What evidence does the prosecution have?

[LambChop]

Here are the words right out of his own mouth. Worth listening carefully too. I never saw this till yesterday.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/vide...essed-part-of-Trayvon-Zimmerman-confrontation

How sad that this young man has to live with this for the rest of his life. jmo

 

[Dr.Fessel]

How sad that this young man has to live with this for the rest of his life. jmo

I know, I feel sorry for all the witnesses to the case.

 

[vlpate]

Here are the words right out of his own mouth. Worth listening carefully too. I never saw this till yesterday.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/vide...essed-part-of-Trayvon-Zimmerman-confrontation

Since this is an evidence thread, I'll comment on your post in the witness thread.

 

[vlpate]

I thought I read someone say that the depraved act would be his "following" TM. What else that happened (evidence we know of, to date), would be considered "depraved"?

--that's not the way i read it , according to nejame's definition.


http://www.nejamelaw.com/homicide-lawyer-orlando-florida.htm

Elements of Murder / Homicide


Second Degree Murder occurs when a person intentionally commits an extremely dangerous act that demonstrates a depraved mind without regard to human life and someone else is killed by the result of that act. A person can be convicted of Second Degree Murder even if they did not specifically intend to kill anyone.

 

[Phoenixfla]

ITA.

I am one who believes that it is not about the "fight". I am more focused on what led up to the fight. I think that is key. That's why I do not care about GZ injuries...i really don't. JMO

But no crime had been committed up until the point of the fight.

IMO

 

[Nova]

I thought I read someone say that the depraved act would be his "following" TM. What else that happened (evidence we know of, to date), would be considered "depraved"?

I think somebody misunderstands the law. As I understand it (IANAL), the "depraved act" is shooting a bullet into Trayvon's chest UNLESS GZ can show he did so in self-defense.

Many people feel strongly that GZ should have heeded the dispatcher's instruction (and that's what it was) not to follow, but following TM was not illegal and is not what the law means by "depraved".

 

[LynnM]

What did she hear that would prove GZ was pursuing Trayvon when they made physical contact?

His excited utterance, "He's right behind me again!" followed by Trayvon asking "Why are you following me?"

http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Na...ighborhood-WatchDeath1st-LdWritethru_ST_U.htm

 

[Boytwnmom]

he was engaged in a lawful activity at the time of the encounter. If not, then SYG and self defense are not available. Many of us believe that it was not the following per se, although that was stupid and could foreseeably lead to harm, but the evidence which can be used to show he followed him with the intent to apprehend and detain him which is not a legal activity.

So much is focused on how "following" someone is legal as though this was just some innocent activity. It was not to me. It only makes sense in the context of making sure the a%^hole didn't get away. The fact that he suddenly appeared and confronted TM is shown by the gf's statements. There was no lawful or logical reason to follow him and come upon him forcing an interaction. If he had wanted to ask him a question he could have done it earlier. If he wanted to just watch him he could have kept his distance. If he was rational he would have waited in his car and let the real police deal with the boy who was not actually engaged in anything suspicious or criminal. He encountered TM deliberately so that he could prevent him from getting away through the back entrance which is where he thought TM was going as he didn't know TM was staying near that egress point.

I think the prosecution is going to use the evidence to tell a simple story which contradicts what GZ has said and which is in accord with the timeline, location and 911 calls. Once GZ's credibility is completely destroyed so will his story of himself as the victim be destroyed and exposed as the fantasy it is.

I think somebody misunderstands the law. As I understand it (IANAL), the "depraved act" is shooting a bullet into Trayvon's chest UNLESS GZ can show he did so in self-defense.

Many people feel strongly that GZ should have heeded the dispatcher's instruction (and that's what it was) not to follow, but following TM was not illegal and is not what the law means by "depraved".

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Since this is an evidence thread, I'll comment on your post in the witness thread.

What he is saying is evidence the prosecution has. IMO

 

[RANCH]

His excited utterance, "He's right behind me again!" followed by Trayvon asking "Why are you following me?"

http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Na...ighborhood-WatchDeath1st-LdWritethru_ST_U.htm

I wonder how much time passed from when the GF heard Trayvon say "He's right behind me again" and she heard him say "Why are you following me"? In other words why didn't he run home? Or did he approach GZ and confront him by asking "Why are you following me"? Pretty unclear to me.

"'Oh, he's right behind me, he's right behind me again,'" 17-year-old Trayvon Martin told his girlfriend on his cellphone, the Martin family's attorney said.

The girl later heard Martin say, "Why are you following me?" Another man asked, "What are you doing around here?'" attorney Benjamin Crump said.

http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/Na...ighborhood-WatchDeath1st-LdWritethru_ST_U.htm

 

[AJ Noiter]

he was engaged in a lawful activity at the time of the encounter. If not, then SYG and self defense are not available. Many of us believe that it was not the following per se, although that was stupid and could foreseeably lead to harm, but the evidence which can be used to show he followed him with the intent to apprehend and detain him which is not a legal activity.

