George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General discussion #2

[m00c0w]

I wonder what this officer is here for? Was he at the scene?

Yes, he was one of the first officers on scene.

 

[Chris_Texas]

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

Correct.

Zimmerman's attorney has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the events of that night took place just as Zimmerman described them, and more, that a reasonable person would feel in mortal peril.

Which presents a problem for them, as Zimmerman has told multiple versions of events, some of them completely and provably false. The state simply has to show that Zimmerman was lying or that his version of events is questionable. The more they poke holes in her version of events, the more doubt they cast, the more likely they are to get a conviction. But they don't have to PROVE anything, that's Zimmerman's problem.

 

[Irisha]

So if the girlfriend lied about something...she can't be found credible.

We know GZ lied about something...so he can't be found credible.

Right?

Depends why she said she was in the hospital instead of going to his memorial/funeral. Could be she, at her age, was emotionally unable to handle it, and didn't want to share that with anyone.


IMO GZ lied about the money because he was hiding it. Telling Shelly where to move the money, $10,000.00 at a time.

 

[DIBSY]

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.

Quite so. Since GZ was told " We don't need you to follow him" and totally ignored it, he meant all along to capture, maime or kill the young boy he targetted. From his own words, he was associating TM with other boys et al he had reported in the past...feeling futile and frustrated because previously the blank blanks had gotten away.

 

[gxm]

MY UNDERSTANDING ONLY... In order for their to be an acquittal the jury needs to BELIEVE he acted in self-defense which is the 'goal' of the defense. If they can not get the jury to see self-defense, even if the state can not prove murder, the best they could hope for is manslaughter. So the defense does have a burden to make it clear that his actions were made in self-defense.

It is not 'assumed' that if it was not murder than it must have been self-defense. There is an in-between because GZ did pull the trigger, so there is no reasonable doubt about who caused the death. The reasonable doubt is the WHY

IMO, the burden of proof is on the state; and the jury must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no physical confrontation and that GZ shot TM without provocation. The reasonable doubt part is the hurdle the state must clear and IMO they have yet to do that.

 

[JudyBolton]

a reason he is saying it happened differently.

That should be an issue for everyone.

There is an eye-witness who SAW TM on top of GZ beating him - so NO there is no issue when there is evidence that proves otherwise.

 

[m00c0w]

Has anyone here ever fallen on concrete?

Just having a skin exposed body part hit it ONE TIME?

There is abrasion. A large one, depending on how big the area is that strikes the concrete. If it's an area where bone hits (no fat pad) the abrasion will most likely be greater because it's hard surface on hard surface.

I have hit many things on concrete - ankles, hands, elbows, knees, butt. LOL!! I have seen others who have done the same.

I have never seen the type of injury I see on GZ's head. And DEFINITELY not the way I would look after being hit repeatedly, as GZ stated in his own words.

And if the injury didn't happen the way GZ stated, then there is a reason he is saying it happened differently.

That should be an issue for everyone.

It depends on the type of concrete and where on the concrete his head hit.

Surely you would agree that sliding along concrete is not the same as having a part of your body repeatedly slammed up against the edge of concrete, right?

 

[gxm]

Correct.

Zimmerman's attorney has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the events of that night took place just as Zimmerman described them, and more, that a reasonable person would feel in mortal peril.

Which presents a problem for them, as Zimmerman has told multiple versions of events, some of them completely and provably false. The state simply has to show that Zimmerman was lying or that his version of events is questionable. The more they poke holes in her version of events, the more doubt they cast, the more likely they are to get a conviction. But they don't have to PROVE anything, that's Zimmerman's problem.

Not in Florida. In Florida, the burden of proof is still on the state.

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

 

[iluvmua]

Correct.

Zimmerman's attorney has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the events of that night took place just as Zimmerman described them, and more, that a reasonable person would feel in mortal peril.

Which presents a problem for them, as Zimmerman has told multiple versions of events, some of them completely and provably false. The state simply has to show that Zimmerman was lying or that his version of events is questionable. The more they poke holes in her version of events, the more doubt they cast, the more likely they are to get a conviction. But they don't have to PROVE anything, that's Zimmerman's problem.

George does not have to prove anything. The prosecution team has to prove that it was murder and not self defense.

There is NO evidence that suggests GZ told multiple stories.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Correct.

