What evidence does the prosecution have?

[LambChop]

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."



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.

I did not say he was a criminal. What I was saying is that his behavior would lead someone to believe they were being stalked by an unknown person who could be up to no good. Obviously GZ thought it would work for him. He did not know who TM was and now claims he was in fear for his life. And yet, the state decided to charge him with 2nd degree murder. There has to be something there.

Who was in fear first? We know it was not GZ because he continued to follow TM. I believe it was disclosed that once out of GZ's sight TM did try to hide. Maybe he did see GZ go to the next street and thinking he was gone started to walk home again. In any case it is clear GZ found him and when he did TM expressed fear to his gf. We can't put adult expectations on a teen. They just are not experienced enough to handle these types of situations. I still say the responsibility was on GZ to identify himself. He knew better, he knew LE was on the way, he knew he had a gun. It was his call and for some reason he felt under no obligation to disclose who he was. I just don't get it.

jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

I did not say he was a criminal. What I was saying is that his behavior would lead someone to believe they were being stalked by an unknown person who could be up to no good. Obviously GZ thought it would work for him. He did not know who TM was and now claims he was in fear for his life. And yet, the state decided to charge him with 2nd degree murder. There has to be something there.

Mr. Martin didn't feel he was being stalked, or if he did he didn't express that emotion. He did feel like he was being followed, but then maybe he didn't understand the difference (this is sarcasm, I do believe he was a very bright individual, but made a bad choice this night). I agree, there has to be something .. somewhere, but as it stands right now, there's nothing, absolutely nothing. As I have stated previously though, this case has surprised me on a number of things, I'm almost out of "SURPRISE!" faces and jaw drops.

Who was in fear first? We know it was not GZ because he continued to follow TM. I believe it was disclosed that once out of GZ's sight TM did try to hide. Maybe he did see GZ go to the next street and thinking he was gone started to walk home again. In any case it is clear GZ found him and when he did TM expressed fear to his gf. We can't put adult expectations on a teen. They just are not experienced enough to handle these types of situations. I still say the responsibility was on GZ to identify himself. He knew better, he knew LE was on the way, he knew he had a gun. It was his call and for some reason he felt under no obligation to disclose who he was. I just don't get it.

jmo

I would contend that they were both intimidated at around the same time - when they noticed each other, but I would not make a judgement of fear on either of them until both parties realized there was a gun at the scene. The scenario where he starts walking home after seeing Mr. Zimmerman walk to the next street over, thinking he was gone, doesn't make sense to me because Mr. Martin KNEW where Mr. Zimmerman had to have parked his vehicle. He obviously wasn't going to leave it there. It's not clear that GZ found him or that he found GZ based on the words of the girlfriend. "The man showed up again," .. how exactly? Was he walking back to his vehicle the same direction he came from? Was he actively following Mr. Martin again? We (you and I) and she (the girlfriend) can not answer this. He was not obligated to disclose who he was, and probably didn't, for the exact same reason that he refused to give the dispatcher his home address - he didn't want this guy to know who he was or where he lived.

 

[highflyer]

Mr. Martin didn't feel he was being stalked, or if he did he didn't express that emotion. He did feel like he was being followed, but then maybe he didn't understand the difference (this is sarcasm, I do believe he was a very bright individual, but made a bad choice this night). I agree, there has to be something .. somewhere, but as it stands right now, there's nothing, absolutely nothing. As I have stated previously though, this case has surprised me on a number of things, I'm almost out of "SURPRISE!" faces and jaw drops.



I would contend that they were both intimidated at around the same time - when they noticed each other, but I would not make a judgement of fear on either of them until both parties realized there was a gun at the scene. The scenario where he starts walking home after seeing Mr. Zimmerman walk to the next street over, thinking he was gone, doesn't make sense to me because Mr. Martin KNEW where Mr. Zimmerman had to have parked his vehicle. He obviously wasn't going to leave it there. It's not clear that GZ found him or that he found GZ based on the words of the girlfriend. "The man showed up again," .. how exactly? Was he walking back to his vehicle the same direction he came from? Was he actively following Mr. Martin again? We (you and I) and she (the girlfriend) can not answer this. He was not obligated to disclose who he was, and probably didn't, for the exact same reason that he refused to give the dispatcher his home address - he didn't want this guy to know who he was or where he lived.

How can you possibly know that Trayvon did not express that emotion?

 

[Nova]

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.

Understood, mom, and I suspect time will prove you right. I was only addressing the concept of "depraved mind". As I'm sure you know, there's a tendency to look for some other behavior that can be called depraved in the popular sense, when it is the shooting itself that is "depraved" (unless justification can be shown).

We have the same problem in California with our word "malice". Jurors and the public keep looking for evidence of hatred, when that isn't at all what "malice" means in our statutes.

 

[AJ Noiter]

How can you possibly know that Trayvon did not express that emotion?

I don't recall the girlfriend ever using the word "stalk" in any form, most people who feel they have a stalker state as much.

