George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General discussion #2

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Everyone is saying this is self-defense.

That needs to be proven.

It hasn't been proven to me, yet - either way really - but no one can prove to me that TM wasn't the one who was defending himself.

Yet I see that as more likely, since GZ IMO was the original aggressor - by following him.

He originally spotted him in his car, and then he got out of his car and followed him on foot. DO NOT try to tell me there is no evidence of that.

If there is evidence of NOTHING ELSE in this case, that is 100% proven.

If I see a guy watching me, and then he gets out of his car and follows me, and I am doing NOTHING but heading home...I am terrified.

I did state that I want to know what GZ said TM said in response to his original question. I assume he said that he lived there, or was visiting or whatever.

If you don't believe me...I don't have to prove anything to you! I do have to prove it to a cop, so until a cop asks me, you need to leave me alone. If you try to detain me, just because you don't like what I am doing, you can be darn sure I will try to get away from you.

You trying to detain me is called unlawful imprisonment. TM was doing NOTHING wrong - it's not like GZ caught him committing a crime and held him at gunpoint until officers arrived!

How many times do we hear "we can't do anything ma'am/sir until the person starts to commit a crime".

GZ had no right to do anything that night...including get out of his car and follow TM. NW has no more rights than any other citizen.

Actually what needs to be proven is murder. Not self defense.

 

[Irisha]

Rachel was in Miami, so she could not have possibly heard everything that went down.

She could hear what Trayvon said to her before his phone dropped to the ground.

 

[popsicle]

Trayvon could have responded with force if GZ put TM in a life threatening situation. Fearing for his life.

If.... and there is no proof of that and this is what the state needs to convict someone of murder, proof. Evidence that GZ committed murder vs sd just isn't there that I have seen yet.

 

[cityslick]

Everyone is saying this is self-defense.

That needs to be proven.

It hasn't been proven to me, yet - either way really - but no one can prove to me that TM wasn't the one who was defending himself.

Yet I see that as more likely, since GZ IMO was the original aggressor - by following him.

He originally spotted him in his car, and then he got out of his car and followed him on foot. DO NOT try to tell me there is no evidence of that.

If there is evidence of NOTHING ELSE in this case, that is 100% proven.

If I see a guy watching me, and then he gets out of his car and follows me, and I am doing NOTHING but heading home...I am terrified.

I did state that I want to know what GZ said TM said in response to his original question. I assume he said that he lived there, or was visiting or whatever.

If you don't believe me...I don't have to prove anything to you! I do have to prove it to a cop, so until a cop asks me, you need to leave me alone. If you try to detain me, just because you don't like what I am doing, you can be darn sure I will try to get away from you.

You trying to detain me is called unlawful imprisonment. TM was doing NOTHING wrong - it's not like GZ caught him committing a crime and held him at gunpoint until officers arrived!

How many times do we hear "we can't do anything ma'am/sir until the person starts to commit a crime".

GZ had no right to do anything that night...including get out of his car and follow TM. NW has no more rights than any other citizen.

BBM

I'm sorry but this is simply not true. GZ had every right in the world to get out of his car just the same as TM had every right to walk in that neighborhood. GZ had every right to talk to TM, just like TM had to right to turn around and walk away or answer. What neither had the right to do was assault the other and that has yet to be proven. It feels like you are basing GZ's guilt because he got out of his car and if TM assualted him because he felt threatened by GZ talking to him, so be it, GZ is still guilty because he shot him. I'm pretty sure the law doesn't work like that, you can't defend yourself with force if someone isn't attacking you with force.

 

[raine1212]

Falling at Random

Remember everyone has the right to voice their opinion.

Race is a factor in this trial.. please do not make it one here.

NO BASHING OF FELLOW POSTERS

NO NAME CALLING

NO RACIST REMARKS

IF YOU SEE A POST PLEASE ALERT DO NOT RESPOND TO THE POST

PLEASE DISCUSS LIKE ADULTS...WE UNDERSTAND THAT RACIAL ISSUES WILL BE BROUGHT UP DURING THE TRIAL AND CAN BE DISCUSSED HERE WITHOUT MAKING WEBSLEUTHS A RACIAL FORUM!

 

[Schuby]

BBM.