So much is focused on how "following" someone is legal as though this was just some innocent activity. It was not to me. It only makes sense in the context of making sure the a%^hole didn't get away. The fact that he suddenly appeared and confronted TM is shown by the gf's statements. There was no lawful or logical reason to follow him and come upon him forcing an interaction. If he had wanted to ask him a question he could have done it earlier. If he wanted to just watch him he could have kept his distance. If he was rational he would have waited in his car and let the real police deal with the boy who was not actually engaged in anything suspicious or criminal. He encountered TM deliberately so that he could prevent him from getting away through the back entrance which is where he thought TM was going as he didn't know TM was staying near that egress point.

I think the prosecution is going to use the evidence to tell a simple story which contradicts what GZ has said and which is in accord with the timeline, location and 911 calls. Once GZ's credibility is completely destroyed so will his story of himself as the victim be destroyed and exposed as the fantasy it is.

Until the day she is on the stand I will contend that she'll never be on the stand. Even if she takes the stand she can't state factually that Mr. Zimmerman confronted him instead of the other way around. She wasn't there. All she can say factually is that Mr. Martin was the first to ask a question, and that question was "Why are you following me?" And that doesn't look good for the prosecution. It could give the jurors the idea that Mr. Martin confronted Mr. Zimmerman, since he spoke first. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[LambChop]

I think somebody misunderstands the law. As I understand it (IANAL), the "depraved act" is shooting a bullet into Trayvon's chest UNLESS GZ can show he did so in self-defense.

Many people feel strongly that GZ should have heeded the dispatcher's instruction (and that's what it was) not to follow, but following TM was not illegal and is not what the law means by "depraved".

I was thinking on the lines of evidence showing TM was trying to either get up or get away from GZ when he was shot and the path of the bullet might tell us that. In that case, GZ would not have had to shoot TM. jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

I was thinking on the lines of evidence showing TM was trying to either get up or get away from GZ when he was shot and the path of the bullet might tell us that. In that case, GZ would not have had to shoot TM. jmo

However, we know from another very recent case that just because someone changes their course of action, doesn't mean SYG/Self Defense doesn't still apply for the immediate time period.

 

[LambChop]

Until the day she is on the stand I will contend that she'll never be on the stand. Even if she takes the stand she can't state factually that Mr. Zimmerman confronted him instead of the other way around. She wasn't there. All she can say factually is that Mr. Martin was the first to ask a question, and that question was "Why are you following me?" And that doesn't look good for the prosecution. It could give the jurors the idea that Mr. Martin confronted Mr. Zimmerman, since he spoke first. Just my opinion, of course.

Why would anyone consider that a confrontation? TM was where he was suppose to be on his way home. GZ was not. GZ had a choice, TM did not. He was a kid not an adult. And what does the adult do? Does he identify himself, which he had an opportunity to do earlier which would have made this "quest" of his unnecessary. No. He asks another question, what are you doing here. As if TM had no right to be walking home. He did not identify himself at that point and the next thing that is reported (and verified through records) the phone goes dead.

As a woman I see a lot wrong with someone following another person, in the dark and not identifying themselves. The not identifying is a biggie for me and would lead me to believe this person is up to no good. I think if TM had been told at the clubhouse who GZ was it would have ended right there. So really now, what was GZ's objective in pursuing this suspect, who wasn't really a suspect at all. TM clearly was a target but what ever did GZ hope to accomplish by following TM. Still searching for an answer to that question and I have not seen one as yet. Most women at some point in their lives have been followed and scared out of their wits because they did not know who the person was, nor was it clear what their intentions were. jmo

 

[LambChop]

However, we know from another very recent case that just because someone changes their course of action, doesn't mean SYG/Self Defense doesn't still apply for the immediate time period.

I don't see how it could. If the perception of fear works for SYG because you have a gun and use it then someone following you without identifying themselves and putting you in fear of your life should also apply. The only difference is TM did not have the gun, GZ did and knew better. Did GZ EVER consider the alternative???? That maybe this kid was just walking home. Or was he so focused on trying to keep TM from getting away that he put his common sense aside, got out of the truck and tried to find out where TM went. If TM were just going home, GZ had no business following him, legal or not. He was harassing him by the very act of following him without identifying who he was. It should never be.....he who has the gun wins when there was only ever one player who liked to stalk people as a hobby. I think GZ would be considered a stalker because he has done it more than once to any young black male who happened to be in the neighborhood. TM was just GZ's first victim. jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

