" intersection--this had to be Trayvon because Zimmerman was walking from his car toward the T and Martin was in front of his house and Selene's townhouse was on the same side as the Martin residence.

3. Excluded prejudicial testimony said that Martin had bragged about getting the upper hand in a fight by breaking someone's nose.

4. We know Martin was a 6'1 high school football player who once carried his dad from his house and very strong--not the pop warner kid in photo's the Martins put out.

5. TM said, "Why are you following me." GZ said "Are you from around here?"
TM said, "You got a problem with me Homie?" GZ said, "I have no problem with you. Martin said "Now you do."

6. Mike Brooks said in all the years he was called honky or a cracker, those confrontations were aggressive in nature.

7. Rachel gave several statements and depositions and in each one events changed--and she never said the key words "get off, get off" in any of those previous statements.

8. Johnathan Good said that Zimmerman was on the bottom in the red outfit and Martin was on top, pounding him MMA style manner.

9. Johnathan Good also said he believed it was Zimmerman yelling for help.


So as the Judge said on HLN, following is no big deal as long as it is not repeated. If Zimmerman was trying to ascertain an address, ask Martin question, or to see where he went to help police---no one has a right to hit him. Clearly Martin ran back from outside his "daddy's fiance's house" toward the T-intersection and behind Goodman's Townhouse. Oh and Martins father said the first time he heard the yelling that it WASN'T his son.

Based so far on testimony, forensic evidence, and a voice stress analysis so far, Zimmerman is telling the truth.

 

[Isabelle]

I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not saying the parents should be able to sue GZ necessarily, I'm saying GZ shouldn't be able to sue them. They wanted answers regarding their son's death and the police didn't investigate to their full potential. Of course they took this public. IMO

Agree. When one loses a child and feels/knows they are being lied to or know that authorities are just not making sense, you would act the same way. Trust me, been there, done that!

 

[katiewonders]

Is there anyone else here who isn't interested in the race component of this case, but is interested in the legal issues, like me?

Yes, I'm more interested in the legal issues and outcome of this case. Many states have concealed carry permits and it is legal for people to carry concealed weapons. From what I've read, most people who have these permits are very mindful of where they carry their weapon - they don't just carry them anywhere. But when they carry them, they are prepared to use them, if the situation warrants it.

A man uses his weapon in defense of his life and a young man is killed. What will be the legal outcome? It is very interesting.

I don't see how - in our racially charged society, as evidenced by these boards being shut down last year - race can be ignored. Especially when our President stated that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon. OMG!

How either men looked had nothing to do with this case! IMO

 

[JudyBolton]

Depends who started the fight.

State has already conceded (under oath) that they CANNOT prove who started the fight - so that will not be a deciding factor.

 

[DIBSY]

In order for that style of holster to be visible, he would have had to actively been pulling his jacket and shirt up over his pants. Not something I would do if I would want to be taken seriously. :twocents:

IMV Sorry but am unable to agree because our friend wears the same type holster and if his coat/jacket isn't fully closed, it's visible when he moves to open the door , reach for something et al as well as IF a gun is fairly bulky, you can detect it beneath the fabric, in my experience.

 

[Just K]

Who is BS please? I get a little snowed under with all the initials:facepalm:

Older of the two commentators on the live feed for WFTV.com

 

[iluvmua]

I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not saying the parents should be able to sue GZ necessarily, I'm saying GZ shouldn't be able to sue them. They wanted answers regarding their son's death and the police didn't investigate to their full potential. Of course they took this public. IMO

Yes, Police did a full investigation and came back saying that GZ acted in self defense.

It may be to them the police did not do an accurate investigation etc. which is why they hired Ben Crump as their lawyer.



JMO

 

[legalmania]

BBM

Actually, who starts a physical altercation is irrelevant. I could start and engage in a physical altercation/fist fight with John Doe. Even though I started the fight, John Doe is not within his rights to straddle me, hold me down, and pound my head into the concrete. At this point, I would be within my rights to defend myself from the risk of death or serious bodily harm. IMO

According to the FS it does matter who is the aggressor. Here is the statute for you to read and to conclude.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.041.html

 

[m00c0w]

IMV Sorry but am unable to agree because our friend wears the same type holster and if his coat/jacket isn't fully closed, it's visible when he moves to open the door , reach for something et al as well as IF a gun is fairly bulky, you can detect it beneath the fabric, in my experience.

I wear the same type of holster, and what I just said is true.

 

[twall]

Alright, so my questions are: how is "who was the aggressor" determined? Even if you are the aggressive initiator, can you be exonerated by self defense if you were just losing the fight, and feared for your life? Or, can SYG apply to the person killed? If GZ isn't the initiator of the actual fight, but did follow and encounter and confront TM, possibly trying to restrain TM (to keep him there until LE arrived?), and TM "stood his ground" feared for HIS life, and initiated the fight, who is held responsible and who gets to be exonerated? Clearly both had every right to be where they were that night, and both feared the other, so how is this addressed in law?