 

[gxm]

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

I agree that the entry wound is one of the most crucial pieces of evidence. If TM was shot in the back (and that's a big if because all chatter has been that TM was shot in the chest) then the defense is going to have a lot of explaining to do.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

 

[highflyer]

I don't recall the girlfriend ever using the word "stalk" in any form, most people who feel they have a stalker state as much.

So the girlfriends words do have significant worth? Alright.

 

[AJ Noiter]

So the girlfriends words do have significant worth? Alright.

The prosecution thought so, they included (very few of) them in the affidavit of probable cause. Personally, I don't think her words stand of making it into a trial, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt.. for now.

 

[gxm]

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.

BBM. Given that Crumb's recitation of the gf's "statement" says that TM was the first one to say anything, IMO, it will be difficult to prove that GZ ever wanted to do anything more than see where TM was going.

And I'm curious as to how you think the state will account for TM not being safely home when he and GZ crossed paths. There was certainly enough time for him to have made it home even if he didn't "walk fast" like he told his gf he was going to do.

IMO, there will be no clear picture of what occurred which, in turn, will create too much reasonable doubt to convict on.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

 

[LambChop]

BBM. Given that Crumb's recitation of the gf's "statement" says that TM was the first one to say anything, IMO, it will be difficult to prove that GZ ever wanted to do anything more than see where TM was going.

And I'm curious as to how you think the state will account for TM not being safely home when he and GZ crossed paths. There was certainly enough time for him to have made it home even if he didn't "walk fast" like he told his gf he was going to do.

IMO, there will be no clear picture of what occurred which, in turn, will create too much reasonable doubt to convict on.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

I think he told the gf he thought he lost GZ and I believe he could have been hiding at that point. If TM heard GZ close his car door TM may have hidden out of sight on one of the porches. GZ walked down to the next street and then was walking back may have gotten past where TM was and when TM said to the gf I think I lost him TM may have believed GZ walked back to his car. When TM stepped out from where he was GZ could have doubled back and found TM. We know GZ found TM. If TM was hiding until he thought GZ had returned to the car there is no way he was waiting for GZ.

And we do know from the timeline that GZ had time to walk to the end of the cut through to the next street and back because he was still on the phone with LE. I think he made it almost back to the car when GZ hung up with LE and then he doubled back. TM's statement why are you following me would make sense because it would be obvious by then to TM that GZ was looking for him. jmo

 

[cityslick]

I think he told the gf he thought he lost GZ and I believe he could have been hiding at that point. If TM heard GZ close his car door TM may have hidden out of sight on one of the porches. GZ walked down to the next street and then was walking back may have gotten past where TM was and when TM said to the gf I think I lost him TM may have believed GZ walked back to his car. When TM stepped out from where he was GZ could have doubled back and found TM. We know GZ found TM. If TM was hiding until he thought GZ had returned to the car there is no way he was waiting for GZ.

And we do know from the timeline that GZ had time to walk to the end of the cut through to the next street and back because he was still on the phone with LE. I think he made it almost back to the car when GZ hung up with LE and then he doubled back. TM's statement why are you following me would make sense because it would be obvious by then to TM that GZ was looking for him. jmo

BBM

But then wouldn't you think TM would hide at or near his house, considering he was only 26 seconds average running speed from where the cut through began to his house? Why would he stay in the same general area for about 2-3 minutes when he could of either went straight to his house or if he really was scared, run clear out of the subdivision before GZ would of even gotten off the phone with 911?

If GZ spotted TM where your marker is at the 'he's running' comment and TM's ultimate destination was 379 feet from that point.

Average running speed of a human is 10mph which translates to 14.6 feet per second.

379 feet divided by 14.6 = 25.95 (seconds). Round it up to 26seconds.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

I agree that the entry wound is one of the most crucial pieces of evidence. If TM was shot in the back (and that's a big if because all chatter has been that TM was shot in the chest) then the defense is going to have a lot of explaining to do.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

TM wasn't shot in the back...it was a shot to the chest...

 

[Lovelymountains]

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."



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.

The dead body of an innocent teenager might lead some to believe Mr. Zimmerman is a criminal.

 

[AJ Noiter]

The dead body of an innocent teenager might lead some to believe Mr. Zimmerman is a criminal.

The body of a teenager doesn't state anything on the matter of being a criminal or not. The bold in your statement has yet to be proven. Can you say he wasn't committing a crime when Mr. Zimmerman noticed or followed him? Yes, you can. Can you state factually that he did not assault Mr. Zimmerman, which is not the acts of an "innocent teenager"? No, you can not unless you know something the prosecution does not.