It does not need to be proven that it was self defense. The state has to prove that it was not self defense. The defendant is presumed innocent. The burden of proof is on the state.

I don't think that's true. An affirmative defense switches the burden of proof onto the defendant.

 

[iluvmua]

If the State has said there isn't proof of who started the altercation, I don't see how there's going to be enough to convict (based on evidence alone). If it really can't be proven whether GZ or TM started it, and how the altercation proceeded, then based on fact alone, I don't see how a jury should convict.

IMO, it's those final moments, and the sequence of events in the altercation, that are critical.

This is one jury I would hate to be on. I don't think it's going to end well, for the public to believe justice was served. We're so divided over this.

It really can not be proven, the state said under oath that they cannot say who started the fight and they also cannot prove that GZ's story is total BS.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...ale-gilbreath-george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin

But at Zimmerman's April 20, 2012, bond hearing, Gilbreath admitted that he did not know who confronted whom the night of Feb. 26, 2012, and could not say who started the fight.

 

[JudyBolton]

BBM.

It does not need to be proven that it was self defense. The state has to prove that it was not self defense. The defendant is presumed innocent. The burden of proof is on the state.

I should just shut up and read - by the time I post a comment - review it - edit it and post it - someone (or 2 or 3 someones) have already said the same thing!!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Don't jump on me for this please, just putting a "suppose" out there....

He went the next day to his doctor. He refused ER the night it happened.
Let's say he was busted up a bit, but not ENOUGH (to prove he was beaten).
So maybe he thinks I need more proof, and enhanced his injuries, so to speak.
Could have the wife give him a shot to the nose, or just bang it into a wall or something, if needed.
NOT saying he did this, NOT saying he didn't have injuries to begin with.
More or less just questioning why not do EVERYTHING possible to provide proof the moment it is all happening?
He had to know this was not going to be something he was going to walk away from, wether LE believed his story to start with or not. Unless he was counting on what he thought "Stand Your Ground" would do for him.

Again, I am just playing Devils Advocate here.


PS- I know you all are gonna say "Who would be dumb enough to hurt themselves?". To be honest, if I thought I would need proof to not go to jail I sure as hell would!

I don't believe that. Nose injuries and head injuries always look worse the next day. I had a kid who got hit in the head with a bat last year at little league. Kids swung and had no idea DS was coming out of the dug out. It looked bad that day.. It looked much worse the next!

I believe his injuries are completely consistent with what he looked like that night and what he reported happened.

 

[SilkySifaka]

BBM.

It does not need to be proven that it was self defense. The state has to prove that it was not self defense. The defendant is presumed innocent. The burden of proof is on the state.

I thought if Self Defense is what the DT is going for the burden is on them to prove it is self defense. One of the exceptions on who has the burden of proof. I may be wrong or it might be different in florida, can any lawyer chime in

In fact wasn't that one of the issues in the JA trial, they had to prove self defense

 

[4Jacy]

Personally, I find this trial boring! I guess I'm spoiled after JM, he was a ball of fire.

I don't think GZ's defense team is doing him any favors. Especially since GZ seems to be falling asleep all of yesterday and today. Why can't they pump him full of coffee or something?

 

[gxm]

She could hear what Trayvon said to her before his phone dropped to the ground.

I wonder if the defense will be able to bring up that she lied about being in the hospital. I know I'm disinclined to believe her testimony because of the hospital lie. I would imagine some members of the jury may feel the same if they find that out.

 

[cityslick]

I thought if Self Defense is what the DT is going for the burden is on them to prove it is self defense. One of the exceptions on who has the burden of proof. I may be wrong or it might be different in florida, can any lawyer chime in

In fact wasn't that one of the issues in the JA trial, they had to prove self defense

It may explain why they are not going with the self defense 'defense' because then the burden would shift to him. This way, the prosecution has to prove GZ 'murdered' TM.

 

[iluvmua]

I thought if Self Defense is what the DT is going for the burden is on them to prove it is self defense. One of the exceptions on who has the burden of proof. I may be wrong or it might be different in florida, can any lawyer chime in

In fact wasn't that one of the issues in the JA trial, they had to prove self defense

It is up to the state, not defense to prove it was not self defense but murder.