From Florida law:

776.041Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a)Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
----------------------

If Trayvon had Zimmerman pinned down the entire time as the last witness testified and was beating his a$$ and Zimmerman was yelling for help and none came, then use of deadly force was met by Florida law.

He didn't even have to believe he was going to die according to the law. He just had to believe he was going to suffer "great bodily harm".

And this is even if he provoked the aggression towards himself.

That is the law. Like it or not.

 

[ncgramma]

ZIMMERMAN TRIAL BLOCKBUSTER — TRANSCRIPT — Eyewitness Good: Black guy in black hoodie on top punching down Mixed Martial Arts style
Posted by Andrew Branca Friday, June 28, 2013 at 12:09pm
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/0...on-top-punching-down-mixed-martial-arts-style
(Video of testimony includedat the link)

The State seems to have suffered the most destructive of its own witnesses to date in calling John Good to the stand.Good was composed, coherent, and direct through his extensive testimony, the entirety of which was entirely consistent with the defense’s theory of lawful self-defense.



Indeed, as has become the pattern in this trial, the longer the State’s witness was in the stand, the more damage he did to the State’s theory of the case. The continually growing climax was realized at the very end of the testimony, when O’Mara held a copy of Good’s initial statement to then-lead Investigator Chris Serino (a transcript of is provided below):



O’Mara: Just to clarify what was actually talked about with Chris Serino, Investigator Serino, during this, we’re going to call it for the moment the Ground-and-Pound conversation. We have a rule called completeness, so what I want to do is put it in context for you, ask you if this is what you said to Chris Serino. OK?

“Yeah I pretty much heard somebody yelling outside. I wasn’t sure if it was, you know, a fight or something going wrong. So I opened my blinds and I see kind of like a person out there. I didn’t know if it was a dog attack or something. So I open my door. It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other, either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help! And I tried to tell them, get out of here, you know, stop or whatever, and then one guy on top in the black hoodie was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”

Is that the context in which that happened?

Good: Yes.

O’Mara: And then Investigator Serino said, a word that I have, and the transcripts may differ, ground, couldn’t figure it, maybe he said Ground-and-Pound, and then you said:

“Yeah, like a Ground-and-Pound on the concrete at this point, so at this point I told him I’m calling 911.”

BDLR: Objection. Improper bolstering.

O’Mara: I’m at the end of it. Is that–

Judge: There’s an objection and the objection is . . .

BDLR: Hearsay and improper bolstering

O’Mara: I would suggest that rule 108, which is the rule of completeness, suggests that because they brought in part of it . . . and iI’m speaking, I apologize.

Judge: The objection as to hearsay is overruled. Bolstering is not the right objection either, so that’s OK.

BDLR: Beyond the scope of cross-examination to that point

Judge: I overrule on that objection, also, so go ahead.

O’Mara: That’s what you said.

Good: The whole thing, yes

O’Mara: And that was the context in which the words Ground-and-Pound came out.

Good: Yes, for more clarification.

O’Mara: OK. And do you stand by that today, that what you saw is was a Ground-and-Pound event?

Good: It looked like that position was a Ground-and-Pound type of position, but I couldn’t tell 100% that there were actually fists hitting faces.

O’Mara: But you did see [reading] “the guy in the top in the black hoodie pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”

Good: Meaning arm motions going down on the person on the bottom. Correct.

O’Mara: You’re’ not going to tell the jury here today that you saw fists hit flesh or face if you didn’t actually see it, right?

Good: I wouldn’t tell them that anyway, because i didn’t actually see it.

O’Mara: Great, thanks very much , no further questions.

BDLR: Not to elaborate but the thing that Mr. O’Mara said from the transcript, the bottom line, you needed to clarify after that to make sure that everybody understood that you did not hear or see fists the guy on the top hitting the guy on the bottom.

Good: Both sides made me clarify.

BDLR: Is that correct?

Good: That’s correct.

BDLR: You did not see blows on the guy on the bottom, correct?

Good: Correct

BDLR: Thank you, no further questions.

 

[Donnareit]

This is evidence of a struggle. Inconclusive IMO of who initiated contact.

I don't know what these pictures show. They both need authentication to hold up in a court of law. The strange nose and straight-lined blood flow on the back of the head look hinkey to me. I hope whoever took them will be up on the stand to explain their techniques.

 

[ncgramma]

Is there anyone else here who isn't interested in the race component of this case, but is interested in the legal issues, like me?

Absolutely and entirely! :rockon:

 

[missmazzy]

Who is BS please? I get a little snowed under with all the initials:facepalm:

Bill Schaffer (I think) from wftv. I watch online.

 

[Jhpuffy]

Yes, Police did a full investigation and came back saying that GZ acted in self defense.

It may be to them the police did not do an accurate investigation etc. which is why they hired Ben Crump as their lawyer.



JMO

So just to be clear, you think a complete police investigation wouldn't include talking to the person the deceased was speaking to on the phone at the time the altercation first took place?