Zimmerman's attorney has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the events of that night took place just as Zimmerman described them, and more, that a reasonable person would feel in mortal peril.

Which presents a problem for them, as Zimmerman has told multiple versions of events, some of them completely and provably false. The state simply has to show that Zimmerman was lying or that his version of events is questionable. The more they poke holes in her version of events, the more doubt they cast, the more likely they are to get a conviction. But they don't have to PROVE anything, that's Zimmerman's problem.

No he does not.. All he has to do is make sure there is an answer for each of the prosecutions points and get to reasonable doubt.

 

[SilkySifaka]

In the grass not on concrete

 

[m00c0w]

Correct.

Zimmerman's attorney has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the events of that night took place just as Zimmerman described them, and more, that a reasonable person would feel in mortal peril.

Which presents a problem for them, as Zimmerman has told multiple versions of events, some of them completely and provably false. The state simply has to show that Zimmerman was lying or that his version of events is questionable. The more they poke holes in her version of events, the more doubt they cast, the more likely they are to get a conviction. But they don't have to PROVE anything, that's Zimmerman's problem.

This is not entirely true from what I have read on this throughout the past year or so this has been going on. While in a traditional murder trial, the burden is entirely on the state to prove murder... In a self-defense case, some of the burden is moved onto the defense to prove it happened as the defendant says it did. However, the prosecution still has to prove elements of the crime, like malicious intent.

 

[m00c0w]

In the grass not on concrete

There's concrete right next to them...

 

[Melanie]

Haven't really posted, but am following the trial on Wild. This officer is impressive, and also a bit of eye candy (IMHO)

They really seem to be flying through witnesses -- which is a good thing.

MOO

Mel

 

[SilkySifaka]

Haven't really posted, but am following the trial on Wild. This officer is impressive, and also a bit of eye candy (IMHO)

They really seem to be flying through witnesses -- which is a good thing.

MOO

Mel

He is gorgeous isn't he

 

[corundogs]

OK...wait!!!

I had not seen that picture.

They are NOT that close to the sidewalk. If what GZ said, that TM was on top of him hitting him and that's where he shot him...

Wouldn't TM's body have visible concrete around it?

 

[gxm]

This is not entirely true from what I have read on this throughout the past year or so this has been going on. While in a traditional murder trial, the burden is entirely on the state to prove murder... In a self-defense case, some of the burden is moved onto the defense to prove it happened as the defendant says it did. However, the prosecution still has to prove elements of the crime, like malicious intent.

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/

 

[SilkySifaka]

OK...wait!!!

I had not seen that picture.

They are NOT that close to the sidewalk. If what GZ said, that TM was on top of him hitting him and that's where he shot him...

Wouldn't TM's body have visible concrete around it?

Yes they did. GZ lied again imo

 

[Tenaciousdae]

This is not the whole story nor true.. He bought the gun for protection after being menaced by a neighborhood pit bull. Not to go out and just shoot a dog. And they took courses and got licensed.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/2...ll-reportedly-led-zimmerman-wife-to-get-guns/


"George Zimmerman bought pepper spray, but when he called Seminole County Animal Services to complain about the dog, the officer who responded had this advice for him:

"Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said.
"Get a gun."
After completing handgun training, both George and Shellie Zimmerman bought pistols, Francescani reports."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/04/why-george-zimmerman-got-gun/51579/

I'm completely back tracking...at work trying to catch up on thread.

This is completely my own opinion, as I have several in regards to concealed weapons.

I have serious problems with this. I don't feel that GW was a well trained gun owner in any way.

Maybe it's too bad he didn't shoot and kill the dog...after that controversy I doubt he would have been running around in the dark with a gun.

I believe without his gun he would have been in his own home reporting from behind curtains. A skilled gun owner does not put themselves in the line of danger. Just my thought for the day.

 

[gxm]

I'm completely back tracking...at work trying to catch up on thread.

This is completely my own opinion, as I have several in regards to concealed weapons.

I have serious problems with this. I don't feel that GW was a well trained gun owner in any way.

Maybe it's too bad he didn't shoot and kill the dog...after that controversy I doubt he would have been running around in the dark with a gun.

I believe without his gun he would have been in his own home reporting from behind curtains. A skilled gun owner does not put themselves in the line of danger. Just my thought for the day.

BBM.

I don't want to get in a gun rights debate but just want to say that I totally agree with you here.