The prosecution team are the ones who are saying it was murder and not self defense and they have to prove that.

 

[Chris_Texas]

It's not that he shouldn't feel threatened, it's that there is reason to believe that how he responded to the situation put GZ in fear for his life. If GZ had been following a 17 year old girl it is unlikely she would have been shot because it is unlikely she would be capable of beating him to the point of fear for his life.

I think any seventeen year old girl, and perhaps even a SEVEN year old girl, would have been capable of causing GZ to fall down, or to bump his nose. There is as yet no evidence to support the idea that TM was presenting any actual physical danger to GZ at all.

GZ had not been struck multiple times in the face, his bald head had certainly not been slammed repeatedly into the concrete (which is no surprise as this didn't take place on concrete, and being bald it's very difficult to do this in any case -- which is why fighters and inmates shave their heads), he wasn't choked, his nose and mouth weren't covered.

If I were to hazard a guess, I bet there was hardly any hitting going on at all. In my opinion, based on the physical and audio evidence, I think TM might have struggled briefly to get away, they both went down on the wet grass, GZ pulled his gun, and TM started crying.

Just my opinion.

 

[cityslick]

I wonder if the defense will be able to bring up that she lied about being in the hospital. I know I'm disinclined to believe her testimony because of the hospital lie. I would imagine some members of the jury may feel the same if they find that out.

Don't forget she didn't give her story to Crump until 3 weeks after the incident if I remember correctly (when the story blew up).

 

[EquallyDivided]

Popping in again to say: at this point in the court proceeding and in seeing GZ injuries, I do believe he was physically harmed during this encounter.

I'd also like to state that not every influction of injury will result in blood or broken bones. One bash to the back if the head will not automatically result in a bloody injury. It may, it may not.

Not every punch in the face will result in a bloody or broken nose.

Also, it would only take one injury to make me respond in defense. Not multiple. Did TM show any other injury, other than the gunshot wound? If not, why would we presume that TM is screaming for help? People who are winning a fight wouldn't normally scream for help, in my estimation. I'm presuming that the injuries to GZ would have occurred before the shot and not after.

How long did it take for to police to arrive from the time of the gunshot? I assume they were already on their way due to GZ's initial call.

Just thinking out loud here. I'm trying to keep a really open mind. I sometimes see that there are a lot of people that would argue with a video of a crime because it doesn't fit the position that they have passionately defended (I've been guilty of that too - both for and against a defendant). So I reserve defending my opinion before hearing everything. Saving face is sometimes more important than objectively evaluating, listening and learning. I do not pre-suppose that I know everything there is to know!

Thanks for all the opinions and links, you guys rock!

 

[JudyBolton]

I think any seventeen year old girl, and perhaps even a SEVEN year old girl, would have been capable of causing GZ to fall down, or to bump his nose. There is as yet no evidence to support the idea that TM was presenting any actual physical danger to GZ at all.

GZ had not been struck multiple times in the face, his bald head had certainly not been slammed repeatedly into the concrete (which is no surprise as this didn't take place on concrete), he wasn't choked, his nose and mouth weren't covered.

If I were to hazard a guess, I bet there was hardly any hitting going on at all. In my opinion, based on the physical and audio evidence, I think TM might have struggled briefly to get away, they both went down on the wet grass, GZ pulled his gun, and TM started crying.

Just my opinion.

There is one little problem with your theory - an eye witness SAW TM beating GZ......

 

[popsicle]

I wonder if the defense will be able to bring up that she lied about being in the hospital. I know I'm disinclined to believe her testimony because of the hospital lie. I would imagine some members of the jury may feel the same if they find that out.

I am betting it will come up.

 

[gxm]

I thought if Self Defense is what the DT is going for the burden is on them to prove it is self defense. One of the exceptions on who has the burden of proof. I may be wrong or it might be different in florida, can any lawyer chime in

In fact wasn't that one of the issues in the JA trial, they had to prove self defense

IANAL, but I think it's different in Florida and the burden of proof is still on the prosecution.

Link:

In Florida, once self-defense is invoked, the burden is on the prosecution to disprove the claim.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/...eeping-self-defense-laws-just-like-florida’s/