I don't see how it could. If the perception of fear works for SYG because you have a gun and use it then someone following you without identifying themselves and putting you in fear of your life should also apply. The only difference is TM did not have the gun, GZ did and knew better. Did GZ EVER consider the alternative???? That maybe this kid was just walking home. Or was he so focused on trying to keep TM from getting away that he put his common sense aside, got out of the truck and tried to find out where TM went. If TM were just going home, GZ had no business following him, legal or not. He was harassing him by the very act of following him without identifying who he was. It should never be.....he who has the gun wins when there was only ever one player who liked to stalk people as a hobby. I think GZ would be considered a stalker because he has done it more than once to any young black male who happened to be in the neighborhood. TM was just GZ's first victim. jmo

I think the individual who chased the burglar a block wasn't in fear anymore. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[LambChop]

However, we know from another very recent case that just because someone changes their course of action, doesn't mean SYG/Self Defense doesn't still apply for the immediate time period.

I think I am misunderstanding what you are saying here. Are you saying that if two people get into an altercation and one swings at the other and the person blocking their hit knocks the swinger down that the swinger who originally started the fight has the right to shoot the person who was defending themself? This would be what is wrong with the law. This would be a license to kill. I can understand if you feel your life is truly in danger but apparently the State is disagreeing with GZ's order of events compared to what actually happened. Why else bring charges of 2nd degree murder? jmo

 

[LambChop]

I think the individual who chased the burglar a block wasn't in fear anymore. Just my opinion, of course.

Wasn't that person who was shot actually committing a crime? At the point of "what are you doing here" TM was doing nothing illegal. If he took off and ran, he still was not committing a crime. And if GZ caught up with him and grabbed him TM still was not committing a crime. TM never had to answer GZ, never. He was under no obligation whereas GZ was. TM asked why are you following me. GZ should have been honest and told him. From what we have heard of GZ's statement he never identified himself to TM. Why would he not do that? Why??? Was GZ looking for a fight???? Because if I were on that jury that is exactly what I would be thinking.

GZ's class on anger management was a waste of time because he still has issues. Even FT admitted it on national television. Not helping GZ one bit, that one. jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

Why would anyone consider that a confrontation? TM was where he was suppose to be on his way home. GZ was not. GZ had a choice, TM did not. He was a kid not an adult. And what does the adult do? Does he identify himself, which he had an opportunity to do earlier which would have made this "quest" of his unnecessary. No. He asks another question, what are you doing here. As if TM had no right to be walking home. He did not identify himself at that point and the next thing that is reported (and verified through records) the phone goes dead.

Based on the definition of the word "confront." If Mr. Zimmerman would've asked his question first he would have "confronted" Mr. Martin, no matter the outcome of the confrontation. I wouldn't play the "he was on his way home" card, he had plenty of time to get there if he were really going there. Mr. Martin had the choice to go straight home instead of waiting around, hiding in a bush or whatever he was doing. Plenty of time. He could have been home long before Mr. Zimmerman was off the phone with the 911 dispatcher... if he wanted to be. What does the adult do? He continues answering questions for the 911 dispatcher then heads back to his vehicle, as far as I know. I have yet to see proof otherwise, and the same can be said for the investigators. I was not aware that one must identify themselves outside of being a law enforcement officer or a P.O.W. "What are you doing here?" is a simple question that could've been answered with the very simple reply "Going home man, chill out."

As a woman I see a lot wrong with someone following another person, in the dark and not identifying themselves. The not identifying is a biggie for me and would lead me to believe this person is up to no good. I think if TM had been told at the clubhouse who GZ was it would have ended right there. So really now, what was GZ's objective in pursuing this suspect, who wasn't really a suspect at all. TM clearly was a target but what ever did GZ hope to accomplish by following TM. Still searching for an answer to that question and I have not seen one as yet. Most women at some point in their lives have been followed and scared out of their wits because they did not know who the person was, nor was it clear what their intentions were. jmo

It's not illegal to not identify yourself as a civilian. You can disrespect/dislike/hate/whatever you want all day long, but the lack of identifying yourself does not make you a criminal. Just like finding someone suspicious does not make you a criminal. Just like following that suspicious person does not make you a criminal. Just like asking a very simple question, no matter the tone of your voice, does not make you a criminal. When does he start being a criminal? I have yet to see any proof that justifies calling Mr. Zimmerman a criminal.

 

[vlpate]

I did not say THIS @sshole. I said "another" on accident. "THESE @sshole's always get away," is not being "resigned to another one getting away." BTW, is the last statement of your quote your opinion? I think we need to specify this when inserting things that are not proof. There is proof that GZ was not "resigned to another one getting away", by GZ following Trayvon, against the 911 operator telling him not to follow.

JMO.

I wasn't quoting you & JMO = just my opinion.