 

[Lovelymountains]

GZ asking "What are you doing here," or anything else did not obligate TM to answer him at all. Also, TM was under no obligation to go straight home. He should have been free to walk on the sidewalk of the neighborhood where he was visiting, walking as slowly as he wished and taking as much time to do so as he wished. It was none of GZ's business. TM was committing no crime. TM did, in fact, have as much right to be there as did GZ. For some psychological reason GZ had a need to be in control of who comes and goes in that neighborhood. Half of the residents are either black or Hispanic. GZ had his work cut out for him. If GZ decided TM was an interloper, he had already called the police and his work was done. He had no right to harrass TM by following him. I think the prosecutor will point out all of these facts to prove GZ is guilty of second degree murder. IMO it was a hate crime, too, although he hasn't yet been charged with that. I would expect that if GZ is found "Not guilty," in state court, he will be charged under Federal statutes as was Rodney King's attackers, who happened to be police officers. They went to prison. They might still be there, I don't know.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

The body of a teenager doesn't state anything on the matter of being a criminal or not. The bold in your statement has yet to be proven. Can you say he wasn't committing a crime when Mr. Zimmerman noticed or followed him? Yes, you can. Can you state factually that he did not assault Mr. Zimmerman, which is not the acts of an "innocent teenager"? No, you can not unless you know something the prosecution does not.

But it does...at the bond hearing the prosecution said just that!

What folks are fogetting the state is claiming it was TM who was in greater fear of this strange man following him...the only thing we don't know, who, if anyone, threw the first punch, or is it just an embellishment for the perpetrator himself..that would be GZ trying desperately to get out of a murder charge trying to use SYG defense, when in all actuality, TM could have used that same defense.. all you have is the word of a proven liar, in my belief, that liar being GZ...

His condolence to the Martin family, he says he didn't know how old TM was, thought he was a few years younger than he..yet on the 911 NEN call, he tells the dispatcher, late teens..and he has a shirt on with those words, late teens...

BDLRionda mentions at the bond hearing that TM was captured on video purchasing his items. He didn't steal them, was not in the act of stealing and therefore, TM is an innocent, unarmed teen who was fatally shot to death by GZ and what his mentality told him TM was up to..

It's really appalling that some are trying so hard to make it TM a just barely 17 y/o, is in the wrong when the adult in this situation, GZ had he kept himself in the safety of his vehicle and observed from a distance, TM would be alive and GZ would not be facing murder..what did TM do wrong? Nothing..he was trying to get to his door when he was encountered by the sheriff of Twin Lakes Retreat!

What doesn't make sense to me, if GZ was in that much fear, why did he continue his pursuit of a suspicious teen? He wasn't the one in fear, I believe it was TM who was in greater fear, hence that horrific wail when GZ pulled out his loaded with hollow bullets weapon..he meant to do harm...

Justice for Trayvon Martin

 

[LynnM]

This is probably out of place but I don't know where to put it. One of the documents we all particularly want to see is the autopsy report. There have been some posters who have mentioned that the parents filed a motion to seal it but I haven't been able to find a link about that and I would like to read more about it. Does anyone have a link?

 

[Lovelymountains]

The body of a teenager doesn't state anything on the matter of being a criminal or not. The bold in your statement has yet to be proven. Can you say he wasn't committing a crime when Mr. Zimmerman noticed or followed him? Yes, you can. Can you state factually that he did not assault Mr. Zimmerman, which is not the acts of an "innocent teenager"? No, you can not unless you know something the prosecution does not.

Innocence does not need to be proven. Our Constitution gives us that right.

 

[Lovelymountains]

But it does...at the bond hearing the prosecution said just that!

What folks are fogetting the state is claiming it was TM who was in greater fear of this strange man following him...the only thing we don't know, who, if anyone, threw the first punch, or is it just an embellishment for the perpetrator himself..that would be GZ trying desperately to get out of a murder charge trying to use SYG defense, when in all actuality, TM could have used that same defense.. all you have is the word of a proven liar, in my belief, that liar being GZ...

His condolence to the Martin family, he says he didn't know how old TM was, thought he was a few years younger than he..yet on the 911 NEN call, he tells the dispatcher, late teens..and he has a shirt on with those words, late teens...

BDLRionda mentions at the bond hearing that TM was captured on video purchasing his items. He didn't steal them, was not in the act of stealing and therefore, TM is an innocent, unarmed teen who was fatally shot to death by GZ and what his mentality told him TM was up to..

It's really appalling that some are trying so hard to make it TM a just barely 17 y/o, is in the wrong when the adult in this situation, GZ had he kept himself in the safety of his vehicle and observed from a distance, TM would be alive and GZ would not be facing murder..what did TM do wrong? Nothing..he was trying to get to his door when he was encountered by the sheriff of Twin Lakes Retreat!

What doesn't make sense to me, if GZ was in that much fear, why did he continue his pursuit of a suspicious teen? He wasn't the one in fear, I believe it was TM who was in greater fear, hence that horrific wail when GZ pulled out his loaded with hollow bullets weapon..he meant to do harm...

Justice for Trayvon Martin

GZ's statement is riddled with self-serving lies, IMO. All of which can, and will, be exposed.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

This is probably out of place but I don't know where to put it. One of the documents we all particularly want to see is the autopsy report. There have been some posters who have mentioned that the parents filed a motion to seal it but I haven't been able to find a link about that and I would like to read more about it. Does anyone have a link?

The autopsy report is sealed and will remain sealed as long as this case is under investigation...they will not release it, YET but at some point it will be..